Obamacare Upheld, Roberts Joins the Left

Their pretense (of umbrage) is amplified by the question of harm. Who are they protecting from harm? People who want to go uninsured. Who are these people that the Tea Party identifies with them? Are they the folks who break into their utility boxes to get free service believing the world owes them something?

A kind of new line is being drawn here, one that defines a new kind of conservative. And I'm distancing this from the political meaning of "pro-establishment". Here let's just consider people who don't gamble with their children's health and safety, and sign up for insurance before, or at least during, that first news that Junior's on the way.

These kinds of people, I would think, must cross all previously drawn lines in the culture wars. In short, they care about consequences, especially of their loved ones. It would seem to me they might be just as prevalent among Tea-Partisans as anarchists and everything in between. Because now we're not talking about zeal and ideology, but the in-your-face practicalities of acting responsibility to mitigate the risk of serious harm. Gamblers, perpetual optimists and lotto players would seem to be more likely to fall into this bailiwick. Button-down types, religious people, folks who never get a ticket, all of your core plain-vanilla Ma & Pa Kettles we used to associate with conservatism would all seem to consider health insurance a normal expense toward the overall cost of living.

I suppose this might still leave a large group of childless people who would worry less, especially if they're young and/or feeling invincibly healthy. And then, from this group, you're left with just with those who aren't that well off, so they're cutting corners by not buying insurance.

And this would be who the Tea Party identifies with. Or even Republicans in general. I wonder how Ms. Buttoned Up to the Chin Stepford Wife (the kind of garb we saw in the sea of white faces the day Sarah Palin was introduced as McCain's running mate) really feels about this issue? I can see her now, down at party HQ muttering under her breath I pay for my insurance..who are these people we're supposed to be defending? I wonder if they're like that guy on the news that got busted for breaking into his utility box...?

Crazy, isn't it? To continue on this tack, defending people they probably would be afraid to encounter in a dark alley, is denialism in the absurd. That leaves only one explanation for their motives which you raised earlier: it must be for sheer hatred of the man in office and/or the Democratic agenda in general.

I tend to suspect there is still a racial subtext, and that's from my wow-moment from that sea of white faces nearly in tears at the prospect of two such fair skinned people to oppose the diabolical Half Rican American (with the other dozen or so epithets and accusations attached).

In short: what a crock.

That's another thing that gets me. Fewer laws affecting so few people on such a trivial matter have been blown up into such huge injury. And consequently everywhere you turn, they're explaining the provisions over and over again. You'd have to be severely disabled not to catch on by now.

So why do they labor over this accusation that they're only finding out the details now?

Again: a crock. Any half-wit on their side of the fence knows their hoopla is all a fabrication, to incite the dimmer bulbs among their constituency.

My mind drew a blank on this, but here is some background for anyone else who's interested. It was back in 2003, when a new style of brinksmanship was about to unfold. I found it best described in an article in Rolling Stone magazine which revealed that Republicans were getting their bills to pass as follows. If the Democrats went into filibuster, the committee chair would call a recess, then, as members dispersed to take a break, a coordinator would text all the Republicans to announce the meeting had been moved to a new location. They would covertly slip away and appear at the second site, while Democrats were left wondering what was going on. For a few minutes at least. And that was sufficient. The chair would reconvene the all-Republican meeting and the bill would pass without a single Democratic member present.

I couldn't find the story, but here's similar one. This is Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! interviewing Rolling Stones reporter Matt Taibbi concerning the story which would have been in the November 2006 issue:

Here's the cover that caught my attention when it came out.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Is This Covered Under Obamacare?

Is This Covered Under Obamacare?

There have been plenty of jokes about right-wing apoplexy in the wake of last weeks NFIB v. Sebelius ruling by the Supreme Court; indeed, cartoonists ran wild last week with Republican heart attacks and, hey, at least they're covered, and the like.

But this ....

We need not take it as representative of the right wing as a whole, but Charles M. Blow of The New York Times relates this missive from, well, someone:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

I mean, ouch. I'm not sure "Samantha's" condition is covered under the Affordable Care Act.

But damn. I hope she feels better for all of that.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

More on Conservative Ideas of Justice

More on Conservative Ideas of Justice

I noted earlier a seeming trend among conservatives, from our own Madanthonywayne to Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, and, indeed, some Tea Partiers, in which they expect that a Supreme Court justice should be a politician and not a judge.

Add the American Enterprise Institute to that list, as well; or, more specifically, Marc A. Thiessen, also a columnist for The Washington Post, who wonders "Why are Republicans so awful at picking Supreme Court justices?"

