SCOTUS Healthcare Debate: Argumentation is Clear: Constitution vs. Desired Outcomes
It's truly remarkable. Regardless of what your personal or ideological feelings are about ObamaCare's mandate and overall plan, there is no denying that the arguments among the Justices in this article: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jVI-5FrT9rnC_jcuPxybOarMs47w?docId=00c0c0d18d914f6a80d3a6d43431c7c3 make it clear that "constitutional law" is not the point of debate between the factions. In fact, constitutional law is ONE SIDE'S argument while the other side's argument is merely dissatisfaction with the current system and how the current mandate is an integral part of an attempt to improve it....law be damned.
It really is that simple. The liberal Justices, if you read into it, are not making any legal arguments in favor of upholding the law. Skim through the article and look at what they say. They simply reassert the economic rationale behind the law. But that's not the job of the SCOTUS. They aren't there to advocate for whatever research or rationale went into any law. We can make plenty of arguments based on whatever rationale we want. If it's unconstitutional, it's unconstitutional. There's a rationale behind sterilizing criminals or making a minimum household income to have children or whatever idea you can come up with. So what? It's unconstitutional. So it's moot.
The Justices are there to interpret whether laws are constitutional. PERIOD. The old saying about "legislating from the bench" is clear to see here. If one is to take the structure and purpose of the 3 branch system at face value, these Liberal Justices are clearly making a joke of it all with their arguments.
Oddly enough, a single-payer system is probably NOT unconstitutional for the simple and unambiguous reason that Congress has the power to impose taxes. Go figure.
Submitted by John on Tue, 2012-03-27 17:21
-->
- John's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Tags:
Comments :
that is exactly the argument I was making
to my liberal coworker today. All he had was that the liberal justices view of the world is that the government is supposed to take care of the little guy and their constitutional views come from that. He said that is the spirit of constitution. So I asked him if the "spirit" of constitution trumped the constitution itself and he wasn't sure. He didn't care that liberal justices were not even trying to argue the constitutionality of the law.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Yes.
I find what they are doing very irksome. It's genuinely disturbing to see some of the highest judges in all the land making non-legal/non-constitution based arguments to justify a new law. That's not their job. Their job is to rule on constitutionality. Period.
I suppose you'd consider
a "rational basis" test to be a legal-based argument? So now how do you determine whether clause X meets test Y? How's this: Georgia passes a law banning the wearing of hoodies at polling places, on the grounds that the partial concealement intimidates other voters and makes them feel threatened.
Rational? Maybe. Doubtless you could find someone to testify to that effect. If hoodies are too absurd, how about baseball bats? Swords? I'd hope a judge would want to consult some numbers as to the frequency of these incidents, or maybe a psychological study on intimidating factors. Point is, you get away from pure legal reasoning very quickly in almost every real-life situation. The law itself cannot be artifically severed from its field of application.
My fundamental point is that most often, what see is as non-legal/activist reasoning is simply a different means of interpreting the law/constitution as it is written.
I disagree
Your hypothetical law is as absurd to me as it is to you and it doesn't pass the muster in any constitutional sense. I see no debate on legal grounds. I see no more room for blurring the law in that hoodie argument than I see in the mandate argument.
You cannot avoid
broadening the scope of inquiry into areas you would probably define as non-legal.
Forget the hoodies. All firearms banned within 200 yards of polling places. Second amendment violation! But wait, what if there are documented shootings near minority precincts? Does it matter if there have been three incidents, or thousands? What if the shootings occured in a high-crime area where these incidents are common? What if the law were actually passed by nefarious Democrats trying to suppress the hunter vote?
I don't see where, if anywhere, the critical questions cross from "legal" into "non-legal" territory.
The firearm argument
simply nips at the edges on circumstances and situations. It doesn't say anything in the absolute.
See here's the mistake in reasoning
that Conservatives (Scalia being the most annoying of them) make all the time. Your liberal coworker is probably too conditioned by the right's babble about "originalism" to see it.
