The nation, and Rhode Island for that matter, turns its attention to the Supreme Court this morning as the justices are expected to release their decision today on President Obama’s signature act as chief executive: health care reform. The New York Times says the landmark legislation affects “nearly every American from cradle to grave.”
Depending on what the Court does with regard to the individual mandate portion of the law, this could prove a pivotal ruling in the history of and future for the United States. Sound overly dramatic? It’s actually understated.
Way back in early April, we reported on how the SCOTUS’ ruling could affect the health care exchange here in RI.
An extremely important side narrative here is whether the High Court is seen as interpreting the law and the Constitution or, as has been increasingly the case with the Roberts Court, the justices are perceived to be operating as political rather than judicial actors. As bad as an unsustainable health care system is for the country, an politically-motivated Supreme Court is far, far worse.
…Stay tuned…
Thanks to Kathy Gregg and the Projo for the great round-up on the campaigns for seats in the state legislature this morning.
One of my favorite races to watch is Laura Pisaturo vs. Michael McCaffery for a seat representing Warwick in the state Senate. McCaffrey, the incumbent, has been a major impediment to marriage equality in the Ocean State. Pisaturo, the challenger, is a lawyer and a lesbian.
Also … RI Future contributor Mark Binder is challenging House Speaker Gordon Fox. Fox is a center-right Democrat and Binder a died-in-the-wool progressive.
Another very interesting contest pits two incumbents against each other in East Providence: Senate Finance Chairman Dan DaPonte has to defend his seat this year against Rep. Bob DaSilva … Here’s the meta-narrative for this race: DaSilva, a police officer who voted against pension cuts last year, is looking out for organized labor more than residents. DaPonte, a lawyer who sponsored the controversial but rarely discussed pay-bondholders-before-Rhode Islanders bill, is looking out for Wall Street more than residents.
By the way, what does it mean for Rhode Island that its political journalists report more on what Moody’s thinks of the state’s school funding formula than it does local cities and towns? I think it means we’ve become a little too focused on high finance and a little tone deaf to what’s actually happening here on the ground.
That said, Ian Donnis picks up on an interesting aspect of the state’s school funding formula through the Moody’s report: “The biggest single-year percentage increases in education aid are in Barrington, East Greenwich, Lincoln, Cranston, and New Shoreham. The biggest losers are Chariho, Portsmouth, Bristol-Warren, South Kingstown and Central Falls.”
And speaking of the world of high finance, the 1 percent meme has made its way into comic book culture, reports the Associated Press: “Whereas the so-called One Percent is blamed for having a majority of wealth at the expense of the other 99 percent, in Valiant Comics’ upcoming ‘Archer & Armstrong,’ it’s a secretive and sinister cabal of money managers and financiers willing to sacrifice more than jobs for profit – human lives, too – to steer the fate of the world for their own gain.”
“is whether the High Court is seen as interpreting the law and the Constitution or, as has been increasingly the case with the Roberts Court, the justices are perceived to be operating as political rather than judicial actors. As bad as an unsustainable health care system is for the country, an politically-motivated Supreme Court is far, far worse.”
That’s a good setup. That way if the court rules in favor of limiting the gov’s power to regulate commerce you can say it was a politically motivated decision, but if the court effectively rules there is no limit to the power of Congress that it was properly interpreting the Constitution.
For the most legally and politically ignorant Americans, a Supreme Court decision they don’t like is ”political,” while a decision they do like is just and principled, and that’s the extent of the analysis. It’s like how, for many, if they don’t get a particular job, then it must have been discrimination, nepotism, favoritism, a bad interviewer, etc., but if they do get the job, then they were clearly the most qualified candidate. These are all basic ego defense mechanisms firmly rooted in human biology.
Saying the Court is politically motivated doesn’t make any logical sense – what reason would a Supreme Court justice have for always going with the Republican or Democrat party line (nevermind that they in fact don’t)? To think that they really care about making one particular party happy is silly. They have a lifetime appointment with phenomenal pay and prestige. It’s not like they expect to be appointed to Secretary of State or Defense after they retire. Having a particular judicial philosophy and remaining consistent to it is not the same thing as being “political.” Nor would inconsistently applying a stated judicial philosophy be “political.”
Are you kidding me? Read Scalia’s dissent in Arizona, then read 10 more of his opinions for contrast, and random sampling of opinions from throughout the court’s history — and then come back and re-write this comment.
I’ve already done all you describe. I must have missed where he quoted the Contract with America or endorsed Romney for President in any of his decisions. I still don’t see what his motivation would be for towing some partisan line or how having a judicial philosophy, even one that is more associated with one party more than others, makes a judge ”political” in a partisan or arbitrary sense.
“I still don’t see what his motivation would be” This is because most human motivations are incomprehensible to you, a common affliction among so-called libertarians.
Look at the motivations that begin and end your assessment of Supreme Court judges: “They have a lifetime appointment with phenomenal pay and prestige.”
Money and fame. You cannot conceive of any other motivation, which goes a long way toward explaining your political and economic philosophy. It also helps to explain why libertarians can gain no political foothold among societies of normal human beings capable of the full range of human emotions. Even a simple, clear motivation like tribal loyalty lies beyond your grasp.
Still, even within the narrow, sociopathic scope of your understanding of humanity, there are clear incentives for a Supreme Court justice to act politically. Consider the speaking fees Scalia takes, for example.
Beyond all of this, you are defining away all political behavior. “Having a particular judicial philosophy and remaining consistent to it is not the same thing as being “political.”” By this formulation, no behavior could be political, because all behavior could be explained as consistent with some philosophy or other.
Your position is disingenuous, empirically false, theoretically incoherent, and morally repugnant. You should be grateful that I have demolished it for you.
Still trolling, I see. Keep up the good work.
So explain to me WHY his dissent in Arizona mentioned the president’s recent move on immigration? In our system of jurisprudence, that should have nothing to do with the merits of the case… and yet he discussed it. What explanation have you for that, OTHER than politics?
Supreme Court justices discuss topical issues that aren’t central to the merits of cases all the time, probably to humanize the decisions and put them in context, among other reasons. That alone doesn’t mean the justices are all embedded political operatives who write opinions from an outcome-based methodology alone. And I’ll make the same defense of the liberal justices on decisions I dislike, in case you think I am being partisan.
I’m sure you were making all these same criticisms about Roberts before the ACA decision – “he’s a Bush-appointee/die-hard conservative, just decides cases based on ideological outcomes, etc.” But he didn’t do that in this case. So was he a “politician” all along, or was he never, or sometimes? The narrative doesn’t work, and there are too many exceptions.
You should notice that the justices are all quick to defend each other too. If it were all just partisan games and outcome-based window dressing, why would a liberal justice defend a conservative justice’s judicial integrity and vice versa?