The O.C Trial - Will The Mandate Survive?

[pfife]

I get the impression that a good # of justices know which way they want to vote on something, then their process becomes to how to frame their opinion to meet that vote.

In a perfect scenario, one that's impossible, they woudln't know who is for or against the issue before them. Before every vote they should aks themselves if they would vote the same way if the plaintiffs/defendants were reversed.

Wait, are you saying the umps know whether its a ball or strike before the pitch is thrown?!?!? You don't say...

[Gehringer_2]

Nope, I'm talking about the refrain from the right that no one was reading the bill they were voting on.

Total silence when it's their guy who's not only admitting to not reading it, but using the bills length as the basis for a CONSTITUTIONAL decision. Political as h-e-double hockeysticks.... and quite activist. I'm not aware of the jurisprudence regarding a bills length.

And really, lets put this in context. They have know this was coming for over a year. How hard is it for someone qualified enough to be on the SCOTUS to process 2000 pages in a year? Half of the 12 yr olds in the US scarfed down that much Harry Potter in less than a year. And we don't even need to add that a SCOTUS Judge has his *whole life* to get his work done!

[chasfh]

Is it really the jobs of the justices to worry about that? I'm not being cold, but they are not legislators. Their job is to determine if the issue before them is legal, not simply preferable.

I'm not talking about the justices here -- I'm talking about conservatives in general, who do not want any social insurance implemented. I admit this post went beyond the specific case in front of the justices, but this is such a disheartening story on the very subject of social health insurance, it was the most convenient and topical thread to share it in.

[Who is the Drizzle?]

Is this really the healthcare system that conservatives want to preserve?

U.S. News - Mother forcibly removed from hospital dies in police custody

Am I missing the point here? She was treated and tests were performed and they didn't find anything. Not sure how single-payer would have changed that.

[Who is the Drizzle?]

And really, lets put this in context. They have know this was coming for over a year. How hard is it for someone qualified enough to be on the SCOTUS to process 2000 pages in a year? Half of the 12 yr olds in the US scarfed down that much Harry Potter in less than a year. And we don't even need to add that a SCOTUS Judge has his *whole life* to get his work done!

Not to say they shouldn't process 2000 pages if they have to--you are correct it is their job after all--but there's a difference between reading Harry Potter and legislation. Good books I can read non-stop, but when I would try to read scientific submissions for comprehension it was 6 pages an hour if I didn't fall asleep.

And of course I wonder how many people who actually voted on the thing read it all. I bet I could count them on one hand, if a hand is needed at all.

[Gehringer_2]

Not to say they shouldn't process 2000 pages if they have to--you are correct it is their job after all--but there's a difference between reading Harry Potter and legislation. Good books I can read non-stop, but when I would try to read scientific submissions for comprehension it was 6 pages an hour if I didn't fall asleep.

And of course I wonder how many people who actually voted on the thing read it all. I bet I could count them on one hand, if a hand is needed at all.

Well there actually was supposed to be an implication there that a SCJ should be about as far advanced from a 12 yr as legislation is to Harry Potter, but then again.....

[Truth]

And really, lets put this in context. They have know this was coming for over a year. How hard is it for someone qualified enough to be on the SCOTUS to process 2000 pages in a year? Half of the 12 yr olds in the US scarfed down that much Harry Potter in less than a year. And we don't even need to add that a SCOTUS Judge has his *whole life* to get his work done!

Why exactly does the case require them to read the entire bill? They are deciding on specific issues as much as Sotomayor and her colleagues want to argue on the merit of intent and wonderful aspects of the bill. The justices aren't deciding on the merits of the legislation, they are deciding on the constitutionality of the bill.

[Gehringer_2]

Why exactly does the case require them to read the entire bill? They are deciding on specific issues ...

They are not being asked only to rule on various parts. but also on *severability*. How do you do that if you don't know all the pieces and how they go together?

[DaYooperASBDT]

I don't know how it works in DC, but even in Lansing I believe all bills are written by a group of law clerks - not by the legislators themselves. Basically the lobbyists tell the clerks what to include, and the legislator will rubber-stamp it more often than not.

Personally, I think any legislator who allows a 2,700 page behemoth to be created just doesn't give a damn about how it impacts his/her constituents.
We are now seeing a complete insulation of our elected representatives from the people they allege to represent.

