Roberts: Back off the recusal demands

posted at 9:25 am on January 2, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Has anyone taken the demands for the recusals of Supreme Court justices on the ObamaCare case seriously?  As I’ve written previously, they’re not offered seriously, but as a way of shaping the post-decision political battlefield, efforts that have begun on both sides of the issue.  Chief Justice John Roberts told both sides to back off in his annual report to the federal judiciary:

The chief justice’s comments came in his annual report on the state of the federal judiciary. In it, he made what amounted to a vigorous defense of Justices Clarence Thomas and Elena Kagan, who are facing calls to disqualify themselves from hearing the health care case, which will be argued over three days in late March. He did not, however, mention the justices by name.

“I have complete confidence in the capability of my colleagues to determine when recusal is warranted,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote. “They are jurists of exceptional integrity and experience whose character and fitness have been examined through a rigorous appointment and confirmation process.”

Federal law requires that judges disqualify themselves when they have a financial interest in a case, have given ad-vice or expressed an opinion “concerning the merits of the particular case” or when their “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” For lower court judges, such a decision can be reviewed by a higher court, but the Supreme Court has no such review.

Chief Justice Roberts said the Supreme Court’s unique status made it impossible for the justices to follow the practices of lower-court judges in recusal matters. Lower-court judges can be replaced if they decide to disqualify themselves, he said, and their decisions about recusal can be reviewed by higher courts.

“The Supreme Court does not sit in judgment of one of its own members’ decision whether to recuse in the course of deciding a case,” he wrote.  “Indeed, if the Supreme Court reviewed those decisions, it would create an undesirable situation in which the court could affect the outcome of a case by selecting who among its members may participate.”

There is only one controlling authority for the issue of recusals at the level of the Supreme Court: the individual justice in question.  Neither Congress nor the President can require a justice to recuse himself or herself from a case, and as Roberts writes, the Court would destroy itself if it attempted to “select” justices for the decision.  Certainly they can apply peer pressure if an especially egregious set of circumstances arose, but they could not bar a justice from participating in a decision without opening a Pandora’s box of very, very bad consequences.  The only remedy would be for Congress to impeach a justice that refused to recuse, but unless the evidence for conflict of interest was stark and unequivocal, that would touch off a partisan battle that would make the confirmation hearing for Robert Bork look like a postal-office naming debate.

Everyone already knows that neither Elena Kagan nor Clarence Thomas will recuse themselves from this case.  Roberts would like both sides to quit making demands and either inadvertently or purposefully undermining the credibility of the Court before they even get to opening arguments.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

They didn’t die because the doctors or hospitals were inferior. They died because they were old people living in small, un-airconditioned rooms in a heat wave.

urban elitist on January 2, 2012 at 2:27 PM

LOL. But you didn’t need to write this. I had already printed what your response would be above. I tried to save you the effort …

BTW, I guess none of these small, un-air conditioned rooms had a phone … Do the French need a national phone mandate?

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 2, 2012 at 2:34 PM

Roberts would like both sides to quit making demands and either inadvertently or purposefully undermining the credibility of the Court before they even get to opening arguments.

Of course Roberts would like this. However, what is the need for him to discuss this if recusal isn’t what’s required in this instance ? Apparently, Justice Roberts doesn’t like the questioning of the “inner circle”. This is Roberts way of publicly reminding those Justices who ought to, will seriously consider recusing themselves from the PPACA.

“They are jurists of exceptional integrity and experience whose character and fitness have been examined through a rigorous appointment and confirmation process.” Decisions like Citizens United v FEC make me question this very seriously.

It’s hard to imagine that USSC isn’t very flawed given the “high integrity” and “moral character” of the same House and Senate that affirmed them.

DevilsPrinciple on January 2, 2012 at 2:40 PM

But we have this thing, maybe its new to you, its called empathy for our fellow man. Give it a try sometimes. And please do not talk about charitable donations.

libfreeordie on January 2, 2012 at 12:41 PM

Ah, the sanctimony of the Liberal mind. The only reason you don’t want to talk about charitable donations is because you can’t control where they go.

DaveDief on January 2, 2012 at 2:19 PM

” Sir, don’t be duped by them any more. You will find these very feeling people are not very ready to do you good. They pay you by feeling”-Dr. Samuel Johnson

Yes, philosophers from Ayn Rand to Immanuel Kant agree that charity and compassion are supererogatory goods, they only have moral merit if they -transcend- duty, especially the duty to pay taxes. Increasing taxation for whatever reason for partisan purposes is not “charity” it is government plunder.

ebrown2 on January 2, 2012 at 2:41 PM

“Have you ever been to France?” urban elitist

No, never been there. Why would I want to?

“Stereotyping women.” urban elitist

Yeah, I stereotype my 30 year old daughter all the time.

Ah, when cogent response is not available, pull out personal anecdotes and personal slurs.

Hey, get back to the script, Boy. Axelrod ain’t paying you to extoll the virtues of wine from The New House of the Pope.

Horace on January 2, 2012 at 2:42 PM

urban elitist

Follow-up: Never been to France, but was invited to help clean up the mess they left in Vietnam. Wine bottles and cheese wrappers all over the dang place.

