Props to Robert Reich: He was right about Chief Justice Roberts

[Skinner]

Obviously, the most surprising vote in favor of the ACA is Roberts. Here's what Robert Reich wrote yesterday:

Why the Supreme Court Will Uphold the Constitutionality of Obamacare

(snip)

First, Chief Justice John Roberts is — or should be — concerned about the steadily-declining standing of the Court in the public’s mind, along with the growing perception that the justices decide according to partisan politics rather than according to legal principle. The 5-4 decision in Citizen’s United, for example, looked to all the world like a political rather than a legal outcome, with all five Republican appointees finding that restrictions on independent corporate expenditures violate the First Amendment, and all four Democratic appointees finding that such restrictions are reasonably necessary to avoid corruption or the appearance of corruption. Or consider the Court’s notorious decision in Bush v. Gore.

http://robertreich.org/post/26011554071

[Xyzse]

1. Robert Reich is my man-crush

LOL,
Seriously though, I find his views to be coherent and thoughtful. He would have been my write in candidate for November had things not devolved to this point.

[cilla4progress]

16. Yes - I want him

in Obama's cabinet!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Ikonoklast]

33. (cough)President Elizabeth Warren's Cabinet(cough)

Hey, I like to look ahead, sue me!

[cilla4progress]

41. Oh, I like it...

I like it VERY much!

and I like your kittens!

[SusanaMontana41]

17. Not bad.

I'm a Paul Krugman groupie, myself ...

[dynasaw]

18. Either Reich or Krugman

would have been better than what got put into the current cabinet.

[SusanaMontana41]

27. You are so right.

[klook]

19. Note to self: Grow a beard. Get shorter. (n/t)

[librechik]

23. oh, and btw, win the Nobel

not that a beard isn't almost as good....

[klook]

25. Oh yeah, I keep forgetting that!

I'll write it on the dry-erase board on the fridge.

[SusanaMontana41]

28. Note to klook: Look up SusanaMontana41 ...

[lamp_shade]

2. Yannow... that was my very first thought.

[mmonk]

3. Agreed. That was the first thing that popped into my mind when it was upheld.

[jsmirman]

4. The truth is

that although I've hardly followed every one of his decisions, any time I've listened to Roberts in oral arguments or read one of his decisions, or watched him conduct himself in his role as Chief Justice - I disagree with the man vehemently on just about everything, but I think he's more than worthy of his spot on the bench.

Even Alito is a good Justice, looking at this in a non-partisan way, even though he is monstrously wrong on many things.

I absolutely cannot stand Scalia - he's a bully, a blowhard, a clown who plays to an increasingly craven audience - and he's often shockingly in error because he's so close-minded and arrogant.

Thomas is a disgrace to the bench.

And Kennedy is an utter buffoon.

Frankly, Breyer embarrasses me at times with his flights of fancy that occasionally end up calamitously divorced from the actual law.

I'm very impressed with Kagan and Sotomayor, just on the basis of their quality as Justices. RBG is a treasure, but man, she is getting up there and she can hardly see over the bench.

These are, of course, just my opinions...

[BlueMTexpat]

42. Good summary!

And spot on, IMO!

[cthulu2016]

5. True. And I was wrong about Reich's comment

[gkhouston]

11. Me, too. I thought he was bogarting the good stuff.

I'm suspicious of Roberts' motives but will gladly accept the result.

[Ikonoklast]

36. Roberts is desperate to save an already horribly tarnished legacy.

If people don't think that Roberts doesn't worry about how history will view him, they would be dead wrong.

He is still a useful tool of the monied interests.

[Jim__]

6. Reich called it! The court was becoming a joke. - n/t

[Egalitarian Thug]

9. Is a joke.

I'm happy and surprised by this decision at the moment, but when you give this some thought, by upholding the law they have placed the insurance companies permanently and forever at the center of 1/5 of the national economy. It is, after all, a republican plan.

But for today, it's time for a happy dance!

[kestrel91316]

12. Down the road, if the insurance companies screw with us too much,

demand for a permanent fix in the form of Single Payer will skyrocket.

[Chan790]

39. It's not permanent. One potential result.

What will happen is eventually someone or some ones will figure out that there is social benefit and even some fiscal and power gain in establishing non-profit entities in opposition to the health insurers much like BC/BS used to be.