There is no "constitution itself". There is no single, true, originalist meaning to any article or amendment though some are of course more narrowly defined than others. The framers did this deliberately because they knew they couldn't forsee every eventuality. Example: "provide for the general welfare" (Art. I Sect. VIII) can be construed to mean almost anything. One could make a legally consistent argument defending infanticide as being good for the general welfare. The boundaries and meaning of the term must be defined by statues, case law, and yes, popular sentiment.
What is a moderate interpretation of the text? Halfway between what it really means and what you'd like it to mean?
Jackass. Tell me Mr. Associate Justice, what does it really mean? His use of a superlative alone is a sign of unfounded arrogance. Of course he won't let himself be pinned down, because he'd be subject to the same snide attacks he likes to dish out to his colleagues and appellants.
Scalia's quotes remind me of a lecture I gave to grade 10 students on the fundamentals of nuclear power. One little twerp kept trying to interrupt my explanation of energy-mass conversion with "yes but how can you be sure that all of this is really true?", as if the value of a scientific theory lays not in its ability to explain and predict natural phenomena, but some fundamental Essence of Veracity that can never be questioned.
I'd say government taking care of the little guy is as good a guiding principle as any in interpreting the constitution, and better than most. Little guys tend to need more help than big guys in obtaining equal protection.
Incidentally, it's up to the defendants, not the "liberal" justices, to argue whether the law is constitutional.
You're being too simple and loosey-goosey about it
Nobody involved in this debate is talking about the phrase "provide for the general welfare" as grounds for the law. If that argument held any weight, the Admin's Lawyer would be using it and he isn't. He's actually getting pummeled for the very reasons that I discussed. And, more to the point of the discussion, the liberal Justices aren't making any legal arguments either....on the those grounds or any other grounds. And I find that disturbing since that's their job.
Of course general warfare
is a pretty weak justification for arguing the law. My point is not that that's what the Admin should be arguing. What I mean is that your distinction between legal and non-legal is artificial and selective. The conservative bloc uses tortured conjecture to obtain their desired outcome just as often if not more than the liberal one.
Verrelli got deservedly pummeled, but not because his arguments weren't "legal". He was simply unprepared for the obvious challenge of distinguishing between health insurance purchases and other purchases.
Show me some examples of reasoning by the liberal bloc you consider to be non-legal and I'll be happy to debate the particulars. I haven't read that Breyer or whoever is claiming the law should be upheld simply because he thinks it's good policy or because he wants to ensure sick people.
I have no patience with those who claim to be strictly following the law and then concur with Citizens United or worse, Bush v. Gore (I don't know whether you personally agree with either, but they sure as hell show no SCOTUS justice has a monopoly on originalism).
It's the justices' job to make legal arguments? I thought that was the plaintiff's and the defendant's, at least during oral arguments. The justices make rulings and opinions.
Ummm
if you're making a commerce clause argument, of course you're going to discuss economic rationales. And your last para gives the game away.
No game
It's the truth. This is a legal point, nothing else.
I did more than skim, I read.
Skim through the article and look at what they say. They simply reassert the economic rationale behind the law.
OK there's no polite way to say this: you're wrong. There is one question by Breyer, one question and two statements by Ginsburg quoted in your article. Breyer is using the exact same rhetorical tactic (absurd inference) as Scalia. Vaccination vs. the car purchase mandate. Are both of them using "legal arguments"? Is neither? Breyer is obviously using an example of a coercive federal law that would pass the compelling state interest test. Carvin preferred to give the nonsensical answer to getting boxed in, but that doesn't matter. Ginsburg sidestepped the absurdity about mandated car purchases and tried to make a critical distinction between health and cars, esentially applying a rational basis test. Ginsburg is not trying to claim the law is more efficient, humane, or economical. Identifying indivuduals who would be harmed (even economically) by the law being struck down seems plenty legal to me.
I don't like the mandate; I'm not even sure it should withstand the constitutional challenge. What I'm not doing is whining that those likely to support it aren't playing by the rules.
Your tone is off.
