Thursday, June 28, 2012

Robert Reich Is Delusional

I think there must be too much residual pot smoke in the air at the University of California, because every time Robert Reich speaks he sounds more delusional than the time before. He is now saying that the Supreme Court will uphold the “health care reform” act, and gives three of the silliest reasons I’ve even heard for his prediction.

First he says that the Court wants to “restore its credibility” with the voting public. Of course, they hold office for life, essentially cannot be impeached, and have never shown the slightest indication that they care about public opinion, but none of that seems to seeped into Reich’s addled little brain. Further, more than 70% of the voting public wants at least part of the act overturned, so upholding it would hardly endear the Court to voters.

Second he says they have a lower court ruling to use as a precedent. Oh, dear. If the Supreme Court was going to do that we would hardly need the Supreme Court, would we? I hardly think it’s likely that the nine justices intend to render themselves irrelevant.

Finally he cites Social Security and Medicare, as if he thinks that requiring citizens to pay into a government program is the same thing a requiring them to purchase a product from a private company. The point that it’s not the same thing is the whole point of the lawsuit.

Now, if the President would “put health insurance companies into receivership” as Robert suggested he do with a British corporation during
an oil spill… That might incur cries of a dictatorial presidency, but what the hell, we have those cries already.

Update, 7:30am: I didn't say they would not uphold it, I have never had any predictions on that outcome, and I was not mocking his prediction itself. If you think they upheld it for any of the reasons he gave, you are simply mistaken. I'll look forward to reading their ruling, but it won't read, "We wanted to restore our credibility."

2 comments:

bruce said...

His reasons are as bad as Obama's...

"They won't overturn a law passed by a strong majority".. yeah, passed by 7 votes on the House - what's that, 1.5%? Ok, the Senate was 60-39, a bit better, but still not particularly popular.

"Overturning this law would be unprecedented".. pure B.S. That's what the USSC is for (one reason) us to rule on contitutional questions.

This from Obama, supposedly a "contitutional scholar".. If that's what a scholar is, his ROI on his education is no better than Krugman's economics.

Prup (aka Jim Benton) said...

Actually, Jayhawk, as I will be saying at our other 'battleground' I think a very good case can be made that at least part of the reason Roberts switched at the last minute -- as the evidence of the opinions shows, the decision almost certainly was originally 5-4 to reverse with Scalia writing the opinion -- was a realization of how overruling the ACA, on top of Bush v Gore and Citizens United, would have made the court vulnerable to political pushback if -- as is now certain in my eyes -- Obama wins a Johnson v Goldwater, Nixon v McGovern level landslide reelection. (I consider Obama naive, a bumbler and a bungler as a President, though the more I look at what he's actually achieved, I'll admit I may beunderestimating him. But there's no doubt he is a great campaigner, and even a bad one could defeat the ineffable Mittens handily.)

Another was, probably, the sheer mass of lesser cases that repealing it would have caused. Could insurance companies sue for the return of the 'medical loss ratio rebates' -- the least noticed provision, but one which has already put a lot of money into a lot of people's hands? Could an insurance company sue to get out of a contract -- i.e., a policy they wrote -- they claim was entered into 'under duress' because of the prospect of the ACA? Could they once again begin 'recissions' and 'pre-existing condition' denials?

I do think 'restoring their credibiliy' was a factor even here, because without the sustaining, next term would have been filled with ACA-related cases, and the sheer amount of money being, in effect, held in escrow until the secondary decisions came down could have shoved us back into a recession.

Post a Comment