Just compare the records over the last three decades. Democrats have appointed four justices — Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Stephen G. Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor. All have been consistent liberals on the bench. Republicans, by contrast, have picked seven justices. Of Ronald Reagan's three appointees (Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia and Anthony M. Kennedy) only Scalia has been a consistent conservative. George H.W. Bush appointed one solid conservative (Clarence Thomas) and one disastrous liberal (David Souter). With George W. Bush's appointments of Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Roberts, conservatives thought finally they had broken the mold and put two rock-ribbed conservatives on the bench — until last week, that is, when Roberts broke with the conservatives and cast the deciding vote to uphold the largest expansion of federal power in decades.

So Democrats are four-for-four — a perfect record. Republicans are not even batting .500.​

What is this scorecard expectation?

Jenny Beth Martin, a Tea Party Patriot, compared NFIB v. Sebelius to Scott v. Sanford and Plessy v. Ferguson. One might wonder how she reconciles the overturning of that latter—a unanimous decision in Brown v. Board of Education—with conservative desires for segregation. Did any of the justices betray anyone? Or did they simply do the right thing?

But NFIB is not Brown. Nor, for the record, is it Plessy, regardless of whatever hyperbole might make Ms. Martin feel better about herself these days.

Could it be that there really is no question of betrayal? That is, do conservatives think it possible that the Chief Justice simply did the right thing as he understood it, and if that happens to be the opposite of what they want, so be it?

And I recognize that last is loaded with issues not yet resolved 'twixt liberals and conservatives, but work with me, here.

With the history of the Commerce Clause as it is, and witnessing one of his colleagues actually going so far as to publish a book explaining why he has rolled on his own views except future decisions might not reflect those views—essentially setting up for his flip in NFIB—the Court's history of finding ways to preserve legislation, and a deeper comprehension of the political contexts involved than the public discourse generally entertains, is it possible that Roberts simply made a judicial decision as a judge is expected to?

To call it a betrayal, as some have, or suggest as Thiessen has that the failure to carry forward a partisan agenda from the bench means Roberts is a bad judge?

For all Roberts has twisted himself into knots for conservative decisions—Citizens, Safford, Ricci, &c.—this one outcome means he's a bad pick for the Supreme Court? This one outcome means he's not good at his job? This one outcome means he has betrayed his masters?

Is this talk of betrayal and disbelief real? Or is it just heated passions venting frustration? That is, do conservatives actually believe that since a Republican president nominated the Chief Justice, he ought to do whatever conservatives want him to do?

Over and over in the wake of NFIB v. Sebelius, conservative critics have lamented that a Republican-appointed chief justice did not do what they wanted. Are federal judges supposed to be poodles?

No, really.

I mean, it suddenly makes sense why conservatives have lamented judicial activism in court decisions favoring outcomes coinciding with liberal desires. If they expect Republican-appointed judges to do conservative bidding, why would they expect Democratic-appointed judges to do anything but kiss the asses of liberal causes?

Each new nail conservatives drive into Roberts' cross only reminds that they are upset because the Bush-appointed chief justice did not prance like a show dog for a right-wing political plank. And the clearly partial Scalia seems to be emerging as an icon of what a conservative-appointed justice should be.

Is this really the message conservatives intend?
____________________

Notes:

Thiessen, Marc A. "Why are Republicans so awful at picking Supreme Court justices?" The Washington Post. July 2, 2012. WashingtonPost.com. July 2, 2012. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...urt-justices/2012/07/02/gJQAHFJAIW_story.html

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why do you think Samantha feels like this? There's a lot of hate there? I personally think she feels she's being stolen from (actually, she is) and that her stolen time and labor is being given to someone without her direct consent (which is also true). But hey, she uses the Roads! The Glory of God and Good of The Nation! Why she targets Africans is probably because she's White. Isn't that sad? In this day and age? Why is that? 40 years of the "Great Society" and here we are. Poorer and more ignorant than ever.

Scenario A and B:
Suppose there was a bigot who owns a store. He refuses to sell to black Americans. OK, what do we do? We have (at least) two choices.
#A) We FORCE him to sell to Blacks.
#B) We use the free-market and compel him to volenteer to sell to Blacks ... or risk going broke.

In Scenario A he sells to Blacks and not only gets the satisfaction of making money off Blacks (people he hates), he also gets the satisfaction of being able to maintain his bigotry blaming the Blacks AND the government for 'making him" do business with Blacks. That's the current situation we live in now.

In Scenario B we allow a person to set up a shop right next to his who sells to both blacks, whites, etc... through free-market either the bigot competes by selling to Blacks, or goes bust.

What's interesting is that now a days we always go for the gun. It's always option A. And if you think "Conservatives" are fanatic, try to get between a self-righteous Liberal and their idea of what "Free" means. It's literally destroyed civilizations. Examples include ancient Rome to modern China. They might not like to soil their hands with a gun themselves. But hire a Conservative Bible Thumping Thug, tell him it's for the Good of the Nation and send him to kill another Citizen who's not "doing what we tell them to do" ... oh yeah, they're all for that. I mean, Liberals (true Liberals) put just about everyone else to shame. They are vicious people.