But it gave me a good grin
Too blunt?
How about "your point is too simple and loosey-goosey"?
Since you didn't bother to substantiate your legal vs non-legal reasoning, I suppose there's no point in continuing this. Toodles.
Not too blunt
just too nasty.
dammit
Is it time to start banning people here for the tone!? ;) Hehe like kicking people off the almost deserted island...
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
In order to rule on the constitutionality of the issue,
...the justices would legitimately need to probe the nature of the health care market. To do this, they may make comments or ask questions that may seem to support some rationale for the law, but their role in the oral arguments is really to elicit arguments from the advocates, and they should have full latitude in how they go about that. Remember, what the justices say at this point is not their official opinion. If Ginsburg or one of the liberal justices were to write the majority or dissenting opinion and it concentrated on the rationale for the law without arguing the constitutionality of it, then you would have a valid point.
And it would probably be a mistake to make an opinion off of the very few snippets in that article-- small sample size.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Obama firing shots across the court's bow.
Dangerous business. What little I have heard from Obama's mouth in news clips does nothing to help his cause if you really listen to what he saying.
Just a minor gaffe by the prez.
He misspoke, and has since clarified what he meant. When you misspeak, I suppose you deserve to get dinged for it, but like in so many other instances there is a lot of ginned up outrage here. What Obama said is hardly "dangerous business". He wants the law upheld, and why not? He worked hard and paid a big political price to get it passed. What bullet has he shot across the Supreme Court's bow? He has no bullet to shoot where the Supreme Court is concerned. He cannot remove them from their seats, and if they do rule that the law is unconstitutional, the law is wiped out, there's nothing Obama can do about it.
The mandate is not obviously constitutional or unconstitutional on its face-- there is no clause in the constitution that directly speaks to it one way or another. So any ruling on the constitutionality of this law requires a good deal of interpretation. You may find one side's interpretation more convincing than the other, and that is fine, but let's not be naive here-- it's the justices, not the Constitution, that will overrule or not overrule this law. And those justices are not entirely non-political, and therefore the fact that it's likely that the vote on this law will break exactly on the partisan lines based on which party nominated each justice is not a coincidence.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Ever the apologist ;-)
The President decides to speak on something. Let's break it down:
> It's his signature piece of legislation. He spent a lot of political capital to make it happen and has a vested interest in it not being overturned.
> His claim to expertise for the job of President was in constitutional law. He did not have governmental executive experience, nor any private sector executive experience, and very limited legislative experience, but he was regarded as an "expert" in constitutional law, given his credentials.
> He goes on national television to speak in support of his initiative, knowing full well that his words would be scrutinized.
> He chooses to speak in unqualified and, as many have said, quite bizarrely incorrect superlatives ("unprecedented" "majority" etc.)
And we're supposed to react with "eh, it was an honest mistake, it happens"?
Please.
I think it showed that Obama fits the "say anything" mold. Nothing that comes out of his mouth should be deemed to be anything other than pure politicking. He will exaggerate, obfuscate, and, quite frankly, lie, if that's what it takes. Unless of course you expect me to believe he doesn't know the definition of "unprecedented" and "majority"?
YMWV, of course.
Edit: Rereading this, the last bit might sound harsher than I mean. I am not implying that the President is intentionally duping anyone, or that his intentions are evil. It seems more that it's his nature not to have strong principals, and therefore he doesn't really compare today's speech with yesterday's and will use whatever words he thinks will elicit the desired political effect. He has been just a mediocre pol, unfortunately, when what we needed was a leader.
His gaffe was that he left out a word.
Ever so troubling! He's since clarified what he meant, explaining in what respect overturning this law would be unprecedented. And neither you nor John have explained why what he said was "dangerous stuff" to begin with.
But no, because Obama misspoke, we must ramble on about how Obama is unprincipled, how he lies, how he is inexperienced, mediocre, and not a leader, etc. etc. etc. Since he misspoke about a constitutional law issue, his whole grasp of constitutional law must now be a fraud, etc. etc. etc. Oh and let's not forget that Obama thinks there are 57 states!
