Subscribe via RSS Feed

NFIB Roundup

[ 22 ] June 29, 2012 |
  • For those who want some mobile Lemieux analysis, I’m on the Prospect podcast with the great Jamelle Bouie, Jaime Fuller, and Patrick Caldwell.
  • While in both the podcast and my initial article I engage in a little mea culpa over my repeated predictions that Roberts would not be the swing vote, I note that it was literally unprecedented. I also note that moderate, reasonable, thinking person’s conservative Sam Alito has never been the swing vote.   Which compels me to revisit that Contrarian Comedy Classic from Ann Althouse, the nomination of Sam Alito is excellent. news. for. liberals!
  • Paul Starr on the real winners.
  • Perhaps my favorite of the angry conservative reactions has to be James Pethokoukis quoting McCulloch v. Maryland, the case the dissenters wanted to de facto overrule.  Although I don’t mean to slight Ben Shapiro.
  • David Brooks uses the decision to say things that aren’t true.
  • Like Paul, I’ve been enjoying Richard Posner’s contributions to the Slate year-in-review.   But, particularly given his previous criticisms of “law office social science,” I can’t resist quoting the nadir of his deeply misguided attack on the PPACA:  “The Washington Post has an excellent [sic] economic journalist named Robert Samuelson, and he had a column a week or two ago in which he persuasively [sic] criticized the law.”   Yes, that one.

Comments (22)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. rea says:

    Ah, Posner–Scalia’s only rival for the title of “Most Overrated Pseudo-Intellectual in the Country”. The guy who wrote that Bush v Gore was correctly decided. Deploying his powers for once on the side of good rather than evil . . .

  2. [...] LGM, which also notes that Alito don’t [...]

  3. Anderson says:

    Thomas Friedman isn’t a pseudo-intellectual? Because if he is, he’s several orders of magnitude above Posner (who really *is* smart … just not as smart as he thinks he is).

  4. chris says:

    Speaking of unprecedented, how often is there a dissent that nobody is willing to put his name on? I don’t think I’ve ever seen it before. The majority of a 7-2 or 8-1 decision implying “everyone agrees with this but the dissenter(s)”, sure. But I’ve never seen an unsigned dissent.

    • Davis X. Machina says:

      I believe the legal principle of qui odoratur, idem oboluit[1] is invoked in these cases.

      [1]He who smelled it, dealt it.

    • John says:

      It’s not unsigned. It’s jointly signed. They are all taking responsibility for it, surely.

    • Rarely Posts says:

      I was surprised by this too, and in one of the links above, someone points out that it may be strong evidence suggesting that Roberts originally voted to strike the law down, assigned the opinion to himself, began drafting it/circulating it, and then switched on the tax issue later. That might explain it since then the dissenters might have been starting with a Roberts draft, so no one author was ever the lead author on the whole piece.

  5. joe from Lowell says:

    My favorite conserva-tweet is:

    Ari Fleischer

    @AriFleischer
    I miss Justice Harriet Miers.

  6. cpinva says:

    anyone who cites robert samuelson as an “economic journalist” immediately self-identifies as an idiot. a well educated idiot perhaps, but an idiot nonetheless.

  7. Dirk Gently says:

    Random: when I say “mobile Lemieux” out loud, it sounds like some kind of horrifying airborne disease.

  8. Joe says:

    Richard Posner probably types those columns while waiting for his toast to be done. His piece on the juvenile sentencing cases left something to be desired. He has his good and bad moments.

  9. Rick Venema says:

    Question to ponder: why don’t the liberal justices ever vote conservative on the Supreme Court? When is the last time Ruth Bader Ginsburg unexpectedly delivered a swing vote? Yet time and time again conservatives betray their own.

    Perhaps it is the liberals on the court that are attempting to turn the Supreme Court into nothing more than a political tool, giving us a government that spends too much, taxes too much, regulates too much, and continues to take away our liberty.