Because of the nature of how this law is written, it actually advantages NPOs over private insurers. Between tax-exemption and no obligation to shareholders such an NPO entity (or entities) would be able to undercut private-industry substantially to corner markets and exchanges. Normally, the expectation would be that Aetna (used as a stand-in for their entire industry) would cut to match except such an NPO would be able to cut premiums below the break-even point of a private insurer. As soon as someone figures out the logistics of such an entity, private insurance is terminal.

Such an NPO would likely need a large amount of cash on-hand at start-up however. For that reason, I'm expecting the genesis of this will come from the larger unions. Start an insurer, open it to their members undercutting the private insurance offered to those employees, eventually opening to the public at a slightly higher rate (using the higher rate to subsidize the lower rate for members) still well below the private-insurer's rate. They look good to prospective new hires..."join the union for the cheap insurance.", boost their membership, bargaining power and reputation. Likewise, the obvious benefit being reaped by labor will drive organizing.

In all likelihood, complexity would eventually necessitate the spinning-off of these non-for-profit insurers. At the same time, the existence of several such entities insures that competition works to keep them in pursuit of cost-efficiencies and low premiums.

Death of private insurance combined with a PR win for the working classes. Just one potential result. For-profit insurance in any case is a dinosaur. Dino's gonna die: he's bloated, he's greedy, he's eating up all his food-supply faster than it regrows and more than that, he's inefficient.

[Egalitarian Thug]

44. I certainly hope you are right. We both know that these parasites are not going to walk away

from 10's of billions of dollars.

[spanone]

7. knr

[Bake]

8. Listen to Reich. He has a habit of being right about things.

Annoying, isn't it?

Bake

[myrna minx]

10. K&R n/t

[Romulox]

13. In 100 years, this case will be studied alongside Citizen's United as part of a new trend.

The "Robert's Era" will become known as synonymous with an aggressive new synthesis of corporate and government power.

[Leopolds Ghost]

43. There's no point in arguing your case here

It's obvious that "liberal" and "progressivism" has been redefined to mean advocacy for a culture of pure individual responsibility and liability to the rest of the public, levying fines against those most in need in the interest of the financial benefit of the majority, and blaming the recipients of free health care for the skyrocketing medical costs associated with specialty care received by the insured.

It is a Homeowners Association mentality. That is not surprising since the majority of Americans now live in homeowners associations anyway.

[avaistheone1]

14. I just hope this will somehow open the door for single-payer health insurance.

[nolabels]

40. Probably one of the reasons it was ruled that way

Can't throw the frog into boiling water, it jumps out. This was a win for status-qua, loose the focus on SCOTUS so they can continue to rule for money and corporations without being noticed so much. The law is a piece and mostly favors corporations anyway. I was originally written by republicans but somehow adopted by democrats as a good idea. A pyrrhic victory imho

[Shrek]

15. I think the Chief Justice gave something to both sides

The PPACA is upheld, which was the main goal of the administration.

But he also accepted the conservative rationale regarding the commerce clause, which was a big part of the litigation.

[magic59]

20. Reich for President!

Oh well, I can dream.

[frazzled]

31. I just realized ...

what an unfortunate ring that has. ("Reich" and president.)

I was a strong supporter of Reich in the Democratic primary for Governor of Massachusetts. Unfortunately, he lost to a weak party regular (Shannon O'Brien). But I have to say this: just because you are right on things, which he certainly was in this case, does not mean that would make you either a successful candidate or necessarily a good president. Retail politics is a tough business, and governing even tougher. In that respect, I'm pretty sure we'll not see Bob Reich running for president ever.

[Deep13]

21. Sadly, Kennedy's slip further into RW insanity defies explanation. nt

[NNN0LHI]

22. So was I back in March

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002494179

[abelenkpe]

24. You're right1 Good job Robert Reich :)

Love that man!

[DirkGently]

26. Didn't go quite the way he said. No Commerce Clause support

And I don't think this court is terribly worried about losing its credibility. The conservative members all seem like they're champing at the bit to roll around in partisan mud and blood with the rest of the conservative ideologues. Scalia and Thomas are working on second careers as Tea Party-flavored public speakers.

At the end of the day though, the mandated purchase of private insurance doesn't anger the 1%ers Roberts answers to. In fact, they like it. After all, the Republicans wanted exactly that just a few years ago.

I think it wasn't worth the possible blow to Obama to try to gerrymander the Constitution the way they did in Citizens. But the Roberts Court did insist that it's taxing power, not the Commerce Clause, that makes the mandate acceptable.

[Stellar]

29. Obama/Biden 2012

[Scurrilous]

30. K & R

[robinlynne]

32. exactly.. Thanks for posting!

[Gothmog]

34. Thanks for posting

I have seen Sec. Reich make this point on a couple of different shows and I am glad that he was right. Overturning the ACA would have been the third strike on the SCOTUS (the first two strikes being Bush v. Gore and Citizens United). Polling has been showing that the public has been viewing the court as being political and the dissenting opinion from the Thomas, Scalia, Alito and Kennedy would confirm this view).

Roberts made the right call though I disagree with him on the Commerce Clause.

[FlaGranny]

35. My first thought on this -

This was upheld as a TAX. Doesn't that throw the door open for universal single payer? If you can tax some people for health insurance, you can tax everyone can't you? I think this sets a precedent that will allow for single payer.

[Hubert Flottz]

37. The filthy five and their co-conspirator other two have used up to much of their "Political Capital"

in Bush vs Gore and in Citizens United vs the FEC. Trashing Obama-care would have been a big third strike. It's a shame when the court is in contempt of the country's well being and so the filthy five blinked. Robert Reich was right about it being Chief Justice Roberts who took the plunge. The teabaggers will be on the warpath now, but if Touchy Feely Thomas or Scumbag Scalia had sided with the law, instead of politics in this case, the Bagger Brigades would have been in lock and load mode.

And...Boner Wept.

[Ratty]

38. And I thought "Wow, a rare miss for Reich"

My respect for him has grown.

[ananda]

45. Reich was right.

I was hoping, but...

[Tommy_Carcetti]

46. Well the man is a genius.

Not a surprise he was a Rhodes Scholar in the same class as Bill Clinton.

[alittlelark]

47. Justice Roberts history of seizures may have played a part

in his ruling.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1648384,00.html

Does Justice Roberts Have Epilepsy?

When Chief Justice John Roberts experienced the second seizure of his life on Monday, he may have become, in medical terms, an epileptic. Doctors classify anyone who has experienced two or more unexplained seizures as having epilepsy, a disorder in which the electrical activity of the brain is interrupted, similar to a surge on an electrical line, for brief periods of time. In some, but not all cases, this interruption can result in loss of consciousness or uncontrolled muscle spasms. Seizures can also be caused by more obvious events, such as a brain injury, fever, low blood sugar or lack of oxygen.

According to a spokesperson for the Penobscot Bay Medical Center in Maine, where the Chief Justice was taken after his seizure caused him to fall onto a dock at his summer home, Roberts was fully recovered and did not seem to show any lasting effects from the brain episode. His seizure, as well as an earlier episode that occurred 14 years ago, were described as being "benign idiopathic," meaning that their cause is unknown.

The diagnosis of epilepsy, say experts, may not necessarily mean that Roberts will have to take anti-seizure medication, which can control the electrical activity of the brain, or have to be concerned that future events will impair his ability to function on the Supreme Court. "Epilepsy diagnosis is a meaningless term in this case," says Dr. Frank Gilliam, director of the epilepsy center at Columbia University Medical Center, who is not involved in the medical care of Justice Roberts. He notes that 1% of the U.S. population is diagnosed with epilepsy, and one-third of these cases are relatively benign and do not require treatment. "It's a wastebasket term for anyone who has had two or more unprovoked seizures."

Understanding the circumstances under which the two seizures occurred will help doctors to better determine whether or not Roberts will need medication, but doctors say that in 50% of epilepsy cases, the cause remains a mystery. Roberts had been traveling extensively prior to arriving in Maine for vacation, but whether or not jet lag or fatigue played a role in triggering his seizure isn't clear.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1648384,00.html#ixzz1z8tJ1ENb

[Skittles]

48. I'll give kudos where kudos is due

it surprised me greatly to see Justice Roberts break away from the partisan hacks