I think you better tune into Fox News and see what other troubling stuff Obama has said :-p
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
See
No actual rebuttal, nor even acknowledgement that a reasonable person could interpret his actions in that way, nor even an attempt to explain why a constitutional scholar might choose misleading hyperbole and exaggeration in his first public speech on his key legislation . Just personal attacks and stereotyping. Par for the course. The leader is under attack! We must defend!
over at dKos deserves your attention. This comment 
sums it up pretty well
This slavish devotion to a tribe. So unworthy of you, skymutt.
This diary
Progressives, you know you are being conned and grifted when the exact
same policies that were used before to rightfully demonify the "other"-
endless war, tax cuts for the wealthy, protection of the perpetrators of
war crimes and torture and the largest financial fraud in the world's
history, the breakneck erosion of civil liberties and imposition of a
secret Extra-constitutional security state, the unprecedented
persecution of ethical whistleblowers etc. etc. etc.- are suddenly
forgotten as the tribal head changes and are replaced with smug and
self-congratulatory partisan finger pointing.
The first step to recovery is to admit you have a problem ......
No problems here.
Your conclusion in your previous statement is that "Obama fits the say anything mold", that "He will exaggerate, obfuscate, and, quite frankly, lie, if that's what it takes", that he "will use whatever words he thinks will elicit the desired political effect", and therefore "nothing that comes out of his mouth should be deemed to be anything other than pure politicking."
As your sole evidence for this, you refer to one sentence in Obama's statement: "I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically-elected Congress."
Further, you did not even acknowledge that Obama has since clarified his point, saying "Let me be very specific. We have not seen a Court overturn a law that was passed by Congress on an economic issue, like health care, that I think most people would clearly consider commerce — a law like that has not been overturned at least since Lochner. Right? So we’re going back to the ‘30s, pre-New Deal.
“And the point I was making is that the Supreme Court is the final say on our Constitution and our laws, and all of us have to respect it, but it’s precisely because of that extraordinary power that the Court has traditionally exercised significant restraint and deference to our duly elected legislature, our Congress. And so the burden is on those who would overturn a law like this."
So Obama has clarified what he meant when he said "unprecedented", at the very least. Unprecedented in the last century. Unprecedented in modern times. But you did not even acknowledge the clarification.
You also ignored my challenge to explain why Obama's statement is "dangerous business". Why is this statement by Obama damaging to the country? Seems a simple question to answer, if you believe it to be so.
And then, finally, you choose to call me an apologist because I didn't reach the same sweeping negative conclusions about Obama's entire presidency over one arguably inaccurate sentence which he has since clarified and which nobody has made an argument for why the statement is even significant, much less damaging. You're the one that is claiming that no reasonable person can come to conclusions other than your own, even though you have not provided any support for your claims.
Not sure what your point is re: that DailyKos diary, you'll have to explain that. Ironic, though, that you'd complain about hyperbole and then in the same post laud a comment that talks about "endless wars" when the Obama administraion has ended one war and is winding down the other (and didn't start either one), talks about the "breakneck erosion of civil liberties" under Obama (a laughably hyperbolic statement), talks about "tax cuts for the wealthy"-- when, 1.) it was merely an extension of the existing tax policy for two years, 2.) if Obama had not extended them, everybody's taxes would have been raised, which likely would have had dire consequences given the weak economy, AND 3.) Obama got the payroll tax cut (which benefits the non-wealthy) and other concessions like an extension of unemployment benefits (which benefits the non-wealthy) in the compromise.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
The debate isn't whether Health Care is "commerce".
The debate is whether Congress can mandate people to buy health insurance. This goes beyond the vague and abused notion of regulating interstate commerce and Obama knows that. His lawyer also knows that, which is why he hasn't deferred to the commerce clause in defending the law.
