Stunning

Stunning is all that I can say about the decision on healthcare.  What got into Judge Roberts?  Could it be that he watched Letterman's top ten on the court?  Could it be that he is looking at the polls and only 40% approve of the court and a majority have no faith in it at all?  They say that Roberts doesn't want to see the court's decisions viewed as political and that is why he voted to uphold the ACA.  If that is the reason, good.  The reality is that since he took over as Chief Justice the majority of the decisions have been political and have overturned settled law (some of these laws a hundred years old).  So it is a start but he has a long way to go.

Obamacare at the Court

I was listening to a story about the Supreme Court case against Obamacare when a Congresswoman mentioned that the person who brought the case before the court has since gone bankrupt because of medical bills. So this person who was adamant that she shouldn't have to buy insurance because it was her right to go without has by virtue of going bankrupt left it to the rest of us to pay her bills. Here is a woman who is going bankrupt by choice (she could have bought insurance. There is no way that she should be able to walk away from these bills. Talk about an entitlement mentality. This is the biggest problem with overturning the law, what do you do with the people who refuse to buy insurance (don't want it) as opposed to those who want insurance but can't afford it? I say that if they can't pay, we shouldn't either. If Obamacare goes down in flames I hope that Congress will repeal the Reagan law requiring that hospitals treat people even if they have no ability to pay and dis-allow medical bankruptcy. If you go broke paying for medical bills you should have to set up a payment plan so that I am not left covering your irresponsible behaviour.

Wisconsin Supreme Court Ruling

A very interesting if not unexpected ruling was handed down late yesterday. What the court essentially said was due to separation of powers we have no jurisdiction over the legislature when questions of their rules come up. Historically the courts have said that they have the ability to review all laws, but not in Wisconsin anymore. Basically what the court said is that the legislature was being accused of violating their own rules and that it was up to the legislature to enforce their rules. This is so cool, I can't wait until we get a legislature comprised of people who the 4 don't agree with and try to do the same thing. Does anyone seriously believe that this court will hand down the same ruling? I doubt it the 4 in the majority have shown that they are nothing but party loyalists. Remember when Justice Crooks was considered the conservative on the court, he wrote a separate dissent on this case.

As a post script the unions have filed Federal cases, I guess they just want to see what a 5-4 US Supreme Court decision looks like.

Wisconsin Supreme Court Race

Wisconsin Club for Growth (who are they?) has entered the fray.  They are running an ad portraying Joanne Kloppenberg as anti business because in her job as an assistant attorney general for the State of Wisconsin she prosecuted cases where businesses and farmers were the defendants and she was successful.  That makes me think that the state had a good case.  So, one is left to ponder what exactly Club for Growth is looking for, my guess is that they are looking for an activist who would overturn pesky laws regulating air, water, and soil pollution.  That we need to deregulate things like worker safety.  They are looking for a judge that will allow them to accomplish what they have been unable to accomplish legislatively.  And to think that Justice Prosser has been running away from the idea that he is in the hip pocket of the Governor.  Club for growth has basically said that justice Prosser will be that reliable vote for the Governor and business as the court goes about the business of overturning all laws that may affect business.  Open for Business indeed.  I want to open a factory and discharge my water into a class one trout stream, with justice Prosser's help I may be able to make that a reality.

Czars and Supreme Court Justices

Today there was a letter in the paper urging a vote for Republicans.  Not so unusual, except this one repeated the talking points that are used by the impeachment wing of the tea party.  First that Obama has appointed all of these czars to run agencies that were neither elected or confirmed by the Senate.  OK, I'm good with that no accountability of the President to other co-equal branch of government.  I'm sure that no other President, especially a Republican, would have done such a terrible deed.  When you look into it every President has appointed people to head up special projects, commissions, or offices.  OK, Obama has a lot, 20, how does that compare to say W?  Bush had 21, I know you are thinking that is more than 20 which is true except in tea party world. 

Second the letter writer pointed out that Obama has appointed 2 supreme court justices of dubious qualifications and agendas.  Really!  And Justices Roberts and Alito don't have the same characteristics.  The difference is that Roberts and Alito have acted on their agenda with their precedent overturning decisions.  Granted they had help from other agenda driven Justices Scalia and Thomas (the judge who rarely asks a question, qualified?).  The Supreme Court is another government organization that is broken but don't blame the Democrats.  After Bork, both sides have been agenda driven.  The partisans have looked to the court to pass their legislative agenda rather than replace their representatives to get it done legislatively as intended in the Constitution.