Obamacare is just one of myriad examples I could cite. Of course the worst of all is definitely the US Budget.

[Gehringer_2]

I don't know how it works in DC, but even in Lansing I believe all bills are written by a group of law clerks - not by the legislators themselves. Basically the lobbyists tell the clerks what to include, and the legislator will rubber-stamp it more often than not.

Personally, I think any legislator who allows a 2,700 page behemoth to be created just doesn't give a damn about how it impacts his/her constituents.
We are now seeing a complete insulation of our elected representatives from the people they allege to represent.
Obamacare is just one of myriad examples I could cite. Of course the worst of all is definitely the US Budget.

On the other hand, WRT the budget, you sort do hope they have more detailed plans for spending 2 trillion bucks than the back of an envelop.

[Truth]

They are not being asked only to rule on various parts. but also on *severability*. How do you do that if you don't know all the pieces and how they go together?

The severability question was being argued on the financial viability of the bill if the mandate is struck down. That doesn't require them to read the entire bill. They are better off looking at the CBO numbers to determine that. Heck the administration already determined that they can't pursue the long term care part of the bill because it wasn't financially viable.

The bill is not a serious piece of legislation. Every few weeks the administration just announces the new rules based on their interpretation. They are in charge of benefits, costs, premiums, allowable care expenses, etc., etc. etc. The idea that it's some intricate work of legislative art, woven together seamlessly with appropriate funding is laughable.

[pfife]

Why exactly does the case require them to read the entire bill? They are deciding on specific issues as much as Sotomayor and her colleagues want to argue on the merit of intent and wonderful aspects of the bill. The justices aren't deciding on the merits of the legislation, they are deciding on the constitutionality of the bill.

severability. nuff said

[pfife]

The severability question was being argued on the financial viability of the bill if the mandate is struck down. That doesn't require them to read the entire bill. They are better off looking at the CBO numbers to determine that. Heck the administration already determined that they can't pursue the long term care part of the bill because it wasn't financially viable.

The bill is not a serious piece of legislation. Every few weeks the administration just announces the new rules based on their interpretation. They are in charge of benefits, costs, premiums, allowable care expenses, etc., etc. etc. The idea that it's some intricate work of legislative art, woven together seamlessly with appropriate funding is laughable.

No, its not. The law specifically designated that these new rules were to be designated by the executive branch.

The court decides constitutionality of the bill, not the financial viability of the bill.

[DaYooperASBDT]

On the other hand, WRT the budget, you sort do hope they have more detailed plans for spending 2 trillion bucks than the back of an envelop.

I'm of the mindset that we should limit the number of pages, thus cutting spending!

[MrDeeds]

And really, lets put this in context. They have know this was coming for over a year. How hard is it for someone qualified enough to be on the SCOTUS to process 2000 pages in a year? Half of the 12 yr olds in the US scarfed down that much Harry Potter in less than a year. And we don't even need to add that a SCOTUS Judge has his *whole life* to get his work done!

You write as if this case is the only case the justices will ever decide. Maybe if our representatives were give enough time to read the bill it never would have been made a law in the first place. It's just another example of how our system is broken. No matter your politics, why defend the status quo? To me this problem is independent of the debate over government run health care.

[Edman85]

Don't call it that.

[MrDeeds]

I don't know how it works in DC, but even in Lansing I believe all bills are written by a group of law clerks - not by the legislators themselves. Basically the lobbyists tell the clerks what to include, and the legislator will rubber-stamp it more often than not.

Personally, I think any legislator who allows a 2,700 page behemoth to be created just doesn't give a damn about how it impacts his/her constituents.
We are now seeing a complete insulation of our elected representatives from the people they allege to represent.

Obamacare is just one of myriad examples I could cite. Of course the worst of all is definitely the US Budget.

Great post

[Gehringer_2]

The severability question was being argued on the financial viability of the bill if the mandate is struck down.

How is financial viability a matter of constitutional consideration for the SC? If that issue were ajudicatable, they would have had to shut down the gov half-way through the Bush Administration!

[Gehringer_2]

You write as if this case is the only case the justices will ever decide. Maybe if our representatives were give enough time to read the bill it never would have been made a law in the first place. It's just another example of how our system is broken. No matter your politics, why defend the status quo? To me this problem is independent of the debate over government run health care.

