Sen Sheldon Whitehouse at RIC for a meeting of the RI Healthcare Exchange Commission.
Following President Obama’s lead, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse chided the Supreme Court saying some of its members have become more interested in activism than jurisprudence.
“If you can’t tell the difference between health care and broccoli there’s a real problem,” he said this morning at RIC, referencing Justice Antonin Scalia’s line of questioning as the court debated Obamacare last week.
Whitehouse even offered a reply to Scalia’s broccoli comparison.
“If you house burns down, we don’t rebuild your house,” he said, while talking to a group at RIC for the Health Care Exchange Commission meeting he attended. “But if you go to the hospital, we fix your broken leg.”
Later in the day, on a conference call with Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-NY, he said, “There comes a point when have to be able to tell the truth about the Supreme Court, and that is it’s activist and is becoming even more activist. One might even say corporate activism.”
Whitehouse, a member of the Judiciary Committee, was once considered by President Obama for an open slot on the high court.
He noted the irony in Republicans and conservative-leaning Supreme Court justices taking issue with individual mandates, saying the idea was often trumpted by Richard Nixon, the Heritage Foundation and longtime moderate Republican from Rhode Island John Chafee, Gov. Linc Chafee’s dad.
“It was the insurance companies that wanted mandates in the bill,” he said, noting that only because of federalism, the idea that some decisions are best left to the states, is the issue before the Supreme Court.
“Every state can require mandates tomorrow and there isn’t a lawyer in the country who would say that is unconstitutional.”
Whitehouse said many Republicans in Congress agree that universal health insurance would be good for society, but said many are afraid of raising the ire of party extremists.
“I know people who say, ‘you’re absolutely right but I can’t talk about that because I’d get a Tea Party primary opponent if I do.’”
He added that both Republican and Democratic leaders agree that once you drill down into the deficit the big drivers are often related to health care, saying, “If we don’t do it this way, the way we are going to do it is when China says you guys are out of control and we’re not going to loan you any more money.”
“If you house burns down, we don’t rebuild your house,” he said, while talking to a group at RIC for the Health Care Exchange Commission meeting he attended. “But if you go to the hospital, we fix your broken leg.”
And why is that? Because we have a law that says you can steal from a hospital but no law that says you can steal from a home builder.
They haven’t even rendered a decision and the assault has begun. Corporate activism? Judicial activism? The President and his ilk’s assault on the Court is an implicit admission that he has been Constitutionally wrong all along.
Gardner, man, you’ve really jumped the shark here. Do you really believe that the Hippocratic Oath is nonsense? Do you truly believe that receiving treatment for emergency injuries is theft? I am sure you believe taxation itself is theft too.
But are we to undo 2000 years of Western tradition simply because Ayn Rand wrote a fluff piece and the Chicago School divorced one half of Max Weber’s theory of rationality from the other half and called it science? I think not. And polls and doctors will be against such extreme radicalism every time.
Libertarians are just as radical and dangerous for Democracy as Communists, and this is the proof.
“Do you really believe that the Hippocratic Oath is nonsense?”
The Hippocratic Oath is irrelevant.
“Do you truly believe that receiving treatment for emergency injuries is theft?”
Of course not. But why is it considered theft when we talk about taking from supermarkets, restaurants, clothing stores, etc… without paying, but not theft when we talk about taking from hospitals and medical offices without paying.
“The Hippocratic Oath is irrelevant.”
I don’t see how. For thousands of years of Western Tradition doctors have refused to turn away the sick. You wish to change that because you put a bigger “moral value” on someone not paying a bill than you do on human suffering. Doctors will treat people regardless of ability to pay precisely because of this moral code.
“But why is it (not) considered theft…”
Hospitals can and do take civil and criminal action against patients that don’t pay in the United States. Theft of services laws are real. In some states it ends in a felony larceny charge. More often they end up with damaged credit reports (depending on the state), bill collectors, and sometimes law suits and garnished wages.
What more do you want? Do you really want someone with a broken leg to have to save up for medical treatment? What happens when septicemia sets in or blood clots are released from marrow while this person is saving up? I pray that you never have to find out first hand.
The Hippocratic Oath is not legally binding, laws are. That’s why I noted it’s irrelevant.
“You wish to change that because you put a bigger “moral value” on someone not paying a bill than you do on human suffering.”
Nonsense. I put a higher moral value on the rights of the individual not to be free of coercion, which includes forced “charity.”
“The Hippocratic Oath is not legally binding, laws are. That’s why I noted it’s irrelevant.”
No, but it is the part of the moral code upon which the medical profession is built. Therefore, when states enact laws that make it mandatory for hospitals to provide emergency treatment to anyone requiring it, there is a logical basis and the medical profession supports it.
”Nonsense. I put a higher moral value on the rights of the individual not to be free of coercion, which includes forced “charity.””
I’d rather pay a couple extra bucks in taxes than have throngs of untreated, suffering people lead to a public health disaster.