Anyway, going back to this chick who's going off on a racist rant. I'm waiting for tipping to end. I'm pretty sure it will happen. The government will come in and say minimum wage needs to go up to $12-15.00 and hour. And people will slowly stop tipping. Charities as well. Most of the private institutions will go by the wayside as government grows. And it WILL grow. That's what government's do - Grow. Do you know how often Australians tip? Not very. Do you know how many Charities there are in AU? Compared to the USA, pretty much none. But, unlike the USA, Australia sits on top of a lot of resources. Yet, the people don't tip. They don't have strong charity (there is some charity, but not comparable to the wealth of the Nation). Isn't the interesting? One of the richest nations yet hardly any charity and virtually no tipping. Not so coincidentally, Australians pretty much do anything and everything the government tells them to do. The PM promises no Carbon Tax. The PM passes a Carbon Tax. The PM makes double the POTUS. And unlike in the USA where the POTUS is the highest paid Federal Servant, in AU there are Federal Servants on a million +. Don't pay your Carbon Tax, you can expect to have you business shuttered and your ass out on the street. That's love - Liberal Style. Don't comply. They'll happily send the clowns in the blue suites to bash you into obedience - for the Glory of God and Good of the Nation of course.

Why is it, Australia has no culture of tipping? A very poor culture of charity? Has hardly any innovation to speak of? Mostly just a commodity fueled shopping mall economy. Reminds me of the cage rabbits in Watership Down. A sort of pacified dumb cow-like glaze to the eye of your average Australian as they waddle through the Westfields to buy a GloriaJeans double chocolate frappie with extra-sugar and cream ending the day at Wolworths or Coles to push their chubby little arses through checkout. KSA is the same. No tipping. Weak private institutions. No innovation. Mostly just a commodity fueled shopping mall economy.


Oh America, if we could only be so lucky.

Well, we're on our way. Soon we'll have Medical Doctors with no Anatomy training and we'll be importing innovation from China and other parts of Asia as their economies move into Free-Market Capitalism and ours into a Socialistic "Paradise".

 

Is it alcohol? Do you drink before posting now Michael?

 

This makes me a bit uncomfortable, and not just because of how profane and stupid this racist tweeter is. Is this really a case of "Hey, let's all laugh at the bigot," or is there something else going on?

It's just that I worry the Left is trying to use this faction of dimwits and hatemongers to portray any opposition of Obama as racist.

 

Sometimes

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

1) There is no Left, of that kind. 2) How much of the serious, loud, public opposition to Obama is not racist? 3) How big is this "faction" you speak of? From some perspectives, another name for it would be The Republican Party.

These people are running into a wall - they can't afford health insurance.

So far we are seeing compromises to fill the gap - high deductible and catastrophe only and other limited policies are becoming common, nobody with employer insurance is quitting their job, that kind of thing. But that only postpones the inevitable - those ordinary conservatives are going to find themselves in the same position black people were in a generation back. And they can feel that.

 

This and That

Ever read Doonesbury from the seventies? BD and Phred?

Yes? Then think about it for a few.

No? Then never mind.

Your true colors are emerging, Balerion.

In the future, I will refrain from confusing you—

We need not take it as representative of the right wing as a whole ....​

—with explicit statements.

My apologies for failing to assuage your paranoia.

Meanwhile, a constellation of racism says nothing of the stars in the sky.

Oh, right. Mixing metaphors probably sets off your alarm bells, too.

• • •​

Wow. So civil rights, equal protection, and all that, should be subject to market forces?

So much for inalienable rights.

Of course, that's what your sort of "libertarianism" is after.

Then again, nobody is surprised.

 

1) There is no Left? Since when? 2) Plenty. What kind of question is that? 3) This is exactly what I'm talking about. So now we classify the Republican Party as a racist organization?

No, but I'm sure a bunch of middle aged white people are positively tickled by the reference.

I wasn't referring to you, I was referring to the decision of Charles M. Blow of the New Yorker to post a racist email he received, and in general of the media to put the spotlight on these idiots. My question is simply this: is it just a case of "Wow, look at stupid," or is it an attempt to portray all criticism of Obama as racially-motivated.

Perhaps the answer is elementary to you, but it isn't to me--which is why I asked the question. If the best you can do is sarcasm, then save it and let someone else have a go.

 

I have not heard anyone say that all criticism of President Obama is racist. Hell the left has been critical of President Obama. But racism does appear to be a significant factor in right wing politics these days. That is why we see this kind of crap over and over again. The left is not trying to use racist “dimwits” for anything. They are just pointing out the racism. Do you expect that we should all close our eyes in order to avoid seeing what is clearly there?