No, I'd say I write as if this is one of more significant decisions the justices will have to decide in several terms. After all, even they signalled the elevated importance by the unprecedented 3 days of oral arg. Seems they recognize the import. So then some number of them show up unprepared?

I'd maybe compare that with your team's best player carousing on the eve of the playoffs.

[ROMAD1]

Gov. Snyder expected to repeal Michigan's motorcycle helmet law within 2 weeks (with poll, reader comments) | MLive.com

In a world where people get to choose their level of safety. I have a hard time reconciling the mandate.

[Mark The Shark]

Looks like Scalia isn't the only one not to have read the bill:

“Could I ask you one question, which is a practical question,” Breyer asked of Paul Clement, the lawyer representing the state of Florida in the case.

“I take as a given your answer to Justice Kennedy,’ said Breyer, “you are saying let's look at it objectively and say what Congress has intended, okay? This is the mandate in the community, this is Titles I and II, the mandate, the community, pre-existing condition, okay? Here's the rest of it, you know.

“And when I look through the rest of it, I have all kinds of stuff in there,” said Breyer. “And I haven't read every word of that, I promise.

United States Supreme Court justices do not have time to read 2,700 page bills. This is not the only case pending before the court.

Justice Breyer on Obamacare: 'I Haven

[ROMAD1]

Looks like Scalia isn't the only one not to have read the bill:



United States Supreme Court justices do not have time to read 2,700 page bills. This is not the only case pending before the court.

Justice Breyer on Obamacare: 'I Haven

How many of the lawmakers read it? Which would be another basis to challenge it in the courts possibly.

[Gehringer_2]

How many of the lawmakers read it? Which would be another basis to challenge it in the courts possibly.

Slippery slope there. Next thing you know you'd have to invalidate the votes of citizens who hadn't studied the people they voted for........or Wait! On second thought maybe you have something there.

[DaYooperASBDT]

G2 - I don't think you are realizing the reality of how Washington operates. The SCOTUS justices focus on the "larger" legal issues in these cases - driven by various traditions along with their workload. Not only do they hear cases, but they are approached with many more potential cases that they must sift through and decide whether they are even worthy of considertion.

The Court receives approximately 10,000 petitions for a writ of certiorari each year. The Court grants and hears oral argument in about 75-80 cases.

The justices don't have to read every page. They have an army of clerks to do research and draft the opinions. And as I mentioned above, legislators do the same thing with bills - freeing up time for their larger priorities, such as prostituting themselves to the highest bidder er I mean meeting with various lobby groups. Then the massive Federal army, nearly 3 million strong, goes to work implementing the new laws - and piling on more regulations in order to implement them.

It's good to be the king.

[pfife]

G2 - I don't think you are realizing the reality of how Washington operates. The SCOTUS justices focus on the "larger" legal issues in these cases - driven by various traditions along with their workload. Not only do they hear cases, but they are approached with many more potential cases that they must sift through and decide whether they are even worthy of considertion.



The justices don't have to read every page. They have an army of clerks to do research and draft the opinions. And as I mentioned above, legislators do the same thing with bills - freeing up time for their larger priorities, such as prostituting themselves to the highest bidder er I mean meeting with various lobby groups. Then the massive Federal army, nearly 3 million strong, goes to work implementing the new laws - and piling on more regulations in order to implement them.

It's good to be the king.

The SCOTUS doesnt' focus on the "larger legal issues" in these cases. They focus on the legal issues in that specific case. One of these issues with Obamacare is severability. Whether or not Scalia wants to go through all of the pages isn't a legal issue. But he presented it as if it were a legal rationale for not ruling the law was severable.

[Gehringer_2]

G2 - I don't think you are realizing the reality of how Washington operates. The SCOTUS justices focus on the "larger" legal issues in these cases - driven by various traditions along with their workload. Not only do they hear cases, but they are approached with many more potential cases that they must sift through and decide whether they are even worthy of considertion.



The justices don't have to read every page. They have an army of clerks to do research and draft the opinions. And as I mentioned above, legislators do the same thing with bills - freeing up time for their larger priorities, such as prostituting themselves to the highest bidder er I mean meeting with various lobby groups. Then the massive Federal army, nearly 3 million strong, goes to work implementing the new laws - and piling on more regulations in order to implement them.