Horace on January 2, 2012 at 2:44 PM

As for which system we should model, Germany, France, Finland etc all have well functioning healthcare systems.

libfreeordie on January 2, 2012 at 12:41 PM

France:

“Many French doctors, in fact, earn more by increasing their patient load, or by prescribing more diagnostic tests and procedures—a technique, also popular in the U.S., that inflates health-care costs. So far France has been able to hold down the burden on patients through a combination of price controls and increased government spending, but the latter effort has led to higher taxes for both employers and workers. In 1990, 7% of health-care expenditures were financed out of general revenue taxes, and the rest came from mandatory payroll taxes. By 2003, the general revenue figure had grown to 40%, and it’s still not enough. The French national insurance system has been running constant deficits since 1985 and has ballooned to $13.5 billion.”

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_28/b4042070.htm

Germany:

“In addition, instead of being paid for by taxes, the system is financed mostly by health care insurance premiums, both compulsory and voluntary.”

http://www.germanculture.com.ua/library/facts/bl_health_care.htm

No, they can’t be both volutary and complsory. Whatever you call it, it is a tax. Unless you want to rewrite the constitution, which the Supreme Court will decide, you are requiring a payment by individuals to be an American citizen.

Finland:

Finland is a population of less than six million people whose largest minority group is Swedish, about 5% of their population.

Finally, non of these countries suffer from the burdens of illegial aliens who put a strain on their health care system, who by definition will not be paying an “insurance premium” if they are mandated by congress (although France are Germany are starting to feel these effects).

Making these comparisons to the United States fails to take into account circumstances that make single-payer solutions to the U.S. health care system unworkable.

itsspideyman on January 2, 2012 at 2:49 PM

The one that does worry be is the eventual same-sex marriage case that will get to the Supremes. This is why Kagan was put on the Court.

rockmom on January 2, 2012 at 11:20 AM

Same sex marriage does not effect every citizen whereas mandated insurance does. What about same sex marriage seems to worry you so much?

Wade on January 2, 2012 at 2:51 PM

No, never been there. Why would I want to?

“Stereotyping women.” urban elitist

If you’ll think back, it was you who brought decades-old stereotypes regarding the hygiene habits of women you’ve never actually met into the conversation. I was just letting you know I could respond in kind.

urban elitist

Follow-up: Never been to France, but was invited to help clean up the mess they left in Vietnam. Wine bottles and cheese wrappers all over the dang place.

Horace on January 2, 2012 at 2:44 PM

Thank you for your service.

I’m far from arguing that the French are perfect. But they’re not snotty cheese-eating surrender monkeys (I was once working my way through a French newspaper once, and you’ll be pleased to know that they HATE that phrase) either. A nice culture, one we could learn a few things from and that could learn a few things from us.

urban elitist on January 2, 2012 at 2:51 PM

ebrown2 on January 2, 2012 at 2:41 PM

Daily, a man gets up and pulls colors into the sky by pulling a rope attached to a pully. The weather changes and he pulls the colors down early.

— He does this because of what the colors represent.

Daily, a man gets up and pulls colors into the sky by pulling a rope attached to a pully. The weather changes and he pulls the colors down early.

— He does this because the law penalizes him for not doing it.

The two men have done entirely different things.

Axe on January 2, 2012 at 2:51 PM

Can anyone give an intelligent reason why the USA should give a rats ass what France or any other country does? For sure the founders of the USA didn’t and if anything they did different as not to make the mistake of others.

Wade on January 2, 2012 at 2:59 PM

Your empathy exists only so much as you can use the money of others to pay for it.

chemman on January 2, 2012 at 2:27 PM

This.

DaveDief on January 2, 2012 at 3:02 PM

It will be 5/4 on the major issues of healthcare, with surprises on who the 5 will be.

Schadenfreude on January 2, 2012 at 1:42 PM

It will be 6-3.

The fifth vote for ObamaCare, based upon a review of his opinions in prior Commerce Clause cases as a Supreme Court justice, will be Scalia.

The sixth vote will be Kennedy, who will use Scalia’s vote as cover and avoid the major flak he would take if he was the fifth vote.

American freedom and liberty will then be circling the drain.

Horace on January 2, 2012 at 3:03 PM

The two men have done entirely different things.

Axe on January 2, 2012 at 2:51 PM

In reality they have done the same thing but for different reasons, reasons do not constitute activity. BTY the colors in old glory don’t run.

Wade on January 2, 2012 at 3:03 PM

Can anyone give an intelligent reason why the USA should give a rats ass what France or any other country does? For sure the founders of the USA didn’t and if anything they did different as not to make the mistake of others.

Wade on January 2, 2012 at 2:59 PM

Because sometimes other countries do things better than we do. Jeez — forget health care, the interstate highway system was inspired by Germany, and pizza came over with the Italians.

The founders of the USA, of course, looked to England for their philosophy and common la and many of the basic principles of our democracy.

urban elitist on January 2, 2012 at 3:04 PM

In reality they have done the same thing but for different reasons, reasons do not constitute activity. BTY the colors in old glory don’t run.

Wade on January 2, 2012 at 3:03 PM

They constitute cause. If you can decouple cause from effect, I’ll concede your point :) Until then, I’ll just quietly agree with your “rats ass” thought and stand by my argument.

… weird, all the looking up to failed systems going on lately.

Axe on January 2, 2012 at 3:09 PM

urban elitist

Had the Founders looked to England for the basic principles of our REPUBLIC, not democracy, we would have a monarchy.

They looked more toward ancient Greece and the early Roman Republic.

They agreed with Plato and Aristotle, particularly Madison and Hamilton, that democracy was “rule by the mob based upon fleeting passions of the moment.”

Horace on January 2, 2012 at 3:11 PM

“They are jurists of exceptional integrity and experience whose character and fitness have been examined through a rigorous appointment and confirmation process.”

Since one of the jurists is not only a liberal but also was in the most corrupt DoJ in the last century, Roberts really needs to reconsider this statement.

iconoclast on January 2, 2012 at 3:15 PM

Had the Founders looked to England for the basic principles of our REPUBLIC, not democracy, we would have a monarchy.

They looked more toward ancient Greece and the early Roman Republic.

They agreed with Plato and Aristotle, particularly Madison and Hamilton, that democracy was “rule by the mob based upon fleeting passions of the moment.”

Horace on January 2, 2012 at 3:11 PM

We took our common law from England. And John Locke, of course, coined the phrase “life, liberty and property,” which you might recognize in a slightly altered form, and clearly inspired the founders. The Monarchy, in England, was already substantially weakened by an increasingly powerful parliament by 1776 (or 1789).

I stand corrected, we are a republic, but I wasn’t really getting all technical about it. And thanks for supporting my larger point, that our founders did look for inspiration beyond our borders.

urban elitist on January 2, 2012 at 3:17 PM

I don’t remember any of the communist justices of SCOTUS coming to the defense of Mrs Thomas, why was that ? Why did they stand by silently and watch another round of lynching of Mr and Mrs Thomas, by their fellow Democrats led by the weenietweeter ?
And now Justice Roberts comes out in defence of Kagan ?
As said above, the fix is in , no doubt about it .
BTW, I hope Justice Roberts debates this issue with Levin :
http://www.therightscoop.com/mark-levin-calls-out-ann-coulter-for-unfairly-trashing-newt-gingrich/
( @ 2:00 onwards)

burrata on January 2, 2012 at 3:18 PM

The founders of the USA, of course, looked to England for their philosophy and common la and many of the basic principles of our democracyrepublic.

urban elitist on January 2, 2012 at 3:04 PM

fixed that for you

itsspideyman on January 2, 2012 at 2:49 PM

good points but you missed the biggest thing that allowed the farce of modern European governance which is the military subsidies. If we did not literally man the borders for them they would have suffered under the soviets at worst or not been able to pay for the healthcare system at best.
I find this fascination with the euro system to be very humorous. The newest governing systems to come from Europe post creation of America has been socialism and communism. Both state run systems where the second lower class works and plays along the the ruling elites fiddle.
The problem with telling Americans that we have something to learn from Euro governing practices is that their mindset was never transformed. They replaced their devotion of king and church with the devotion to state government and scientist. There is no other way in comprehending the mindset that allowed for the holocaust, the state sanctioned and the scientist said humanity would be improved by cleaning the gene pool. The french revolution resulted in the replacement of one despot with another, then another, and then another. The biggest problem is the European lack of distrust of the government, which coincidentally coincides with rise of Americas problem, our people are starting to look to gov as their personal savior. As for France how many republics have the had outside the two Napoleons and the Vichy gov. HEll these are the exact people not to mimic.

By the way Urban i have lived in France twice, love the women, food and culture of art, the rest they can keep

19thgenamerican on January 2, 2012 at 3:27 PM

Because sometimes other countries do things better than we do. Jeez — forget health care, the interstate highway system was inspired by Germany, and pizza came over with the Italians.

Which country did socialism well?

spiritof61 on January 2, 2012 at 3:30 PM

I stand corrected, we are a republic, but I wasn’t really getting all technical about it. And thanks for supporting my larger point, that our founders did look for inspiration beyond our borders.

urban elitist on January 2, 2012 at 3:17 PM

A letter from John Jay to George Washington, July 1787:

Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American Army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.

The Founders were well aware of the utterly unique nature of the American governmental structure that they were building and remained exceedingly leery of help from foreigners. In fact, they understood the incredible danger of letting foreign ideas of governance pollute our unique system and placed a check in the Constitution (natural born citizen) to try and stop the sort of foreign influence that someone like the Indonesian Imbecile or some froggy might have on our system. Looking at barky’s insane tenure, they were correct to worry.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 2, 2012 at 3:37 PM

The Supreme Court is the only realistic hope of getting rid of Obamacare.

There seem to be 3 avenues to its repeal or destruction:
(A), Supreme Court rules it unconstitutional, or at least enough parts of it to make it totally unworkable(the mandate). Hopefully the severability clause might even bring the whole thing down if one working part is deemed unconstitutional.
(B), A super-majority in the Senate, strong majority in the house, and a strong republican president elected.
(C), Changing senate rules to overrulle filibusters if we don’t succeed in a supermajority.

(B), sadly, looking at the poles and feeling the honest electorate’s supremely honed political sensibilities(/), seems unlikely in whole. Maybe A republican president but most likely not a strong one. Maybe A majority in both houses but I find it a long bet to place money on the republicans having enough solid momentum to gain a filibuster proof super majority when BOTH sides in congress are rightfully disgusting to us all.

(C), Violates every single solitary complaint we’ve made from the minority for the last 3 years and makes hypocrites of us all.

But hey, that’s how the game is played. Teams just switch sides, game keeps going, and the clock never stops.

(A) is our only honest hope.

With or without Kagan it’s still a fair balance on the court. Best to just whoop a** in this thing and make a big deal of the CASE, rather than narrative building on JUDGES.

Genuine on January 2, 2012 at 3:37 PM

By the way Urban i have lived in France twice, love the women, food and culture of art, the rest they can keep

19thgenamerican on January 2, 2012 at 3:27 PM

My wife won’t let me love the women.

I agree with much of what you say, especially the lack of distrust of the state. My theory is that Europe has seen so much blood over the centuries — that they’re more willing to trade a little more personal freedom for stability.

But I don’t see the bright line that others see. We already have a mixed economy — European style — and some of the most socialist economies in Europe have the healthiest (though smaller) economies (Sweden, Denmark). Ireland was considered a Free market triumph and now it’s a wreck, Greece would me a basket case if Milton Friedman was Prime Minister. Let Europe be a lab for us and pick and choose. We are less burdened by tradition and that’s good.

Where in France? I almost had a job in Paris once — dammit.

urban elitist on January 2, 2012 at 3:38 PM

A letter from John Jay to George Washington, July 1787:

Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American Army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.

The Founders were well aware of the utterly unique nature of the American governmental structure that they were building and remained exceedingly leery of help from foreigners. In fact, they understood the incredible danger of letting foreign ideas of governance pollute our unique system and placed a check in the Constitution (natural born citizen) to try and stop the sort of foreign influence that someone like the Indonesian Imbecile or some froggy might have on our system. Looking at barky’s insane tenure, they were correct to worry.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 2, 2012 at 3:37 PM

But the government they built didn’t spring miraculously out of nowhere. The founders were deeply influenced by Foreign predecessors. Doesn’t mean that they weren’t daring, brilliant and different. Heck, for what it’s worth, both Jefferson and Washington took the design for their houses from an Italian who had been dead for 200 years.

No one’s arguing that something is superior simply because it’s European, just that sometimes Europeans might have something to bring to the table.

And, for what it’s worth, America under all-American George Bush didn’t exactly have a good eight years….

urban elitist on January 2, 2012 at 3:44 PM

No one’s arguing that something is superior simply because it’s European, just that sometimes Europeans might have something to bring to the table.

urban elitist on January 2, 2012 at 3:44 PM

In the last 100 years+, the Euroscum have not made one single decision of import correctly. Not a one. They are idiots who have been on path to suicide ever since the fall of imperialism.

You like how they do stuff, then move there (if you don’t already live outside of the US). Europe is clearly much closer to the sort of nation you think is ideal. In fact, it seems that every nation is closer to your ideal than the US. Funny how that is with liberals …

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 2, 2012 at 3:51 PM

And, for what it’s worth, America under all-American George Bush didn’t exactly have a good eight years….

urban elitist

Yeah, that 5% unemployment in spite of 9/11 was just awful!\

9/11? Thank the Dems for making it so easy for them to carry it out.

Hard Right on January 2, 2012 at 3:55 PM

As for which system we should model, Germany, France, Finland etc all have well functioning healthcare systems.

libfreeordie

The U.S. has a better functioning health care system than all of those, so what’s your point?

xblade on January 2, 2012 at 3:56 PM

“They are jurists of exceptional integrity and experience whose character and fitness have been examined through a rigorous appointment and confirmation process.”

Sorry, but this quote is laughable. The SCOTUS is just as broken as the rest of our government. Every branch overreaches its constitutional authority.

Robert Jensen on January 2, 2012 at 3:59 PM

Yeah, that 5% unemployment in spite of 9/11 was just awful!\

Hard Right

Not to mention record tax revenues, despite those evil tax cuts for the rich, lol.

xblade on January 2, 2012 at 3:59 PM

Not to mention record tax revenues, despite those evil tax cuts for the rich, lol.

xblade

Reality is a stranger to the left.

Hard Right on January 2, 2012 at 4:01 PM

But, unfortunately, law by no means confines itself to its proper functions. And when it has exceeded its proper functions, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters. The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own objective: It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense.

How has this perversion of the law been accomplished? And what have been the results?

The law has been perverted by the influence of two entirely different causes: stupid greed and false philanthropy.

The Law by Frédéric Bastiat

http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

ebrown2 on January 2, 2012 at 4:02 PM

Yeah, that 5% unemployment in spite of 9/11 was just awful!\

9/11? Thank the Dems for making it so easy for them to carry it out.

