Lakoff and Wehling write: "What Roberts accomplished on one issue was to enshrine two conservative ideologies - without the Democrats even noticing while they were cheering."
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts greets President Barack Obama on Capitol Hill. (photo: AP)
What Hath Roberts Wrought?
03 July 12
emocrats all over America are claiming victory in the Chief Justice Roberts' vote to uphold the constitutionality of the President's Health Care Law. Conservatives all over America are campaigning all the harder for a president and a congress that will overthrow the law in the future. Chief Justice John Roberts is a conservative, and a very smart, forward-looking one at that. (Photo: Chuck Kennedy/KRT)
Thomas Friedman in his New York Times column praises Roberts to skies for putting the country ahead of ideology. Others have seen Roberts as saving “his court” from the appearance of ideological control.
But Roberts is a conservative, and a very smart, forward-looking one at that. What Roberts accomplished on one issue was to enshrine two conservative ideologies - without the Democrats even noticing while they were cheering. He did this by using the Court's ability to turn metaphors into law. He accomplished this with two votes.
First he was the swing vote that imposed the idea that Health Care Is A Product and set the stage for a possible general principle: The Interstate Commerce Clause governs the buying and selling of products and the government cannot force anyone to people to buy a product (real or metaphorical).
Second, Roberts was the swing vote on the ruling that saved the Affordable Health Care Act by creating a precedent for another metaphorical legal principle: A fee or payment imposed by the government is a tax.
In short, in his votes on one single issue, Roberts single-handedly extended the power of the Court to turn metaphor into law in two conservative directions.
Many important laws, especially in the area of environmental protection, use the interstate commerce clause. The Court in this session held that the EPA cannot keep a property owner from developing, and hence destroying, a wetland on their property. Will the general principle that comes out of the latest Supreme Court decisions be seen to be that the Commerce Clause cannot be used to preserve the environment but only to govern commercial transactions? The Endangered Species Act is based on the Commerce Clause. Will the above principle be used to kill the Endangered Species Act?
Given the conservatives' success in rousing public ire against taxes, will all fees and other government payments be argued to be taxes that should be minimized, eliminated, or not even proposed?
Roberts is no fool. In one stroke, he both protected the Court from charges of ideology and became categorized as a “moderate,” while enshrining two metaphor-based legal principles that can be used to promote and implement conservative policy in the future, with devastating broad effects.
We are as happy as other Democrats that the Affordable Care Act has mostly been declared constitutional. But we caution Democrats throughout the country to keep an eye out for conservative uses of the two metaphors that played the central role in the latest Supreme Court rulings - and for ways to keep them from being extended to impose conservative beliefs and doctrines.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
 18 May 2013
|
 16 May 2013
|
 16 May 2013
|
 17 May 2013
|
 16 May 2013
|
 19 May 2013
|
 18 May 2013
|
|
17 May 2013
|
 18 May 2013
|
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
I've been a Democratic Party office holder, a campaign worker, and a Democratic voter since 1968. But my party has been sold to the highest bidder and is as corrupt as the GOP. You do no service to the party by pretending it's better than it is.
The health care bill was a fake. All it really did was create a guaranteed income for insurance companies. Obama and the Democrats could EASILY have had universal care but pretended to need more than 60 votes (they didn't) and that the Republicans were obstructionists (sure, they were and are, but that's not the real problem).
Lakoff is right about Roberts. The Court dicta is dangerous if you actually understand it; ask a lawyer what it means for future decisions.
Yes, the Republicans will lie for advantage; so will the Democrats. Pretending Obama and the crew are so much better than Romney is a betrayal of the facts and of the party itself.
Obama has lost my vote and that of millions of others because he's in bed with the bankers and other corporate thugs. Because he murders innocent people with death lists. Because he turned food safety over to Monsanto. His policies are not one bit better than Nixon's. Wake up, please.
Actually the law madates that at least 85% of the insurance income be spent on healthcare.
This is significant, although it does not address the soaring cost of said healthcare.
Quoting Richard Raznikov:
"EASILY" is a little strong - on the other hand I am right there with you about single payer health care: this is demonstrably the only viable solution.
Quoting Richard Raznikov:
The electoral system is set up so that to get a shot at your policies you need to be elected and that implies being bought and paid for.
