Yes, because that’s a big IF. The Democrats already lost control of Congress and wouldn’t be able to overturn the courts in this case. Newt’s proposal puts the power in the hands of the people. If they hate a Supreme Court ruling, they can then elect people to both of the other branches who will overturn it.
I don’t see how you can make an argument against democracy and for dictatorial rule just because you hope it will work out in your favor maybe this year and maybe once in a while. We already have a history of it working out in liberals’ favor far more often. Liberal policy is much harder to get the majority of the country to go along with, hence the courts have become a cynical tool of the left.
Frankly, I’ve heard enough whining about the Supreme Court from the right for my entire life and very few proposals to actually do something about it. This is a much-needed and very belated start to a serious and substantive discussion aimed at solving the problem.
As for Obamacare, conservatives are DREAMING if they think the courts are the poison pill that will stop socialized medicine in its tracks. There’s no court remedy for a single-payer welfare system. And replacing the mandate with a tax and corresponding tax credit if you buy insurance produced virtually the same result. In fact, I can see the courts upholding Obamacare by arguing that it, for all intents and purposes, already functions as a tax and tax credit. No, the remedy for Obamacare has to come through legislation, not through the courts.
And, frankly, it would help to hear what the GOP’s proposal is for making health care more affordable for the middle class. Government intervention? A switch to a completely unfettered, free market system? Dealing with malpractice insurance? It’s been a real shame that the debates have focused solely on the individual mandate. Health care is a far bigger issue than just that and even the concept of socialized medicine doesn’t live or die by the idea of a mandate.
“This is a much-needed and very belated start to a serious and substantive discussion aimed at solving the problem.”
I agree with that. The two out of three comment by Newt was, in a word, dumb. Once again we have Newt starting with a reasonable point but pushing it and pushing it until he gets a reaction from his audience.
I think it’s good to refer to post 164. There are two concepts that I’d like to see discussed WRT supreme court appointees. First is Negation. The courts are to negate laws rather than make laws. Somehow that issue got caught up in Judicial Deference. We need to separate them again. Second is non-Delgability but that’s a discussion for another day.