Hard Right on January 2, 2012 at 3:55 PM

Declining middle class incomes, two botched wars, massive deficits, 9/11, the financial collapse? Those were the good old days.

The U.S. has a better functioning health care system than all of those, so what’s your point?

xblade on January 2, 2012 at 3:56 PM

American health care costs twice as much and covers fewer people than virtually any other system in the affluent world. Pretending otherwise is simply stupid. And, have you ever dealt with an HMO?

urban elitist on January 2, 2012 at 4:04 PM

ObamaCare 2012………is Soylent Green 2022.

1. Ration care.

2. Offer end of life services to the elderly that provide incentives / bonuses to family members that sign up.

3. Market the “patriotic” selfless idea of helping the nation by saving the country the end of life costs.

4. Offer tax breaks for organ donation.

5. Make organ donation “the right thing to do”.

6. Make organ donation mandatory.

7. Promote the idea that “nothing” in our “scarce resources” culture go to waste.

8. Find a way to use ALL body parts.

9. Hello Soylent Green end of life centers.

10. Goodbye Granny.

PappyD61 on January 2, 2012 at 4:05 PM

But the government they built didn’t spring miraculously out of nowhere
urban elitist on January 2, 2012 at 3:44 PM

True, they looked back through thousands of years for mistakes and successes. Such as not allowing the landless to vote, an idea that would inspire/incetivize(sic) work ethics, accountable knowledge of politics, and responsible voting habits. Also the American mindset of the revolutionary period were of a people unique and not comparable to the Euro mind. While many old world views were brought over and carry on today, these views were forced to be challenged and compromised. Also the self reliance that was required to exist and succeed without a social safety net. The result left a split of independence vs dependence on the state that was to lead to America’s rise, and after a century of adopting the Euro dependence style aka progressivism America is about to break.
It is the very fact that we have married our government with the economy that has hamstrung our proper ability move forward as individuals and as a people. The way to unleash our true productivity is to reverse our practice of adopting Europe’s policies of mixed economies. Moving forward will only bind us into serfdom. And as my name handle says, my ancestors left and renounced the old world’s views of humanity and the individuals relationship with it.
By the way this post does hold subject to the article since it is the very subjugation of the citizen at the heart of this healthcare bill.

19thgenamerican on January 2, 2012 at 4:10 PM

Not to mention record tax revenues, despite those evil tax cuts for the rich, lol.

xblade

Reality is a stranger to the left.

Hard Right on January 2, 2012 at 4:01 PM

Speaking of reality, federal tax revenues under Bush never, in 8 years, exceeded the highest revenue year in the Clinton Administration.

urban elitist on January 2, 2012 at 4:11 PM

Kagen and Thomas cancel each other out and this comes down to Reagan appointee Anthony Kennedy.

Rio Linda Refugee

Translation: Obamacare is here to stay.

Look at the bright side though…..at least we taught John McCain a lesson, lol. Sure, we screwed ourselves in the process, but whatevs.

xblade on January 2, 2012 at 4:13 PM

No one’s arguing that something is superior simply because it’s European, just that sometimes Europeans might have something to bring to the table.

urban elitist on January 2, 2012 at 3:44 PM

This one certainly did, although you would pay no attention to his prophetic warnings:

http://bastiat.org/

ebrown2 on January 2, 2012 at 4:16 PM

Such as not allowing the landless to vote, an idea that would inspire/incetivize(sic) work ethics, accountable knowledge of politics, and responsible voting habits.

Or, they just looked to Europe and deemed themselves a secular nobility, refusing to cede power to the rabble. Not to mention women.

The way to unleash our true productivity is to reverse our practice of adopting Europe’s policies of mixed economies. Moving forward will only bind us into serfdom. And as my name handle says, my ancestors left and renounced the old world’s views of humanity and the individuals relationship with it.
By the way this post does hold subject to the article since it is the very subjugation of the citizen at the heart of this healthcare bill.

19thgenamerican on January 2, 2012 at 4:10 PM

America’s affluence has always marched hand in hand with effective government. Our most broadly affluent years were the post WWII triumph of the New Deal, the rise of unions and expansion of civil rights. Reagan had a good 8 years, but so did Clinton. Infrastructure, education, a safety net…these support and encourage entrepreneurs.

urban elitist on January 2, 2012 at 4:20 PM

Can anyone give an intelligent reason why the USA should give a rats ass what France or any other country does? For sure the founders of the USA didn’t and if anything they did different as not to make the mistake of others.

Wade on January 2, 2012 at 2:59 PM

Because sometimes other countries do things better than we do. Jeez — forget health care, the interstate highway system was inspired by Germany, and pizza came over with the Italians.

urban elitist on January 2, 2012 at 3:04 PM

Actually the Long Island Motor Parkway opened in 1908. Privately capitalized, too. 45 miles for the cost of $6 million.

It operated for 30 years before the State seized it.

Del Dolemonte on January 2, 2012 at 4:31 PM

If he HAD experienced the Cuban health care system, he would be dead. So how could he be posting on this site? Think!

Horace on January 2, 2012 at 2:27 PM

I’ve no more experienced the Cuban system than you have the systems of the countries you criticize.

urban elitist on January 2, 2012 at 2:33 PM

So how did you form your opinion about the Cuban system, then? Just curious.

Del Dolemonte on January 2, 2012 at 4:33 PM

And this European (on technical geographical terms, although he’d probably resent the appellation) has a few words for government bureaucrats as well:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeZ8T_1uLsE

ebrown2 on January 2, 2012 at 4:35 PM

No one’s arguing that something is superior simply because it’s European, just that sometimes Europeans might have something to bring to the table.

urban elitist on January 2, 2012 at 3:44 PM

Let me ask you this, why do you stay in America if you like other government’s so much better?

And this isn’t meant as snark, I’m honestly curious as to why you choose to continue living in America when you find Euro policies much more to your liking.

It gets a little tiresome that people want to change America to be more like other countries. Just go to the other country if it’s better.

ButterflyDragon on January 2, 2012 at 4:42 PM

Let me ask you this, why do you stay in America if you like other government’s so much better?

And this isn’t meant as snark, I’m honestly curious as to why you choose to continue living in America when you find Euro policies much more to your liking.

It gets a little tiresome that people want to change America to be more like other countries. Just go to the other country if it’s better.

ButterflyDragon on January 2, 2012 at 4:42 PM

America as a free ideal has to be destroyed in order not to show up bureaucratic fascism, that’s why.

ebrown2 on January 2, 2012 at 4:48 PM

Because sometimes other countries do things better than we do. Jeez — forget health care, the interstate highway system was inspired by Germany, and pizza came over with the Italians.

urban elitist on January 2, 2012 at 3:04 PM

Yes, why don’t you just go over there and live?

I’ve lived in Europe for 5 years as a native, and while there are some neat things over there, nothing compares to the FREEDOM we have over here.

I’m tired of the “Elitists” who keep wanting to take our liberty in exchange for some Eurotrash socialist ideals.

Robert Jensen on January 2, 2012 at 4:54 PM

Whatever the SCOTUS decision re The Affordable Care Act aka ‘Obamacare’, I’ll decide whether or not to participate, not public servants.

LizardLips on January 2, 2012 at 4:55 PM

So how did you form your opinion about the Cuban system, then? Just curious.

Del Dolemonte on January 2, 2012 at 4:33 PM

I have a friend who’s been to Cuba several times and keeps up on this sort of thing, and he’s mentioned it. I’ve also read about it — Cuba’s trading doctors for oil in Venezuela, among other things.

Let me be clear, I don’t want to go to a Cuban Hospital if I can go to an American hospital. I’m not touting them as a model. I’m just saying that the system on the whole better than, say Jamaica’s or the DR’s.

Let me ask you this, why do you stay in America if you like other government’s so much better?

And this isn’t meant as snark, I’m honestly curious as to why you choose to continue living in America when you find Euro policies much more to your liking.

It gets a little tiresome that people want to change America to be more like other countries. Just go to the other country if it’s better.

ButterflyDragon on January 2, 2012 at 4:42 PM

I love America. I just think that we could do some things better. Health care. Middle Class prosperity. Decent cooking in the rural areas. I’m a little surprised that liking one aspect of the French economy (OK, two: I love their vacation schedule) has so many people convinced I’m somehow un-American. It’s an unfortunate assumption — it makes discussion difficult and suggests limited thinking ability by those who adopt it.

I don’t want America to be France or any other place. I just want it to continue becoming more just and prosperous. The fact that you and I have different ideas about how to do that means that at least one of us is wrong, but it doesn’t make either of us less American.

urban elitist on January 2, 2012 at 5:00 PM

I don’t see where Chief Justice Roberts told anyone to back off, nor should he. People are free to express their opinions. Kagan should recuse herself, but she’s an Obama liberal so I don’t expect her to.

Basilsbest on January 2, 2012 at 5:06 PM

I don’t want America to be France or any other place. I just want it to continue becoming more just and prosperous. The fact that you and I have different ideas about how to do that means that at least one of us is wrong, but it doesn’t make either of us less American.

urban elitist on January 2, 2012 at 5:00 PM

When your idea of justice and prosperity is completely out of line with the Constitution, then yes, it actually does.

Tired of this effete argument style that says “Hey, we disagree, but we both have great ideas!” The history books don’t note that both sides had a lot to learn from each other, they just mark who won and who lost. 2012 is a battleground, and personally, I don’t feel like losing.

Good Solid B-Plus on January 2, 2012 at 5:24 PM

When your idea of justice and prosperity is completely out of line with the Constitution, then yes, it actually does.

Tired of this effete argument style that says “Hey, we disagree, but we both have great ideas!” The history books don’t note that both sides had a lot to learn from each other, they just mark who won and who lost. 2012 is a battleground, and personally, I don’t feel like losing.

Good Solid B-Plus on January 2, 2012 at 5:24 PM

I promise that I never suggested you have great ideas.

urban elitist on January 2, 2012 at 5:32 PM

Which country did socialism well?
spiritof61 on January 2, 2012 at 3:30 PM

Someone please answer the question …

burrata on January 2, 2012 at 5:46 PM

Because sometimes other countries do things better than we do. Jeez — forget health care, the interstate highway system was inspired by Germany, and pizza came over with the Italians.