Obama could not change anything in that regard before he got elected, and then, of course he had been paid for.
The only way to get out of that spiral is to rescing legal bribery: get monye out of politics, i.e. repeal Citizens United.
MoveToAmend.org
This is significant, although it does not address the soaring cost of said healthcare.m their various investments. This 85% premium mandate was placed into this fraudulent bill BY the major medical insurers in order to discourage competition from smaller companies who get most of THEIR income from the premiums. This will limit competition and innovation and will help ensure that medical costs continue to escalate.
And you are right that the Dems are as bad as the Rethugs. Unfortunately, many Dem supporters are blind enough to reject the fact that their party is bought and paid for, but it is. Wake up, people! Unequivocally backing Dems is as bad as voting a straight Rethug ticket. The only hope for the country lies in discerning and then backing to the hilt third-party candidates.
You also need to get it through your thick skull that the PPACA limits corporate profits and overhead to 15% for larger insurers, 20% for the rest. They will also have to compete in exchanges with clear standardized policies if regulation is not thwarted. This means they will use the increased buying power of their enlarged customer base to hold down costs in order to compete. Some people believe the insurance companies won’t be able to live within this framework, and will get out of the health care insurance business, leaving it to Medicare for All. It may well lead to such.
Yes, there are lots of ways to manipulate the system. Medicare has had that problem, too. The loopholes can be closed, and the rules enforced. Citizens will have to be vigilant in any case. I would rather had Medicare for All, but the progressives didn't have 60 votes. They were shot down by the blue dogs and republicans, one of which is Obama. Like FDR, he has to be pushed to be more progressive.
The 60-vote requirement is a convenient lie. It is required not by law but by the 'rules of the Senate' agreed upon by both parties to enable them to obstruct legislation while making it seem as though they are working 'for the people.' The Democratic majority could have by simple majority restored the old rules, waited out any filibuster, and passed universal care by majority vote. But they didn't. As yourself why not.
We're being hosed, people. FDR was a leader. That he 'had to be pushed' is yet another fiction sponsored by the propagandists for the current regime. Bush was terrible. I worked for Obama, just as you did. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Just because one is a leader, doesn't mean people don't influence which way they lead. He saved capitalism with the new deal which he proposed with the requirement that the labor unions split away from the social movements towards socialism and communism, weakening them, and now they are all about dead. And hard nosed capitalism is at its zenith. Ever wonder why he backed off the stimulus too early, causing a second drop during the great depression?
Your implying that I'm an apologist for Obama, you’re nuts. If Rocky Anderson, or another progressive, is viable on election day, I'll vote for him.
AND this is exactly why we need single payer/medicare for all.
There's an epidemic of these DEM/Obama spokepersons, standing in line for the microphone to send their aupport to others still believing the "hope and change" rhetoric.
And I suspect that most of them have good, affordable health care!!
Plainly speaking, Roberts is a corporatist and his vote(s) saved the hide of the Health industry and all its investors.
http://biz.yahoo.com/p/5conameu.html
Roberts might have opined for the majority had it been content to vacate the mandate only. He plainly declared against the precedential view of the commerce clause, as Lakoff & Wehling note. But while Roberts was willing to go after the commerce clause, he wasn't ready to declare Congress itself unconstitutiona l, which would have been the effect of overturning ACA in toto. To that extent, good for Roberts.
For the rest of it, not so much. TRAKS, including Roberts, believes fanatically (and without a firm basis in reason or intellectual history) that liberty is defined as (a) the constraint of government in favor of (b) private profit. They have the idea that the general welfare derives exclusively from unregulated commerce and are hostile to federal power exercised in constraint thereof.
For that reason, I'm sure that Roberts would love to see Congress repeal ACA, and nothing he's said in his opinion will inhibit them in that pursuit. But give him credit where due. At the end of the day, he wasn't prepared to reduce the Court's stature below a certain already low point in order to achieve his preferred policy outcome.
Previously known as RATS + "swing vote" Kennedy
Alternatively KARTS, STARK, etc.
"There is no good progressive so far so you progressives should do as I (claim to) do and do not vote."
Just like a double negative makes positive, I'll have to pull off a double positive on you:
"Yeah, right."
Nader, through his prissy puritanical dogmatic egotistical insistence on running to the bitter end, gave us Dubya, who was an unmitigated disaster with Supreme Teabagger Justices to add to his everlasting shame.
The place to start the growth of the Justice, Green, Reform Democrat or whatever third party is at the local and Congressional level. Winning some seats there would give an actual practical beginning, and a loss would not endanger the nation.
No matter what awful flaws you may see or imagine in Obama, he is the ONLY VIABLE Presidential Candidate a progressive should support, since the only other VIABLE candidate is Romney, and if you want another Dubya type disaster, vote for your nifty Green or Justice candidate, since a vote for them is a vote for Romney - since they are NOT VIABLE!.
(Continued)
Continuing to divert votes from Obama is only giving those votes to Romney. That, to me, indicates a level of obtuse egotism I find incomprehensible.
This is because even if one of them would actually make a great (or even pretty good) President, they are not even remotely VIABLE!
"Come to your senses" indeed!
You're never going to get a Senate progressive enough to dictate court nominations.
Why is it OK to vote for blue dog Democrats but not for Obama? Do you really think a second term for Obama would be worse than a first term for Romney?
I agree that it is important to restore the Democratic majority in the House, and strengthen the majority in the Senate.
It's all about Congress in 2012!
Wishful thinking is not going to get the job done. This country's in real trouble and pretending Obama's a lot better than the fool running against him –– regardless of how you vote –– is no help. Go ahead and vote for Obama if you can keep the nausea down, but at least stop pretending he's what he's not.
Tghis quote should be read carefully. the media(even the informal media) practices a constant sexism that although never subtle, is never seen. "No cojones" aka 'No balls" as if the masculine aggression implied in this is the best solution for everything. Maybe the lacking nurturing element should be cited. As a comparison-most of our leaders have no tits. Because most of them destroy, not nurture, the world, the country, the people etc. Think about it.
As Lakoff points out in "The Little Blue Book," the law was framed as if Health insurance is a product, and it is, as opposed to health care. The PPACA had no mandate in it, since mandates have no “or” clause, which is implied when it included the shared responsibility payment if one didn’t buy insurance. Instead of a mandate, it had an option. Characterizing the clauses as a mandate allowed conservatives messaging which they used effectively in opposing the law, and the proponents didn’t reframe it.
Roberts by reining in the commerce clause created a lot of room for mischief, as Lakoff points out. It also showed Roberts to still be a right wing ideology because it diminishes Federal power and authority, hands plutocrats a revenue stream, and does nothing to show a balanced court, since he failed to honor stare decisis. It further illustrating the lie of his confirmation hearing statements that he would honor stare decisis. His decision dishonors him and shows him, and therefore, the majority of SCOTUS to be right wing politicians.
Swiss Model for Health Care Is Gaining Admirers - NYTimes.com Published: September 30, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/01/health/policy/01swiss.html?pagewanted=all
It is an intermediate step between totally run government systems (lowest costs, but with some restrictions and delays) and the US mixed system (which produces the highest costs for health care in the world.)
Quoting Suzienoodle, "bottom line, we need President Obama to win by a landslide, bringing House back to the Dems and holding as many seats as possible in the Senate. If nothing else, this might show a few "low information voters" how important it is to elect the person who will nominate left leaning justices, or at least non right wing zealots."
Replacing our current crop of less than ideal Democrats and Far Worse Republican hyper-authorita rian Fascist Corporate-Stati st inhumane monsters requires starting at the local level, electing true progressives to County, city, State, and Congressional positions. At that level, meaningful results can be achieved.
Support Elizabeth Warren, and look for such persons to run for other positions.
In this way a third party (or coalition of them with reformed Democrats - back to the progressive roots) can grow to the point that a viable Presidential ticket could be promoted. Running for President now, as did Nader, on a futile third party ticket, just exercises egos and ensures that your vote is actually for Romney. That is making your point by dramatically shooting yourself in the foot. It accomplishes nothing but stroking the oversize ego and leaving you with a mangled foot (country).
Some "victories" will surely turn out to have been won at a very steep, perhaps even intolerable, price. I write as an ex-teacher of Political Science, including the politics of what is now called THE NINE ! I'll be hoping and wishing for the current balance in that institution to be altered somehow, before a new set of "basic principles" is devised, to our dismay. Keep writing - and making sense.