It's good to be the king.

Look, the apologists are getting silly. It's a major case, a good part of that '2700 pages' is probably lists, documentation, exhibits and various other codicils that can be quickly scanned and also assigned to clerks to double check (as noted). Or even as Breyer noted, they could assign a master, nothing wrong with that if they really feel that daunted by the task. But idea that we give up on jurisprudence because it might be hard work is just dumb.

Let's try a little fantasy thought experiment here: Let's say they toss the whole bill, and in overwhelming reaction the public boots the Repubs from Congress and the Obama second administration comes back with a single payer system. Do we think that could be implemented with any less pages? Do we think it would not also also end up at the SCOTUS? Do we think the Federal Judges that dealt with Asbestos dealt with less than 2700 pages? That filled 6 CDs at one point I believe. Do we think the Court has never ruled on US tax issues? They in run in their totality to a lot more than 2700 pages and the justices seem to be able to figure out interrelatedness.

In the final analysis I don't care if they feel they have to 'read it all', as long as they don't use that excuse to punt their obligation to get themselves up to whatever speed they each feel they have to get to consider severability in a more serious manner than Breyer or Scalia implied. If they don't think they are up to the task they should recuse themselves and let the justices who are willing to tackle the work make the decision. I would take any other intellectual approach to their task as an impeachable offense by a federal judge.

[Gehringer_2]

The other analogy here that is incorrect here is that between a legislator and an a appellate review judge. A legislator may often be unfamiliar with parts of a bill because it is a moving target during mark-up. Further, at the Federal level, a legislator is more like a legal CEO than a legal worker bee. A congressional committee decides on an outline - staff, lobbyists, and who know who all else, and occasionally a legislator themselves, sit down and write the language, much like a bunch of engineers design a building once a buyer signs on to a model project plan.

But an appeals court judges review role is much more like that of an auditor. It is exactly his job to get into the details to see if the drafters screwed up. And since he has professional staff working at his direction to help him, that's what he has no excuse not to do.

[Who is the Drizzle?]

How is financial viability a matter of constitutional consideration for the SC? If that issue were ajudicatable, they would have had to shut down the gov half-way through the Bush Administration!

I'm guessing it needs to be considered because it was passed under special rules to avoid the filibuster, iirc. The bill needs to be scored as reducing the deficit. I'm guessing on this, not familiar with the specific rules.

[DaYooperASBDT]

Here's a thought. Instead of having a 2700 page bill, massive government oversight that adds to probably one million workers who don't add a dime of value to our economy, states hamstrung by federal mandates (many unfunded), and continued failure to solve the root of the problem, why not just scrap the whole damned thing and switch to a system of tax credits and health care exchanges? The US became the biggest economic juggernaut in world history because of its people and resources, not because of government over-regulation and intrusion.

And I hope the GOP is listening when I say that, also .....

Cleary, proper governance can actually enhance the economy, and our ability to afford health care, when it invests wisely. Prime example being Pure Michigan, which just returned FIVE dollars for every additional dollar spent in 2011 - an impressive 70 million dollars in increased tax revenue and an increase of one BILLION in tourism spending. That's more money in a lot of pockets. We should be building roads, building nuclear plants, building windmills, expanding high speed Internet, and looking for ways to efficiently stimulate our economy. Do all these things - and don't just cut checks, blindly hand out subsidies/tax credits, and continue to reward failed government programs by expanding them even further. If you are going to nationalize a whole industry (health care), why stop there? Food and gas are getting expensive, nationalize those too!

The only path to affordability of all those items (which we spoiled Americans seem to now view as "social norms") is jobs, jobs, jobs - and we also need to get more younger workers adding value, to make everyone's health care more affordable. Give visas to the best and brightest - Hell bring half of Greece over here, we are stupid not to. And there are also brilliant minds all over Asia who could kick our economy into gear and give this morally rotten and listless society a desperately needed enema. I'll wager that if Snyder was king for a day, he would insert that enema tube right through the Windsor Tunnel into Detroit.

Did I get a little fired up there?

[DaYooperASBDT]

The other analogy here that is incorrect here is that between a legislator and an a appellate review judge. A legislator may often be unfamiliar with parts of a bill because it is a moving target during mark-up. Further, at the Federal level, a legislator is more like a legal CEO than a legal worker bee. A congressional committee decides on an outline - staff, lobbyists, and who know who all else, and occasionally a legislator themselves, sit down and write the language, much like a bunch of engineers design a building once a buyer signs on to a model project plan.

But an appeals court judges review role is much more like that of an auditor. It is exactly his job to get into the details to see if the drafters screwed up. And since he has professional staff working at his direction to help him, that's what he has no excuse not to do.

You could be right, but here's another theory I had - that Scalia actually had the cojones to state out loud what the other justices would admit to?

Here's an (extreme) example - when NASA put a man on the moon, many thousands of people were involved. It was impossible for one person to process all of that information. If I had to sift through even 2700 pages of health care gobbeldygook, not being a content expert on the subject, I just might go insane LOL.

Scalia may have stretched when he also panned the idea of his clerks going through the bill - but lawyers and thus judges are expected to have some arrogance, it's an occupational custom.

[Gehringer_2]

Here's a thought. Instead of having a 2700 page bill, massive government oversight that adds to probably one million workers who don't add a dime of value to our economy, states hamstrung by federal mandates (many unfunded), and continued failure to solve the root of the problem, why not just scrap the whole damned thing and switch to a system of tax credits and health care exchanges? The US became the biggest economic juggernaut in world history because of its people and resources, not because of government over-regulation and intrusion.

And I hope the GOP is listening when I say that, also .....

Cleary, proper governance can actually enhance the economy, and our ability to afford health care, when it invests wisely. Prime example being Pure Michigan, which just returned FIVE dollars for every additional dollar spent in 2011 - an impressive 70 million dollars in increased tax revenue and an increase of one BILLION in tourism spending. That's more money in a lot of pockets. We should be building roads, building nuclear plants, building windmills, expanding high speed Internet, and looking for ways to efficiently stimulate our economy. Do all these things - and don't just cut checks, blindly hand out subsidies/tax credits, and continue to reward failed government programs by expanding them even further. If you are going to nationalize a whole industry (health care), why stop there? Food and gas are getting expensive, nationalize those too!

The only path to affordability of all those items (which we spoiled Americans seem to now view as "social norms") is jobs, jobs, jobs - and we also need to get more younger workers adding value, to make everyone's health care more affordable. Give visas to the best and brightest - Hell bring half of Greece over here, we are stupid not to. And there are also brilliant minds all over Asia who could kick our economy into gear and give this morally rotten and listless society a desperately needed enema. I'll wager that if Snyder was king for a day, he would insert that enema tube right through the Windsor Tunnel into Detroit.

Did I get a little fired up there?

Nice sentiments, but I'll nitpik your premises a bit.

- where do you get the big bureaucratic additions under Obamacare? I thought the whole idea is to keep as many people as possible with private insurers and the exchanges - which are at the states. The increases in Medicaid layer onto an existing bureaucracy - so I can see marginal overhead increase there, but if it cuts down on the amount of bureaucratic work that ER cost shifting is costing us, that may be a wash. So that specific issue wrt this case doesn't parse to me. Reporting and data collection go up, but this has a good purpose. One of the biggest problems in US healthcare is that in place A we spend $5000 on a gall bladder while in place B we spend $50000 and we have no idea if there is a difference in outcomes. One of the things in Obamacare is an increase in Federal data collection and monitoring of outcomes. This isn't free, but it does have a potential payback that I think makes it worth it.

- the mandate issue is more complex. I think it is just part of a larger reality we have to face as a society which is that Federalism is obsolete and needs to be scrapped wrt economic issues. The Constitution is a great blueprint but the founders were working under the assumption that a state actually had power at the economic regulation level. That assumption is gone in today's world. Instead of all these mandates and complexity, I would be in favor of the states getting out of economic regulation 100% and moving it all to the Fed. The forces that we deal with ecomically today are global, the states are not in a postion to cope. All the states can do is get played by economic interests into a race to the bottom syndrome. Its destructive of the common society in a thousand ways. Put all taxation and regulation of corps in DC. This maybe be constitutional heresay, but if we don't change what we do in recognitions of today's reality, we stay tied in knots until we just peter out with a wimper.

[Truth]

How is financial viability a matter of constitutional consideration for the SC? If that issue were ajudicatable, they would have had to shut down the gov half-way through the Bush Administration!

Call it what you will but the nature of much of the oral arguments was about the viability of the bill without the mandate. The government has argued both sides of the coin in defending the mandate as a vital component of achieving affordable coverage (guaranteed-issue and community-rating) and then as an incidental part of the entire bill. Congress invited this when they themselves removed the severability clause from the bill. Why did they do this?

[Truth]

The SCOTUS doesnt' focus on the "larger legal issues" in these cases. They focus on the legal issues in that specific case. One of these issues with Obamacare is severability. Whether or not Scalia wants to go through all of the pages isn't a legal issue. But he presented it as if it were a legal rationale for not ruling the law was severable.

The Senate removed the severability clause from the bill and now you want to blame Scalia?

[DaYooperASBDT]

Nice sentiments, but I'll nitpik your premises a bit.

- where do you get the big bureaucratic additions under Obamacare? I thought the whole idea is to keep as many people as possible with private insurers and the exchanges - which are at the states. The increases in Medicaid layer onto an existing bureaucracy - so I can see marginal overhead increase there, but if it cuts down on the amount of bureaucratic work that ER cost shifting is costing us, that may be a wash. So that specific issue wrt this case doesn't parse to me. Reporting and data collection go up, but this has a good purpose. One of the biggest problems in US healthcare is that in place A we spend $5000 on a gall bladder while in place B we spend $50000 and we have no idea if there is a difference in outcomes. One of the things in Obamacare is an increase in Federal data collection and monitoring of outcomes. This isn't free, but it does have a potential payback that I think makes it worth it.

- the mandate issue is more complex. I think it is just part of a larger reality we have to face as a society which is that Federalism is obsolete and needs to be scrapped wrt economic issues. The Constitution is a great blueprint but the founders were working under the assumption that a state actually had power at the economic regulation level. That assumption is gone in today's world. Instead of all these mandates and complexity, I would be in favor of the states getting out of economic regulation 100% and moving it all to the Fed. The forces that we deal with ecomically today are global, the states are not in a postion to cope. All the states can do is get played by economic interests into a race to the bottom syndrome. Its destructive of the common society in a thousand ways. Put all taxation and regulation of corps in DC. This maybe be constitutional heresay, but if we don't change what we do in recognitions of today's reality, we stay tied in knots until we just peter out with a wimper.

There are portions of "Obamacare" that I really like - and are badly needed as I've mentioned in similar threads. And I could even live with Medicare for the elderly, if no better solution emerges. But I do think that Medicaid has been an absolute fiasco. Our hospital here just filed bankruptcy before Medicaid and Medicare payments simply are no longer enough to cover the hospital's operating expenses. There are much more efficient ways to redistribute income - so instead of saddling the states with huge unfunded mandates that programs like Medicaid bring, I say either switch to tax credits or leave the whole mess to the states. LBJ meant well, but over the years his brainchild has become little more than a moneysucking failure that drains our economy and makes it even harder for the poor to get the care they need. If this hospital closes, the next one is 43 miles away .....

We do badly need the exchanges - and I'd prefer one national exchange so I could shop around even more - but the state exchanges are a good start.

The Single Payer nirvana you folks all clamor for - ain't much of a nirvana. I can't think of one "government run" Federal operation that uses our money efficiently. Look at what the Pentagon paid for toilet seats, there's a classic example.

[chasfh]

Am I missing the point here? She was treated and tests were performed and they didn't find anything. Not sure how single-payer would have changed that.

I think it's fair to ask whether a profit-based healthcare system might lead to the most cursory of examinations, given that they knew she was not in a position to pay out of her pocket if they acknowledged finding anything, versus a single payer system where patient payment is a non-issue that removes the incentive to gloss over an exam.

Not saying I think any of that is definitely what happened here, but that's how I see where it could make a difference.