And since when in the history of humanity has anyone lived without coercion?
We live in a world where entropy rules. Nature coerces us to kill and eat. Do you hate the coercion of forced “charity” that makes it standard to bring gifts to weddings and birthdays too? How about the coercion of forced “charity” to feed your children and be responsible for their safety. Surely they’re individuals too. What if they start cramping your style?
Face it, there’s not a pack of wolves on earth where everyone doesn’t get something to eat, but the alpha dog gets more. Still, he shares. The pack moves on and survives until a new alpha dog comes up. Thus is the way of things. Letting the pack die to get yourself a little more meat is not a good survival strategy for the species.
And so the laws of man mimic the laws of nature. Deal with it.
Total Bullshit. Does corporate activism include voting for bank bailouts? How about voting for FISA? How about voting to suspend habeas corpus? How about voting to extend the war in Afghanistan? How about supporting a President who wants to cut Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid?
How about voting for a bill which will jack the insurance rates to high heaven? Is that corporate activism?
Or is it just doing the million dollar bidding of Wall Street Donors?
It takes a lot to shock me, but I’ve been genuinely shocked at the level of immaturity and irresponsibility being displayed by Whitehouse, Schumer, Holder and the like. Even Obama to a lesser extent. I never thought much of these people politically, but I also never dreamed they’d throw all their integrity out the window and act like such babies by trashing the High Court just because they’re going to be ruled against in their pet case. Grow up and keep your mouths shut, folks. You’re supposed to be setting an example as public officials, and you don’t do that by putting down and railing against what is supposed to be a coequal, independent branch of government.
To accuse the Supreme Court of “corporate activism” is totally outrageous and without basis. Everyone has judicial decisions they disagree with, but it undermines the foundation of our government to trash the judicial branch like that and claim that they have a corporatist agenda. Imagine if the Supreme Court went on TV or gave a newspaper interview and accused President Obama of having a socialist/Marxist agenda and charging that he was incapable of governing fairly because of it.
Reasonable minds can differ over whether this law is Constitutional. Only a complete zealot would say that to rule this unconstitutional would require “corporate activism” – it’s not such a huge leap to look at the Commerce Clause and find that it doesn’t allow for this sort of mandate – whatever you think of the ultimate Constitutionality issue, you should at least acknowledge that a reasonable, agenda-free judge could rule that way. And it’s completely inappropriate to be making these kinds of statements before a ruling has even come out. They look like a bunch of bullies.
The right has been beating that drum for quite some time with claims of judicial activism whenever the court rules in a way they don’t like. I say turnabout is fair play.
Fair game for partisan commentators maybe. Haters gonna hate. But I can’t remember a President ever making such statements, or disrespecting the Supreme Court openly in a State of the Union speech for that matter – if they did then it was wrong then too.
The subject of judicial activism comes up a lot in Senate judicial confirmations – but I think that’s valid because they’re trying to keep activists off the court in those hearings. They shouldn’t trash the integrity of the High Court just because because they disagree with an opinion or two – that’s childish and irresponsible. I really believe it breeds contempt for the judicial system as a whole by making it seem like all judges are biased and arbitrary, and that’s not a good thing for rule of law.
How about this:
Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people’s voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our Nation must defend the sanctity of marriage.
www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29646#ixzz1rHlkLhyu
That wasn’t a Democrat – it is from GW Bush’s 2004 State of the Union Address.
He was even more confrontational during an address to the Federalist Society in 2007, during which Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito were in attendance:
When the Founders drafted the Constitution, they had a clear understanding of tyranny. They also had a clear idea about how to prevent it from ever taking root in America. Their solution was to separate the government’s powers into three co-equal branches: the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary. Each of these branches plays a vital role in our free society. Each serves as a check on the others. And to preserve our liberty, each must meet its responsibilities — and resist the temptation to encroach on the powers the Constitution accords to others. (Applause.)
For the judiciary, resisting this temptation is particularly important, because it’s the only branch that is unelected and whose officers serve for life. Unfortunately, some judges give in to temptation and make law instead of interpreting. Such judicial lawlessness is a threat to our democracy — and it needs to stop. (Applause.)
georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2007/11/20071115-14.html
This clearly is nothing new.
Please see my reply to Tom in this same thread. Bush was talking about the supremacy of a Federal law over state laws and Constitutions and how some state-level judges overstep that in his opinion. It’s a different case than calling the current Supreme Court out on being activist or corporatist. I don’t like what he said either, but it’s not really the same thing in type or degree.
I don’t think the other quote is confrontational toward the Supreme Court. He just says ‘some judges” forget their role, which is obviously true. I assume he’s talking about the same state-level judges as in the first quote. Much different to refer to the Supreme Court explicitly.
You’re splitting hairs here. ” Such judicial lawlessness is a threat to our democracy — and it needs to stop.” How is that not confrontational?