Not sure what you mean
The administration's lawyer most certainly did defend the law under the commerce clause. That is the question before the court, the subject matter for the government briefs, and that was the subject of the day two oral arguments-- read the transcript, the word "commerce" was used 149 times, and the phrase "commerce clause" was used 25 times, including numerous times by the administration's lawyer. So I'm not sure what exactly you are talking about when you say that the administrations lawyer "hasn't deferred to the commerce clause in defending the law".
As far as precedent goes, the precedent is that all kinds of regulations have been successfully defended under the commerce clause in cases before the Supreme Court, and precedence is a cornerstone of the law, whether it is convenient for your point of view in this case or not. I am really not sure why Obama is so out of line for mererly making an argument that precedence seems to favor upholding the law here, when the administration's lawyer was making similar arguments before the court.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Then I misspoke
The arguments I have seen (both from the admin's lawyers as well as the sympathetic justices) have been primarily based in the economic rationale of the mandate as the crucial cog in how it affects the health care market rather than the constitutionality of it.
By Mill's definition, I'm the liberal ;-)
I thought I laid out my logic pretty clearly in my post, but I'll go through it again, maybe from your POV, in hopes the contrast is clear. Basically, what I hear you saying is----
strays into I/P territory, but his point about liberals supports my conjecture:
His choice of words was an unintentional gaffe, which he clarified later. Despite knowing that this was an important speech, he either delegated the speech writing or didn't care enough to proofread it to make sure it actually said what he meant to say, and he didn't even notice *during* the speech that clarification might be needed. In other words, he's just horrid at speaking and at knowing when a speech is actually important enough to get right the first time, and we should just overlook that. A constitutional scholar can't be expected to know how words like "unprecedented" and "strong majority" might be interpreted by his audience when he is discussing his signature piece of legislation and the role of the court, nor should we expect him to be on the ball enough to figure that out as he's delivering the speech and adapt it accordingly.
I set the standards bar a bit higher than that. In my opinion, someone giving a good speech needs to get three things right: the subject matter (needs to be factual and accurate), his audience (the speech needs to be written in such a way that it conveys the desired information in a way the audience can understand it), and the purpose or goal (is the speech persuasive in the way the giver intends). On all three, Obama failed. IMHO.
For both of us, the question is, why did he fail? Is he just dumb? unprepared? unserious? Choose your synonym, but that seems to be your answer set. Some flavor of "he goofed".
Me, I tend to rate his intelligence higher than that. I think he intended to speak every word he said. I think he choose those words with intention. And I think that intention reveals a lot. To tie into the words I used before:
He exaggerates and obfuscates: "unprecedented"
He lies: "strong majority"
And RE the dangerous comment. I didn't say that. John did. You'll have to ask him to clarify that.
And I'm not saying it's the only interpretation: I'm not the one challenging your POV. You are challenging mine, saying that there is only one way to interpret this, and anything else must be rambling courtesy of Fox News.
That's why I'm calling you an apologist and recommended the dKos link. You refuse to give any other POV serious credence, because of your loyalty to the party. The dKos link talks a lot about *why* that's happening among Democrats.
Here's another description, bold is mine. The entire article
The ability to appreciate the merits of the other side of a question,
John Stuart Mill asserted in his 1859 classic, “On Liberty,” is a
hallmark of the liberal spirit.
[snip]
Even President Obama got in on the act, declaring that holding the
individual mandate unconstitutional “would be an unprecedented,
extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong
majority of a democratically elected Congress.” Leaving aside that the
president had his facts wrong (the now-unpopular legislation passed
Congress narrowly, in a contentious, party-line vote that helped
Democrats lose the House in 2010), the step would be neither
unprecedented nor extraordinary. The Supreme Court’s power to strike
down congressional acts repugnant to the Constitution was explained by
Alexander Hamilton in "Federalist 78"; affirmed by the Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison
in 1803; and, though particular exercises of it are always criticized
by the losing side, it is all-but-universally regarded as a central
function of the court.
The president’s efforts to walk back his remarks the next day by
insisting that he was referring only to post-New Deal cases that dealt
with economics or commerce did not change the fundamental point. The
president had joined the progressive chorus in insisting that willful
and rank judicial activism would be the only conceivable explanation of
an adverse ruling by the court.