[DaYooperASBDT]

- the mandate issue is more complex. I think it is just part of a larger reality we have to face as a society which is that Federalism is obsolete and needs to be scrapped wrt economic issues. The Constitution is a great blueprint but the founders were working under the assumption that a state actually had power at the economic regulation level. That assumption is gone in today's world. Instead of all these mandates and complexity, I would be in favor of the states getting out of economic regulation 100% and moving it all to the Fed. The forces that we deal with ecomically today are global, the states are not in a postion to cope. All the states can do is get played by economic interests into a race to the bottom syndrome. Its destructive of the common society in a thousand ways. Put all taxation and regulation of corps in DC. This maybe be constitutional heresay, but if we don't change what we do in recognitions of today's reality, we stay tied in knots until we just peter out with a wimper.

An interesting thought - the constant competition between states does create many headaches. But one could argue that such competition also forces each state government to be "business friendly" - thus constraining taxation and regulation to a more reasonable level. There is certainly danger in going too far in that direction, so perhaps you will always need 49 other alternatives along with Federal standards.

For example, if Texas decides to remove all air regulations, many would tire of the smog and move to, say, Oregon. Fortunately we do have an EPA to set minimum standards, then each state decides if even stricter rules are needed, such as those in California.

The "Right To Work" movement is a good example of the feared "race to the bottom". Indeed a company might choose to locate in Indiana instead of Michigan if they don't have to worry about bargaining with a union. But Michigan can do other things (like tax cuts) to improve their case. I have worried about excessive centralization of wealth for years, and don't like the Flat Tax proposals. But you have to balance that with the need to reward hard work, investment, and innovation - all essential to economic health. You must contain taxes and regulation to keep that cycle intact.

Also, one state can be vastly different from another. Many "one size fits all" mandates from Washington simply won't work, I suspect. The current political gridlock in our country is frustrating, but there's a tradeoff of personal freedom once you yield power to a more central locus. One nice feature of gridlock, much like Eisenhower's love of golf, is that the government is kept at bay - and out of our boardrooms and bedrooms for a while. A nice respite from Big Governemnt can sometimes spur economic growth. There are certainly times when you must level the playing field and require a certain degree of responsible behavior, though - the financial mess of 2008 being the best example.

[DaYooperASBDT]

I guess it's all a tradeoff, eh? Do you pay 50% or more in taxes and let the government take care of your needs, or do you
take the money and gain the freedom to shop for those needs yourself? I'll take my chances on the latter.

What would John Adams, Patrick Henry, and Thomas Paine say about the state of our affairs today, I wonder.

[Gehringer_2]

Look at what the Pentagon paid for toilet seats, there's a classic example.

Apropos of nothing relevant to this thread, but in defense of the Pentagon: I read a book entitled "Blind Man's Bluff" about the secret submarine survelliance war we waged against the Soviet throughout the cold war era. It turns out at least some number of the Pentagon 'cost 'overruns' that made the news in those years were part of elaborate covers for black ops funding. I have to give some of those administrations credt for just taking the PR hit and keeping their mouths shut. I'm sure there was enough real abuse for that stuff to get lost in, but it was an interesting tidbit.

[DaYooperASBDT]

Good point, but I always found such "hiding" of such funding to be truly chicken ****. Just say you want to spend 50 billion on "miscellaneous operations",
give a little wink, and move on to the next item. I'm such a starry eyed idealist, I know.

Back to another topic - we also need to be pragmatic about these issues. If you keep loading more requirements and overhead on businesses, they are going to continue to outsource our jobs. We'll have the best health care menu in the world - but no jobs and thus no money to pay for it. And you can't resort to tariffs to prop up our businesses - that just kills everyone's economies, yours included. There will always be economic winners and losers no matter what the government does, all we can do is work together and try to figure out what works best and what hasn't worked in the past. Learn from your mistakes and reward your successes. It's not that hard - if people look beyond their own personal gain (and we vote out those who don't - like my old buddy Obama).

And probably a few of these birds should be voted out also, in a perfect world: OpenSecrets.org: Money in Politics -- See Who's Giving & Who's Getting

[sub rosa]

i don't have a problem with the justices not having read every word of the law. when i represent a client charged with possession of a controlled substance i don't read the entire public health code. i read the relevant portions. i don't think you need to read every word of this insurance reform law in order to reach the issues being challenged.

just curious - does anyone know how the issue is being framed (i.e. exactly what constitutional provision the "mandate" offends)?