 

Yes, I have no problem saying so. They have become the party of older racist white men.

 

Most of the republicans I know are racist and a great deal of republican dirty emails are very racist. So where do you draw the line on when an organization becomes racist?:shrug:

 

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" (often attributed to Edmund Burk, but disputed)

 

Notes on Right-Wing Myths, and Other Issues

Well, nobody can know what is in Mr. Blow's heart except him, though those of us who pay a modicum of attention to media figures when they turn up in pundit circles or interviews on, say, Real Time, are aware that he's a fairly intelligent and reasonable fellow.

If we add to that the extraordinary uselessness of such outbursts, two points become rather quite clear:

(1) This is how angry some people are in the wake of NFIB v. Sebelius.

(2) There are some circumstances in which some people think this kind of acute tantrum against race is helpful in some way.​

Beyond that, life goes on. It really is extraordinary.

I don't know if it's even, "Look at stupid." It strikes me more as, "Holy shit! Check this out!" If something like that ever showed up in my inbox, I would probably share it with the world, too.

But I suppose that point is easily missed if one is subject to the right-wing myth that liberals denounce all criticism of President Obama as racist°.

Perhaps you might, in the future, express yourself more accurately. But, and I say this without sarcasm, if you really are subject to those paranoid conservative notions offered up in lieu of reality, I'm not sure what to tell you.

But the Doonesbury episode ....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Garry Trudeau, Doonesbury, February 25, 1972​

Actually, I hadn't realized they opened the whole archive.

And I'm pretty sure Doonesbury has some black readers, too.
____________________

Notes:

° the right-wing myth that liberals denounce all criticism of President Obama as racist — A brief note for Joe: It's not that I haven't heard anyone say all criticism of President Obama is racist. We've heard it plenty of times from the right wing. It's a fundamental article of faith, it seems, widespread among conservatives. I've never really thought of our neighbor as an ultra-conservative, but for some reason he seems subject to these sentiments. Perhaps the echo chamber is in effect here; or, maybe, our neighbor is simply emerging as his true self.

 

For many years now the cost of paying your own premiums for family coverage has been substantial, certainly beyond the reach of the lower brackets. And it's doubled in the last 10 years, now standing at around $15k/yr for a family of 4. This certainly increases the pressure to keep that employer who is contributing $10-12k toward the family premium. Of course anyone in the median income who is raising a family and the sole wage earner probably can't afford to sacrifice their meager income regardless of policy costs. The single folks have it easier--their cost is around $1k/yr with an employer contribution of around $4k.

It looks like the lower brackets are going to get a break from the new law when the provisions kick in, in 2014, when incomes between 22k and 89k will be eligible for tax credits. Given this fact, it seems to me the true Conservatives are worried about the wrong thing. They should be extolling the virtues of the law for cutting them slack, and not sweating the relatively small penalty for non-compliance. The over-90k crowd should be able to handle the 5-10k premiums without having to quit the country club or forego that next vacation.

Instead of sweating the small stuff, all of these folks should be focused on the real enemy, which is medical cost inflation, which, before they went to war over it, was one of the primary objectives of the health care law in the first place. If they hadn't hijacked the national discussion this would have been where the collective energy was spent.

It's that "cut off their noses to spite their faces" entrenchment, with all the lies and propaganda to incite their apparently learning-disabled members, that is erasing true conservatism. Now all we have is a mob who tout the label, headed by the same kind of people that brought you Abramoff, Tom Delay, the fabricated WMD's, the interference with the Civil Rights Division, the corporate Baccanals while Rome burned, and, of course, the kindling and accelerant and the fire itself.

It remains to be seen what conservatism means anymore. As far as I can tell all the Ma & Pa Kettles are all dead, having fallen on their pitchforks. This is no accident--more like a case of mass suicide. Followed by a rousing reanimation by their snake-handling, Koran-burning, faith-based, anti-science "God punished Haiti for their sins", moralizing fans and advisers. Now they're stomping down Main Street, growling, foaming at the mouths and gnawing on anything that moves.

Must be the season of the Zombie-Cons.

 

The latest twist, Roberts may have written both opinions:

http://www.salon.com/2012/07/03/roberts_wrote_both_obamacare_opinions/

 

I think this is an oversimplification. Whatever any justice writes or influences in an opinion has long term consequences for all of the courts in the country. One case like this may have dozens of legal questions that get settled along the way, which are not specific to this case alone. Thousands of unrelated cases may be affected. Normally the dissenting opinions don't carry much weight but they can sway a judge when there's no stronger argument in play.

Reports like this make me think they may revamp their clerking policy, since that would appear to be where the leaks are coming from.

Also:

And:

The piece opens by quoting Roberts who is going on vacation to Malta: