Associated Press
An artist rendering from last week's high court deliberations.
The week after the health care drama at the Supreme Court, some on the right are so confident about the outcome, they see no reason to delay the taunting. They'll engage in some pre-decision chest-thumping now, setting the stage for more vigorous and more obnoxious celebrations over the summer.
Here, for example, is John Podhoretz mocking those who expected the administration to prevail at the high court (via Jon Chait).
The panicked reception in the mainstream media of the three-day Supreme Court health-care marathon is a delightful reminder of the nearly impenetrable parochialism of American liberals.
Jay Cost was slightly more circumspect, but argued along similar lines.
The Court might very well uphold the law, but it will not nearly be the slamdunk that almost all liberals thought it would be. Why did the left get it so wrong?
It strikes me as the wrong question, in part because it's based on a flawed premise. For one thing, we don't yet know the outcome, and if there's a 6-3 ruling upholding the law, many of the analyses of the last week are going to appear rather foolish.
For another, it wasn't just "the left" that expected the justices to reject conservative arguments. Conservative federal judges upheld the health care law before the case reached the Supreme Court; Reagan administration officials saw the dispute as a no-brainer unworthy of the justices' time; and experts, analysts, and former Supreme Court clerks all helped form a consensus within the legal community: it was simply hard to imagine a court majority striking down the law.
The sentence that keeps rattling around in my brain was written by law professor Rick Hasen: "The smart money before the argument was on an 8-1 upholding of Obamacare." A week ago, this was an entirely sensible, mainstream, and widely-accepted observation. Today, it seems outlandish.
The question, then, isn't why did "the left get it so wrong," but rather, why the entire legal community seems so amazed by the apparent trajectory of last week's arguments. It seems to me the predictions going into last week were fine; it was the expectations that were off.
The predictions were based on reliable guide posts: precedent, the facts of the case, the court's traditions and respect for restraint, lower-court rulings, the integrity of the institution, and the justices' avoidance of activism. This is routine whenever the Supreme Court hears a high-profile case -- court watchers consider what these justices have said and done before, and they shape predictions accordingly.
And that's exactly what happened in advance of oral arguments in this case. When analysts expected a 7-2 or 8-1 ruling in support of the administration, they weren't just picking numbers out of thin air; this was a reasonable estimate based on everything we know about the court, the law, and these justices.
So why do the predictions look ridiculous? Because the legal community -- analysts, scholars, journalists, attorneys, former clerks -- appear to have wildly overestimated the extent to which conservative justices give a damn about precedent, the facts of the case, the court's traditions and respect for restraint, lower-court rulings, the integrity of the institution, and the justices' avoidance of activism.
Before last week, objective court watchers could be overheard making comments like, "Sure, there are five conservative justices on the court, but it's not like these are five House Republican freshmen from Alabama. These are serious jurists and honorable men who are acutely aware of their unique responsibilities. It's not like they've gone mad."
After last week, these same objective court watchers can be overheard saying things like, "Maybe they've gone mad."
This reminds me a great deal of the months preceding the debt-ceiling fight. Many political observers, including most of the West Wing, assumed congressional Republicans were conservative, but not dangerous. They wouldn't really attack the full faith and credit of the United States, on purpose, holding the nation hostage as part of some odd ideological crusade.
But the expectations were wrong, and GOP officials were reckless and irresponsible to a nightmarish degree.
The same is true with regards to health care at the Supreme Court. The working assumption was that the officials on the right are very conservative, but still inclined to do the right thing. The oral arguments, like the debt-ceiling fiasco, has forced a reevaluation of these assumptions.
This is a case in which the court majority stands poised to strip the Supreme Court of its legitimacy and credibility (again). Some on the right see this as a development worth bragging about, mocking those who perceived conservative justices as principled professionals.
I respectfully disagree.
Leave a Comment:
Tonight I will watch the University of Kentucky play a basketball game with Kansas University. Unless some player is inadvertantly injured, the losing team will suffer nothing more than bruised egos.
What conservative writers like John Podhoretz fail to realize is that basketball is a sport, but health care is for keeps. If we don't do health care right, millions die or suffer. As those millions suffer or die, the quality of life for all Americans is impacted. By winning, conservatives lose.