[snip]
The failure to acknowledge any merit whatsoever to the conservative
case against the individual mandate exhibits a breathtaking
unfamiliarity with 30 years of conservative constitutional thought
concerning the architecture of limited government. What’s more, it
bespeaks a stunning failure of the liberal imagination.
I almost never use the the word "liberal" for the left
anymore. And if I do catch myself saying or typing it, I correct it. I prefer Social Democrat. It's more accurate. There's very little that is liberal in the Social Democratic world view....at least no more than in the modern conservative view for the most part.
And I'm not saying it's
Let's get your facts straight here-- you called me an apoogist first, right off the bat, before I had said any of that stuff to you. So, no, unless you have ESP, you didn't call me an apologist because I had challenged the legitimacy of your opinion or because of my Fox News crack or anything else I had said about your opinion.
Is this where I should call your comment a lie and ramble on about how this one inaccurate statement shows that you have no principles, will say anything, and are a mediocre blogger?
I fully unserstand that it was John that made the "dangerous stuff" comment. But the word "dangerous" has a pretty plain meaning that I think we can all understand. I did ask him to explain himself, and he didn't do it. Anyway, now I'm asking you: do you agree with John that Obama's statements about the Supreme Court were dangerous, yes or no? If yes, in what way were Obama's statements about the Supreme Court dangerous?
You didn't hear me saying any of that stuff, except the first sentence. A gaffe is a gaffe. I have no idea why he made the gaffe, but there could be any of a number of explanations beyond your narrow and false choice of "he either delegated the speech writing or didn't care enough to proofread it to make sure it actually said what he meant to say, and he didn't even notice *during* the speech that clarification might be needed." This was not even a formal speech of the type that is planned weeks in advance and written out and recited word for word. It was simply remarks made by the president, likely on short notice with little prearation.
The "strong majority" thing is hardly even worth talking about. The reasonable assumption is that Obama was referring to the Senate vote, in which the bill got a 60 vote majority in order to avoid a filibuster. That is at least arguably a "strong majority". It is certainly more than a majority, and it is fair to call it such. Was Obama as precise as he could have been, given that the bill passed in the House only with a mere majority? No, I disagree with your characterization that is is a "lie", and besides that, it's just not really all that significant.
Again, you're presenting more false choices. Yes, I think that by far the most likely explanation is that he simply made an error, but that does not in any way imply that I rate his intelligence lower because he made an error. All of us make errors, regardless of how intelligent we are. Neither do I have to conclude that Obama is dumb, unprepared, or unserious because he made an error.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
"Dangerous business"
I'll explain here. When I say dangerous business, I mean that challenging the Supreme Court in the manner he did will piss a lot of people off who otherwise wouldn't be pissed off. It adds sympathy to the SCOTUS...which is counter-productive to his efforts and gives a lot of ammo both to current opponents and future writers of history. There's nothing net positive that comes from such action.
And sure enough, approval ratings for the Supremes took positive jolt following the scuffles with Obama and his lawers. Bottom line, giving the appearance of bullying the court (nevermind actually doing it) will rankle a lot of people and it's tough for him to improve his position in doing so. Some people still believe in the quaint idea of three equal branches of government regardless of their views. And others like me, take it even more harshly for very obvious reasons...and no matter which party is doing it.
Thing is, though, that I'm sure you could surmise this quite easily without my having to spell it out. Asking for explanations seems more academic and procedural than substantive.
The clarification was more necessary than I thought.
What you meant was entirely different from what I had guessed you meant. Given the context of your statement-- which included the statement that Obama was "firing shots across the court's bow"-- I thought that you were saying that Obama's statements were somehow dangerous to the balance of power or something along those lines-- not merely dangerous to Obama politically. That's why I brought up the fact that the president really can't touch the Supreme Court justices and therefore has no power to actually bully them. Heck, I can agree with you on this being dangerous to Obama politically-- sure, he was taking the political risk of appearing to be a bully, and he may have actually incurred some political damage. My opnion, however, is that what he said was well within reasonable bounds of advocacy for his views.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
and my opinion is...
that Obama went too far in challenging the court in the manner that he did. It's ugly and gives the appearance of a latent tyrannical tendency brewing beneath the surface of this office. I hate it. I absolutely hate it. I want politicians humbled, frightened and intimidated into quasi-inaction. I want them to fear even getting near their boundaries. I wish more people felt the same way.
Obligatory and slightly off topic Rush reference ....
Mostly in honor of their announcement
of a new album. Sounds like it will be a story-based one, akin to 2112. Notice where the clock hands stop ;-)
But, these 1977 lyrics ring true today and echo your sentiments. The founding generations understood the danger of kings---knowledge we seem to have lost.....
When they turn the pages of history
When these days have passed long ago
Will they read of us with sadness
For the seeds that we let grow
We turned our gaze
From the castles in the distance
Eyes cast down
On the path of least resistance......
Scheming demons
Dressed in kingly guise
Beating down the multitude
And scoffing at the wise
Can't we raise our eyes
And make a start
Can't we find the minds
To lead us closer to the Heart.....
very good.
But as I read such lyrics, I am always reminded of the similar root between classical liberalism and modern liberalism (social democracy). The various sentiments that motivate both are either the same or similar but the courses of action that spring forth from them are very different.
The French really tried to make it work
The struggles of the French aren't as well studied as they should be. That's an excellent synopsis of some key events. I am no expert, but I would bet there are parallels in Mexican history as well. Mexico essentially started as the USA did, same sort of constitution at about the same time, yet we see where they ended up.
I think that's why the song was called Farewell to Kings, plural. Farewell to the idea that something exists that can "perform the magic" as it were---whether that be conquer an enemy, make the trains run on time, or allocate resources fairly among many. Tension between the individual and the group is eternal and universal; to expect a savior, whether he be a man or a committee (or a 2700 page honker of a bill), is to put yourself at the mercy of those who would gladly don the cloaks of kings. Power corrupts even the most upright of men. Another simple truth we used to know. Although, honestly, these days, we seem to worship corruption more than fear it. I blame tribalism ;-)
Mostly, though, I was just excited by the news of the new album and just couldn't resist a shout out for my favorite band.
It does play into your post on the Buffett rule, though, this idea of kings. I plan to comment, but today might not be the day. Good thing this is a slow blog.
And Bastiat is a virtual unknown in France
My friends in France...learned people who know about their history...had never heard of him AT ALL. It's quite sad.
In all fairness,
this is where I have to wholeheartedly disagree:
Be fair, don't just claim to be fair.
You've made negative claims about the liberal justices on the Supreme Court based on snippets from news articles that represent perhaps 1% of what was said in oral arguments, and applauded the conservative justices based on the same. You've made characterizations about the administration's arguments without bothering to look at them first. Neither of these things are signatures of fairness in my opinion.
Now, I know we are all busy people here and you may not have the time or the inclination to put a lot of time into each and every thing you say, but frankly, the fairness charge rings a little hollow in this thread coming from either of you. In this thread, neither of you have given me much reason to believe that your opinions are particularly well informed or considered.
Furthermore, my general philosophy includes giving people the benefit of the doubt, with the corollary that the greater burden in an argument falls on the side that is saying something negative about a person. From my perspective, neither of you is coming close to meeting your burden here.
If I am erring on the side of being charitable to Obama, so be it-- better that than to wrongly think of him an unprincipled mediocre liar who will say anything. If he is those things, then I am wrong. But I just don't see evidence of that, in this case or in his overall record, and neither you nor PF has made a strong argument for your point of view.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
I'll take that all in stride
It doesn't bother me. See things how you wish. However:
Reading comprehension
OK, would this minor punctuation change have clarified the sentence to your liking?