The founders of the USA, of course, looked to England for their philosophy and common la and many of the basic principles of our democracy.

urban elitist on January 2, 2012 at 3:04 PM

The only thing the founders looked to England for was to get away from their laws. How can we forget healthcare when this what the thread is about? The inspiration for the USA interstate system came from the WWII and the need to transport goods faster. Germany’s had some to do with design of a highway however was not the inspiration.

Wade on January 2, 2012 at 5:50 PM

Someone please answer the question …

burrata on January 2, 2012 at 5:46 PM

Be glad to answer, none.

Wade on January 2, 2012 at 5:51 PM

America’s affluence has always marched hand in hand with effective government. Our most broadly affluent years were the post WWII triumph of the New Deal, the rise of unions and expansion of civil rights. Reagan had a good 8 years, but so did Clinton. Infrastructure, education, a safety net…these support and encourage entrepreneurs.

urban elitist on January 2, 2012 at 4:20 PM

those affluent years were built off the industrial revolution that was unleashed in the 19th century, not the 20th. also the things that you cite such a unions are leading the ruination of California. Civil rights came despite progressive attempts at forced sterilization, hows that for progress. Also the safety net allows for more people to slack off knowing that others will care for them.
Dude you are very articulate with the written word, my weak point, but your analysis is off. You cite a period and say all that they had great was result of that period, i.e. citation above. What you miss is that cause and effect, and the wealth of the mid and 20th century came from a PRIOR century of hard working AMERICANS AND THE INFLUX OF INVENTIONS THAT OUR PAST OPEN SYSTEM ALLOWED FOR. The freest that any people who were more able to decide their fate without gov intervention was the second half of the 19th century, primarily in the west. For example the creation of Hollywood was a escape from gov regulation, though they were patent violations.
one more point

America’s affluence has always marched hand in hand with effective government

whose definition of effective gov is the deal breaker of this statement. was the extension of the great depression under Hoover and FDR, both progressives and Keynesians, considered effective gov or the rise in the roaring twenties under the minimalist Calvin Coolidge

19thgenamerican on January 2, 2012 at 5:52 PM

Someone please answer the question …

burrata on January 2, 2012 at 5:46 PM

my research so far points to German minds but any enlightenment would be appreciated.

19thgenamerican on January 2, 2012 at 5:54 PM

The sixth vote will be Kennedy, who will use Scalia’s vote as cover and avoid the major flak he would take if he was the fifth vote.

American freedom and liberty will then be circling the drain.

Horace on January 2, 2012 at 3:03 PM

I am not so certain about Kennedy, who has stated he won’t leave the bench as long as obaka is POTUS…

ladyingray on January 2, 2012 at 5:56 PM

As for which system we should model, Germany, France, Finland etc all have well functioning healthcare systems.

libfreeordie

As for which system we should model, Germany, France, Finland etc all have well functioning healthcare systems.

libfreeordie

Wade on January 2, 2012 at 5:56 PM

Roberts is right enough that no one can demand Kagan recuse herself. But since our only recourse is to say repeatedly that Kagan should recuse herself, I can’t say I agree that we should back off of it.

She was involved in the partisan push for the law, so how can it be fair that she gets to sit in judgement on that law?

tom on January 2, 2012 at 6:15 PM

Declining middle class incomes, two botched wars, massive deficits, 9/11, the financial collapse? Those were the good old days.

American health care costs twice as much and covers fewer people than virtually any other system in the affluent world. Pretending otherwise is simply stupid. And, have you ever dealt with an HMO?

urban elitist

Two botched wars? You mean obama lied when he claimed victory in Iraq? The Taliban control Afghanistan? Declining middle class incomes-thanks to the dems destruction of the economy and small businesses. 9/11? The dems made it very easy for the terrorists to successfully carry it out. Financial collapse? Yes, the dems were neck deep in helping it to happen thanks to their social engineering and greed for campaign contributions.

Medical care? America has the best in the world. It’s why people from countries with socialized medicine come here for care. Not to mention how terrible socialized medicine is elsewhere. I guess you think you’d be immune from the excessive wait times to see an MD or the substandard care under such a system. Again, you are immune from reality.

You are little more than a leftist parrot unable to think for itself. You are quite pathetic and not much of a challenge.

Hard Right on January 2, 2012 at 6:19 PM

I love America.

urban elitist on January 2, 2012 at 5:00 PM

No, you clearly don’t. You are an America-hater like the rest of the left who want to “fundamentally transform” this nation into something that it never was and never was meant to be – in fact, that it was set up specifically NOT to be.

You love America the same way the rest of the leftist loons love the American flag … today – even though they generally only get their kicks out of burning it. Do you idiots think that you fool anyone with a brain? You only fool the idiot in the dem party. Well, you fool the few useful idiots of the party. The rest of the dems and the left know that they hate America. They hate America about the same as they hate their families and themselves, which is why the left is always out to destroy everything familiar. You folks are demented. Truly.

Go away. This nation is not the place for you or your ilk. Go fundamentally transform some other place. Go burden some other nation with your worthless existence. You do nothing but raise entropy.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 2, 2012 at 6:26 PM

I love America.

urban elitist on January 2, 2012 at 5:00 PM

Like Ike Turner loved Tina…

Hard Right on January 2, 2012 at 6:28 PM

“our founders did look for inspiration beyond our borders”

Well, yeah, urban elitist. But, they really had no choice. Either look beyond the borders, or back in time, which is what they actually did, or adopt the form of “government used by the Abenaki or Peqot Indian tribes.

Also, “the pursuit of happiness” used by Jefferson and Locke, does not mean, and did not mean to them, what it means to most people now.

To Aristotle, it meant that practice of virtues leading to full potential, not the hedonistic “I got a new TV on Black Friday” happiness we perceive today.

Horace on January 2, 2012 at 7:06 PM

Keegan, by lying to the Senate in her confirmation hearings, has already demonstrated her level of integrity.

What say you about her character and fitness now John?

Mr. Grump on January 2, 2012 at 8:31 PM

Keegan, by lying to the Senate in her confirmation hearings, has already demonstrated her level of integrity.

What say you about her character and fitness now John?

Mr. Grump on January 2, 2012 at 8:31 PM

Sorry, I meant Kagan. That’s what I get for trusting my memory, even for a minute.

Mr. Grump on January 2, 2012 at 9:22 PM

I think Robert’s words here are a classic case of “careful writing,” writing between the lines that which may not be stated directly.

“I have complete confidence in the capability of my colleagues to determine when recusal is warranted,” [because] “They are jurists of exceptional integrity and experience [to the extent that] whose [their] character and fitness have been examined through a rigorous appointment and confirmation process.”

He means, in other words, “I’m letting you know I’m speaking specifically about Kagan, because I mentioned experience, and she had none, as a judge, before her confirmation. I’m further intimating that, in my opinion, she has as much integrity as she has experience. I mentioned her appointment and confirmation process as proof of her character and fitness, but alas, since her appointment and confirmation process were pure political theater that, if anything, were intended to conceal her utter lack of qualifications for the court, what was proven was that she is unfit and lacking in character. It follows from this that I have no doubt that she has neither the judgement nor the intergrity to determine when recusal is warranted, that I think she should recuse, but am certain she will not.”

smellthecoffee on January 2, 2012 at 9:44 PM

So how did you form your opinion about the Cuban system, then? Just curious.

Del Dolemonte on January 2, 2012 at 4:33 PM

I have a friend who’s been to Cuba several times and keeps up on this sort of thing, and he’s mentioned it. I’ve also read about it — Cuba’s trading doctors for oil in Venezuela, among other things.

Well, that’s a start. But do you base your knowledge on just those 2 sources, or were there other sources as well? Like the Michael Moore Movie?

Del Dolemonte on January 3, 2012 at 12:04 AM

I’m very disappointed in Chief Justice Roberts. He knows very well that Kagan was involved in the defense preparations for Obummercare and there are emails that prove it. He should be leaning very hard on Kagan to recuse herself.

I wish the House would have the guts to impeach Kagan for not recusing herself but we all know they won’t. I think that Kagan sitting on the Obummercare case brings into question the integrity of the whole Supreme Court and its decisions.

sherrimae on January 3, 2012 at 1:03 AM

As for which system we should model, Germany, France, Finland etc all have well functioning healthcare systems.

libfreeordie on January 2, 2012

Been there, lived there, you’re 100% wrong.

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on January 3, 2012 at 12:14 PM

American health care costs twice as much and covers fewer people than virtually any other system in the affluent world. Pretending otherwise is simply stupid. And, have you ever dealt with an HMO?

urban elitist on January 2, 2012 at 4:04 PM

American health care is at least twice as good as any other system in the affluent world. Name one other system in the affluent world that cares for 300 million people. Just one. 2/3rds of hospitals in the Soviet Union, outside of Moscow, didn’t even have running water at the end of the cold war. That was 1989, not 1917.

And I have dealt with an HMO. Kaiser in California may have had a bad reputation, but I had no complaints. The wait times for the emergency room were no worse that I had at other ERs, and I could get a regular doctor appointment in less than a week (just like now, post-Kaiser). Your talking points lack originality and expose you as nothing more than a well-spoken parrot. Oh, and you’re a big stupid-head too!

runawayyyy on January 3, 2012 at 3:10 PM

I sort of agree with Roberts on this. Better to have faith in the system than to assume the worst, especially when it really does look like the worst is liable to happen.

I mean, the Republicans fought (or wanted to fight) against Sotomayor, and having read some of her opinions, I’m rather pleased with the outcome of her appointment. She won’t put up with your activist crap and seems more than knowledgeable on how the law should be applied. Kagan as well has been much less of a leftist than the Democrats were hoping, but I wouldn’t trust her over Sotomayor any day of the week. She’s an academic, not a judge, and her opinion, or whichever one she concurs with, will show that.

Best case scenario, she votes against it to keep her judicial credibility within the pale.

mintycrys on January 3, 2012 at 3:48 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3