And it doesn't matter. The right makes the life and health of citizens subordinate to their hatred of government (even if they care about those at all, and I doubt that). It is too late to learn that lesson. Anyone truly paying attention has known all along that this is not a debate, it's not a discussion; it's a war. War depends on numbers and strength, not evidence and reason. And the right has the numbers and they are going to implement the plan. Out with the old precedent, and in with the new. Say goodbye to the country you knew.
And root for Kansas.
Let's let the United States citizenry get the health care that those in Congress have. If we are going to have socialized medicine, then do it. But does the government have the right, on a Federal level, to force people to purchase something they do not need? My 23 year old, college educated, still unemployed son cannot afford healthcare and is in perfect health. But he's needed to pay for those at the other end of the spectrum who do need health care. Yes yes, yes, he could get in an accident tomorrow, but statistically, it is those toward the end of life who use the most health care. And you know what? The insurance companies (who would benefit from this law) can raise their rates exponentially whenever they choose. Try being a small business and provide healthcare. Massachusetts (where I live) can brag that 98% have healthcare, but it's provided mainly by businesses.
Actually, no. Your 23 year old, college educated, still unemployed son is now entitled to stay on your health insurance until he turns 26, thanks to the ACA.
Health insurance is not health care.
This corrupt piece of crap bill forced on us by Obama and the Democrats and Republicans is a SCAM.
Health care is so vitally important that it is a “common good”… a right of all people.
Health Insurance is the middleman scam. Health Insurance companies take money out of the system but serve no real purpose. Rather that the patient paying the doctor or hospital directly the middleman gets in between and takes money in return for then handing the money to the doctor or hospital. The health insurance companies serve no purpose. They are just money sucking middlemen. The money they take would be much better spent going directly to the health service providers, thereby leaving more money for service and real health care rather than spending it on insurance company middlemen.
Most advanced country governments have the common sense to know this.
The American people want REAL healthcare reform. Instead what we have is corruption from our totally corrupt Democratic and Republican government. And they obviously intend to mandate [force] the American people to waste more insane amounts money… on a scam called health insurance.
Universal Health Care is the ONLY solution. Eliminate the middlemen, they are sucking the system dry.
The conservatives on the court were debating policy not law. Their partisanship was transparent.
today's decision against the guy who PAID his ticket-fine and showed documentation to that effect but was still arrested and jailed for about a week and strip searched twice is another good example that Kennedy must be sinking into paranoid dementia. I wouldn't put anything past the 5 Extremes on this court.
Exatly PEA , kennedy proclaimed THERE IS NO CORRUPTION IN GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS HISTORICALLY proved the guy is suffering from dementia , we must also acknowledge the fact that these conservatives are out of touch with the real world of healthcare imo , they would never even bother to read about the lady dying in jail , after the cops haled her there from the emergency room while she was seeking treatment , they live in out of touch castles , then we expect them to have coherent views on the subject? PAST judges would bother to at least be informed
That is cynical , And I know I could not make the same statements 12 years ago , but these new conservatives are a different psychosis , if they toss this , they are the rehash of jim crow and slave holders imo , they have just learned how to cover their bigotry , they are conservative elitist in a bubble , and nothing will penetrate it but a destrutive crushing blow ....
No form of government is flawless , it is becoming overly apparent the dictator worshiping conservatives have learned how to game the system , the older I get , the better secession looks
>MMonk; You made me chock on my coffee...funny guy!
A few weeks ago, Newt Gingrich was ranting about activist Supreme Court judges, in preparation, I thought, for his argument that their decision on the constitutionality of “Obamacare” could be discounted, if it was upheld. The same, now, could be said for President Obama’s comments, if the law is struck down. Without the benefit of a law school education, I cannot separate the emotional and political implications of their impending decision from the application of precedent and the tenets of the Constitution. What I would like to believe, is that the Justices’ decision will not be capricious. From the arguments presented, I personally may be able to accept a decision that declares the individual mandate unconstitutional as one that is not politically motivated, but judiciously interpreted, provided that the entire law is not struck down as unconstitutional. The individual mandate was a market solution devised to solve a complex problem with various alternatives solutions. I want to believe that the process by which we solve complex problems in this country will work, and Obamacare was an imperfect beginning of a process that may take years to perfect through good faith efforts by all stakeholders.