Best wishes
Other reasons are the Scourge of Scalia the Ptomaine of Thomas the Killjoy that is Kennedy and the Arrogance that is Alito
And he's right in saying that the health care they provide is almost entirely up to them...and corporations are run for profit, not for the benefit of patients.
Those of us in HMOs should be able to see that behind those people in white smocks lies not the Hypocratic Oath so much as a greedy insurance company interested in denying as many claims as possible.
Yes, they employ doctors, but they have very tight leashes on those doctors.
Having joined an HMO June 1, I can already see that my plan tightly controls how much care it provides, and that doctors are trained to switch patients to OTC drugs as much as possible...so that the expense goes back to the patient.
Fascism is government in the hands of the corporations. Our fathers and their fathers fought against fascism and now that's what we have. The corporations are already running the country because they have bought our senators and congressmen. Our leaders don't have to seek our votes one-by-one now...they now have the huge amounts of money to distort the issues and spend their way into power, and once there, to stay in.
I also feel betrayed but unfortunately short of public founding for the elections we will only be given poor choices for the highest office.
Among those I would still pick Obama over Romney every time.
Repeal Citizens United
MoveToAmend.org
I am reminded of a bit of wise doggerel my mother taught me while teaching me to drive (many years ago). "He was right all right as he sped along, but he is just as dead as if he was wrong."
Romney is Wrongmney - or Wrongmoney. Wrong in all ways.
He recognizes that health care is indeed part of interstate commerce - as are many services, not just "products." His opinion merely says the the commerce power is one allowing Congress to "regulate" commerce, not to create it.
He could easily have ended the discussion there and found the act unconstitutiona l. He did not.
What he actually said is very different from what Lakoff writes.
First, Roberts wrote that the "penalty" is not a TAX which prevents a challenge to the AHCA because it is a PENALTY. Congress has in the past treated taxes and penalties differently and we must respect its choice of designation here. Therefore, the petitioners have the right to challenge the law in advance of paying the penalty, a result that would not obtain if it were a tax.
He could have stopped there and declared the law unconstitutiona l. But he did not.
Roberts went on to say that although the penalty is not a tax for purposes of the anti-injunction act (that would have prevented a challenge before payment of the "tax" as noted above) the court has the obligation to try to uphold Congressional laws.
And from that perspective, since the penalty is imposed under the taxing power, it may be called a tax for the presumption of constitutionali ty.
Even "reform" which ,I believe, is beneficial for the common good- is completely watered down to adhere to corporate interests and the "free enterprise" system.
It is apparent that any progressive policy reform, in this day and age, must have some subtle approval from the almighty corporations and their "economic hitmen"-A.K.A. Lobbyists. What is so brilliant about corporate influence is how they play both sides continuously. Their millions will coerce any "reform" to maintain profitability. They then will publicly oppose (via PACS)the exact public policy they helped create. So many on these sites believe voting for unelectable progressives is the answer. This only hands over complete control to the corporate fascists (GOP.)
The only answer, at this time, is to hold your breath and vote Democrat across the board. If we can vote in super majorites(which is the first step in radical action)then we can "make them do it"-just like back in the days of FDR.
Vote Democratic, reelect Obama, and work for true reform candidates on the local and Congressional level.
We just don't need more of the excessive distortions of the current Republican hyper-corporate hyper-conservat ive nonsense, and we certainly don't need more of their Supremo ideologues.
This fakery promotes the current system of zero reforms while giving the parties an argument with which to 'rally the troops'. It's a game and those who talk about electing more Democrats fall for it. They are LYING to us, people. Educate yourselves about how the system works (or doesn't work) and then real change will be possible.
In the meantime, my vote is too valuable to waste it on liars and worse. I will give it only to those candidates who respect me, the country, and the Bill of Rights. You can guess who won't get it in November.
You are so determined to maintain your virginity that you will give yourself to the puritanical birth of some more Supreme Court Corporate Flack Teabagger Justices, plus whatever other horrors Romney would perpetrate on the Nation.
Your "purity" is more destructive than a truckload of Nitroglycerin.
Are we American citizens or some sniveling cowards without principle or country? The Constitution created a Republic to govern and Grover the Grouch must not be allowed to resuscitate either the confederation or the Confederacy by emasculating the Republic and cancelling its necessary and proper powers.
RSS feed for comments to this post