    Margaret Thatcher had it right when she said that the problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money. Sadly, this country will get a lesson in this simple fact the hard way unless we reverse course in November.

    Rick Venema
    COLONIAL HEIGHTS, VIRGINIA

    • tonycpsu says:

      When is the last time Ruth Bader Ginsburg unexpectedly delivered a swing vote?

      I believe that would be
      Knox v. Service Employees Int’l Union, Local 1000
      , from way back in the halcyon days of June 21, 2012. I remember it like it was last week.

    • wjts says:

      Perhaps it is the liberals on the court that are attempting to turn the Supreme Court into nothing more than a political tool…

      I share your outrage that a branch of the federal government has comported itself in a fashion consistent with its status as a branch of the federal government.

      wjts
      A DIMENSION AS VAST AS SPACE AND AS TIMELESS AS INFINITY

    • rea says:

      The reason conservative judges are more likely to join the center/leftists than the other way around is that the center/leftists are more often right.

      • John says:

        I’d also think that there’s a fair number of decisions where several of the liberal justices join with more conservative ones. And the conservatives, of course, don’t need any liberal votes to get a majority if they stick together.

        John
        PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA

    • DrDick says:

      Why is it only Republican officials who openly call for armed insurrection when they don’t get their way? Perhaps because the Republicans are the party of spoiled brats and closet fascists?

      DrDick
      PEOPLES REPUBLIC OF MOTHERFUCKING MONTANA
      US of FUCKING A

  10. mike in dc says:

    We need to go back to those days when the Court adhered to strict construction of the text of the Constitution. You know, before Marbury v. Madison.

  11. JP Stormcrow says:

    I know Posner is just parroting Samuelson, but my God does he really want his name attached to this reprehensible bit of argumentation?

    But the deficit cannot be allowed to grow indefinitely, and the health care law will help it to grow indefinitely. There is no way the nation can add 30 million people to the private or public health insurance rolls without experiencing higher health costs. The reason is that insured people demand and receive more health care than the uninsured. That is explicit in Professor Dellinger’s reference to health costs that are “unaffordable” by the uninsured. The care they will now get may improve their health. They may live longer. But the longer people live, the more medical care they need.

    I mean why don’t those poor motherfuckers just up and die already?

    • Paulk says:

      The temptation to point out the ridiculousness of this argument is too powerful.

      Um…no. Adding 30 million people to the insurance rolls will not increase health care costs. It will likely decrease them. For many reasons:

      1) Most of the uninsured are, at any given moment, healthy, meaning they will be contributing financially to a pool without taking from it.

      2) Right now, 90% of those uninsured are utilizing the health system within 2 years, a good number of whom cannot afford to pay for these services and use less efficient and more expensive means, such as emergency room care. Combined with point #1, we will overall see a greater influx of funds to cover costs, which should be lower.

      3) The uninsured do not use health care at the early stages, when it is least expensive. Proving an opportunity for them to be healthier will reduce the overall strain on health care costs. (Pills for hypertension are significantly less expensive than emergency care for a heart attack, for example.)

      4) Those who are insured prior to going onto Medicare are, we know, more healthy and cost less than those who were uninsured prior to going onto Medicare, for many of the reasons listed above. These, too, will reduce overall health expenditures.

      The real idiocy of his “argument” is that he wants to use the high cost of treating people later in life as a reason not to insure them younger—as if we don’t already have a government program that is paying for them later in life.

      It really is a “just die already” argument.

  12. Hogan says:

    From Dave Weigle, outside the Supreme Court:

    I heard a peal of delight and turned around — that’s the picture at the top of this post. Hilary Matfess, a young policy analyst, was jumping up and down, yelling out details.

    “The mandate is constitutional! It was upheld! Roberts went for the swing vote! Yes! Oh my God! The individual mandate survives as a tax!”

    Did you work on passing the bill? I asked.

    “No!” said Matfess. “I just have lupus!”

    That’s the kind of story that makes a person’s eyes sweat.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

  • Switch to our mobile site