You misunderstand. It’s confrontational toward the issue but it’s not confronting the Supreme Court or any particular court or justices. Nobody can really deny that some amount of judicial activism goes on, but there’s a big difference between acknowledging that and calling out specific people, particularly when they’re on the Supreme Court which is supposed to be respected and politically independent.
Rhetorical nonsense. Why is it that when Bush mentions “judges [who] insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people,” and “some judges give in to temptation and make law from the bench” he was confronting the issue,
but when Obama says “Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress” and “I’d just remind conservative commentators that, for years, what we have heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism, or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. . . . Well, this is a good example, and I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step” that he his confronting the judges?
What “specific people” did President Obama “call out” in his speech?
Why is it inappropriate for the President to criticize a co-equal branch of government but it is perfectly fine for members of Congress to openly deride and insult the President?
Get some pearls to clutch and a fainting couch! Stat!
“And let me add here: So many of our greatest statesmen have reminded us that spiritual values alone are essential to our nation’s health and vigor. The Congress opens its proceedings each day, as does the Supreme Court, with an acknowledgment of the Supreme Being. Yet we are denied the right to set aside in our schools a moment each day for those who wish to pray. I believe Congress should pass our school prayer amendment.”
From Ronald Reagan’s 1988 State-of-the-Union address, in reference to school prayer decisions Abington and Engel. He also criticized Roe v. Wade in the 1984 and 1986 SOTU speeches.
In 2004, Bush used his SOTU to decry “activist judges” who were redefining marriage, though this wasn’t the Supreme Court.
Not only does the Reagan quote not disrespect the Supreme court the way these politicians have, it reaffirms its proper role by referencing the proper route to resolve these issues, which is through a Constitutional amendment. Bush mentioned the same, I notice.
i don’t particularly like Bush’s statement, but he’s really talking about some of the state-level judges. Federal law and the Constitution are supreme over state law and state constitutions, so his statement isn’t as out of line. As you seem to recognize, it’s nowhere near the same thing as disrespecting the Supreme Court by accusing them of corporate activism. The fact that Obama was a Constitutional law professor and Whitehouse was a US Attorney (albeit a horrible one, according to the staff of that office) just makes their statements more shameful.
Bush also spoke of “judicial lawlessness,” in an attempt to tell the courts what they should do, and all while speaking without irony on the need for separation of powers.
More to the point, the idea that somehow the mild rebuke offered up by Obama constitutes and attack is total nonsense except in the fringe right echo chamber. We can offer up apologies for the decade of attacks on the courts as somehow different (which of course they were in that the were prolonged attacks on the role of the “liberal” judiciary even included in the party platform in years past).
To the fainting couch, conservatives! I’m done with this nonsense…
See “Pass the smelling salts! Obama `attacked’ SCOTUS!”
It seems to me that the 5-4 Citizens United decision is clearly right-wing judicial activism since the constitution never says anything about unlimited rights of corporations and the rich to spend as much as they want to influence elections even if Congress thinks otherwise. But those 5 “justices” were put in to serve corporate interests and they do.
While principled folks should reasonably ask for civil discussion of court decisions, lets face it, both sides of the partisan debate object to Supreme Court activism when they lose their case and criticize criticism of the court when they win their case. But I think the right-wing side is more hypocritical as with their dominance of the much of the media they have long been very publically bashing the Court for activism (once even going as far as to seek impeachment of liberal Jutice William O Douglas) – Obama was only pointing out their hypocrisy, not ”assualting” the Court.
As for the health care law, neither the constitutional issues nor the corporate interests in it are clear to me (for example the insurance industry might like the mandate but not the consumer protections) nor is it clear what will happen if it is overturned. Best to stay healthy!
I can’t believe this is still a topic of debate. Barry, Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, right? There are no qualifications or exemptions to that statement. The Citizens United case had nothing to do with “unlimited rights of corporations and the rich to spend as much as they want” (rich individuals weren’t even a target) and everything to do with a law that decided who could talk about political figures and when. In fact, those who were paying attention during oral arguments heard Malcolm Stewart (the gov’t attorney) admit to the Justices that under the McCain-Feingold bill, Congress could ban “corporate” speech in any medium, such as internet or books, and not just radio or TV. That type of broad censorship has no place in a country that claims to be free.
Didn’t the President slam the SCOTUS straight in their face at one of his State of the Union addresses? That aside, he’s acting like the little kid that knows he’s about to be grounded and is stamping his feet before the punishment is dished out.
You apparently don’t read all of the posts before posting yourself. I already posted above: “Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people’s voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our Nation must defend the sanctity of marriage.”
www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29646#ixzz1rHlkLhyu
That was from GW Bush’s 2004 State of the Union Address. I’ll bet that some members of the SCOTUS were in attendance. Was he acting like a petulant child?
Bush was talking about some state judges in relation to the Federal Defense of Marriage Act. He wasn’t ”calling out” the Supreme Court the way Obama has. There’s a big difference.