"That's why I'm calling you an apologist and recommended the dKos link: you refuse to give any other POV serious credence, because of your loyalty to the party"
Or we could drop to the word-definition level: An apologist is defined as one who speaks in defense of a faith, cause, or institution. Apologists generally never admit that other POVs have value, since they prefer to use their intellect to find words that provide reasonable justification for the actions of whatever institution they identify with.
An apologist doesn't critically question his own side: his sole purpose is to clarify, explain and justify what his side has said or done. Which you have done, in every comment so far. You have not given any credence to any other POV. You have in fact stated emphatically that "it was a minor gaffe" and anyone bothered by it is suffering from "ginned up outrage," a very dismissive remark intended to demean others' opinions as trite and not based on reason. You have not offered any reasoned support as to why a "minor gaffe" is acceptable and un-contestable for public remarks upon a serious bit of legislative accomplishment.
Well, what I am saying is I don't believe it's a minor gaffe, and my outrage isn't "ginned up" by, er, Fox News, as you later implied. I have listed my reasons, twice now, and they don't need repeating. You don't have to agree with them.
I can only comprehend what you write.
There was no possible alternative meaning to what you wrote, as written. If you are claiming that you did not punctuate properly, and therefore what you wrote did not match what you meant, then fine-- but the error is yours, not mine. Have some accountability-- do not act like my interpretation was unreasonable.
The rest of it gets a big meh from me. Nobody's entitled to have any particular opinion "valued". You seem to be fine with implying that I am an apologist not just here, but overall ("Ever the apologist"), and yet you are complaining that I was "dismissive", when my dismissiveness here was limited to this topic and wasn't even directed at you or your views, but rather the political outrage shown by the usual suspects on the right. Are you denying that there was any ginned up outrage over this?
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Outrage?
Our media? Gin up outrage? Surely you jest.
Of course the circus is in full swing. (And if I have to actually tell you that first line was sardonic then we have zero chance of learning to communicate.)
But that doesn't mean than someone who expresses an opinion contrary to yours has had their outrage ginned by said media machine. Especially here on this blog.
And I take back the title of my last comment as inappropriate. Dental visits tend to mess up one's day.
Clarification--
When I said that there was "ginned up outrage here", what I meant by "here" was "in this situation", not "here on Swordscrossed". If a misunderstanding over that is what has sparked this spat, then I sincerely apologize for the confusion.
Take care, hope your teeth recover soon. My only excuse for my edginess is perhaps fear that Obama will lose.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Fear that he'll lose what?
The election? Unlikely and it doesn't matter much either way in my opinion.
Fear that Obama will lose the election.
Obamacare getting struck down is not something I fear. Actually, the Supreme Court decision I dread is First American v. Edwards-- it's a lousy case that was picked in the stead of far more compelling cases in order to deliver what will seem to be a sensible decision that will in actuality further enable corrupt practices in the settlement services industry and be one more nail in the coffin of the independents in the industry. The decision I believe is coming is going to invalidate many other laws which contain statutory damage provisions.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Text is hard
It's all good.
Schooled like a child
I guess I'm not the only one
. I wonder how Mr Holder felt, having to write an essay on "Why Marbury v Madison is Important."
Having his legislation treated as farce may help explain President
Obama's attack on the courts at a news conference last week. He claimed
it would be an "unprecedented, extraordinary step" for the Supreme Court
to declare a law unconstitutional.
This was such a bizarre statement that a federal appeals court, in a
separate challenge to ObamaCare, ordered the Justice Department to
submit a letter ("at least three pages single spaced, no less") on
whether the Obama administration really thinks it's unprecedented for
courts to overturn legislation. Attorney General Eric Holder wrote to
assure that the administration was not challenging the 1803 decision in Marbury v. Madison.
That was the case in which the justices said "it is emphatically the
province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is,"
thus establishing judicial review under which hundreds of laws have been
invalidated, often for overreaching by the political branches of
government.
good article.
I especially like the shout out to the great F.A. Hayek, one of my all time favorite thinkers. And he is one of my all time favorites precisely for the idea presented in this article....which formed the backbone of his contribution to economics and social theory...as well as his Nobel Prize in Economics: