Supreme Court and health care: 4 justices control law's fate

The Oregonian ^ | 3/25/12 | Sue Jepsen

[Jean S]

WASHINGTON -- Here's a thought that can't comfort President Barack Obama: The fate of his health care overhaul rests with four Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices.

His most sweeping domestic achievement could be struck down if they stand together with Justice Clarence Thomas, another GOP appointee who is the likeliest vote against.

But the good news for Obama is that he probably needs only one of the four to side with him to win approval of the law's crucial centerpiece, the requirement that almost everyone in this country has insurance or pays a penalty.

[EQAndyBuzz]

“This is a joke, correct? If not, you don’t know what a leftist is.”

I am fully aware what a leftist is. I also know when they have to cut their losses.

The only way this can be constitutional is if Obama calls this a tax. They are basing their entire strategy on SCOTUS agreeing. That will cost Obama the Presidency and then Congress kills this next year. By the time SCOTUS takes it up again after the ACLU and every lefty organization gets their two cents in, the program would be fully dismantled.

Even the lefties on SCOTUS wouldn’t vote for something so blatantly unconstitutional unless the votes to kill it are their and they need to serve the base with a dissenting voice.

So maybe 6-3, 5-4 if the administration wants the drama of villifying SCOTUS as extreme right wing and that’s what the Rats will use election time.

Personally, I think Obama wants to lose this fight in SCOTUS so he can use it as a political tool to blame the Republicans for why grandma will no longer have health care. Think about it. He took 500 billion out of medicare for this and that money is gone. Plus by screwing the doctors, they can lay that blame on the Republicans also.

[Clintonfatigued]

I recall that Thurgood Marshall retired during the a Republican administration due to age and that Ruth Ginsburg does that same after Obama is defeated.

[GOPsterinMA]

Don’t put stock in an editorial from a leftist rag. You’re smarter than that.

This will be another 5-4 in our favor.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: If you think what ails Amerika will be solved politically at the ballot box, you are delusional.

OK, so let’s say conservatives don’t vote at all because the nominee is not what they like.... what’s the alternative?

[W. W. SMITH]

Dogs go to heaven and I don’t think Ruth is headed in that direction.

[Impy]

Yeah I know but it was too good a euphemism for me to pass up. ;)

[Rome2000]

Its not about what happens in this election, it’s too late,there is no alternative, it’s over, been that way since 1865, the pace is just accelerating.

The Republic is dead, Washington is the enemy, this is just death rattle.

[GOPsterinMA]

I've been tinkering with the thought that perhaps the bullsh*t charade of SCOTUS Independence should be lifted and SCOTUS “Justices” should serve only during the tern of whatever POTUS nominates then. Make them glorified US Attorneys. A new POTUS brings in a new slate of SCOTUS "Justices".

Yes, we'll lose great legal scholars like Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito, but we'll also lose f*cking losers like the four Marxists on the bench today.

No one deserves a lifetime appointment; not even members of the Jedi Council and most certianly not some of the garbage sitting on the SCOTUS today. No way.

[W. W. SMITH]

Supreme Court Justices can be impeached and there have been instances where congress should have done so.

[Impy]

Some years ago I think it was Billyboy who suggested we elect Federal Judges including SCOTUS instead of appointing them. Most states elect Judges, here in IL the races are partisan, up in WI they are “non-partisan”. We could stop pretending the Court isn’t political.

In any case they should not serve for life, I never liked that, but a limited tenure would effect both sides.

[GOPsterinMA]

Great point! Under my plan, impeachment is still an option. The longest term any SCOTUS “Justice” would get is eight years.

But impeaching and removing them would be 100% on the table.

[Impy]

In closing, I don’t like how they aren’t accountable to anyone but the grim reaper (unless they break the law bad enough to get impeached).

[GOPsterinMA]

“I don’t like how they aren’t accountable to anyone”

Me either. That’s the biggest problem.

[BillyBoy]

My ideal preference would be to amend the Constitution so all the Supreme Court judges are directly elected by the people through contested elections with other judges (they wouldn't be elected nationwide like Presidents, they'd be elected regionally by blocs of states. Right now there are 11 federal judicial circuits. Cut it down to 9 and we have our 9 election districts for the Supreme Court). It would ensure geographic balance on the court and make it unlikely another David Souter would ever sneak unto the court. That's the method used in Illinois and I believe 7 other states for their state Supreme Court.

(Take that, you "democracy is bad, we should let politicians appoint whoever they want for life because they're so much smarter that us" freepers. ;-p Of course, Rick Perry thinks it's BAD to amend the constitution so voters instead of politicians choose the Senate, but GOOD to amend the constitution so voters instead of politicians pick the Supreme Court. Can you say Schizo?)

That being said, going from an appointment-for-life supreme court to a directly elected to serve a certain term Supreme Court is unlikely to ever become law (sorry, Rick Perry), so we'd probably end up with a compromise where the President continues to appoint whoever he wants for life, subject to Senate confirmation, but voters are allowed to review that appointment every 10 years or so for judicial retention, and could deny a Supreme Court justice more time on the court by majority vote. I could live with that. Too bad there's no serious effort to implement such a reform.

BTW, we FINALLY have a Republican candidate for the Illinois Supreme Court running for one of the three Cook County seats on the court this year. He won't win, but at least those of us in the minority can can a protest vote against the socialist Chicago RAT judge nominated for the Illinois Supreme Court.

[BillyBoy]

Here's the existing federal judical circuits so you get an idea of where the elected judges would be running (the D.C. district and the federal district wouldn't get representation on SCOTUS, of course. I don't mind that, I'm glad the folks that elected Marion Barry don't have Senators, either)

We'd have to tweak this map quite a bit in some places (9 is way too big and is run by insane liberal judges already) and find a way to either expand the court to 11 members or eliminate two federal districts (I think 1 and 2 could merged to create a New England district) but you get a good idea. At least five districts: 4, 5, 8, 10 & 11 already look safe Republican and would elect solid conservatives if they started electing judges tomorrow. I wouldn't mind being in the same district with Wisconsin and Indiana, they might help counter the Chicago vote that decides every election for Illinois. Had this been implimented a few years ago, John Paul Stevens would have been up for re-election and he would have been "our" representative on the Supreme Court since he was a Chicago judge before Gerald Ford gave him a promotion. I would have given my right arm to vote against him on a ballot!

[GOPsterinMA]

It's a wonderful plan BB! Anything that holds these black robes accountable for their actions and puts them on a leash is fine with me.

Again, NO ONE should have what is essentially a lifetime appointment. Interesting that when it comes to SCOTUS “Justices” the trend tends to be for “conservative” judges to drift left; we very, very rarely see the opposite. Which to me is another reason why as good or great as some of these folks are, the old saying still applies: “Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely”.

[BillyBoy]

Absolutely. You're right that you rarely see a left-leaning judge become increasingly conservative over the years on the court. I'd also set some additional ground rules to be eligible to serve on the court:

1) Judges would have to establish residency in the federal judicial circuit they represent for at least 1 year prior to the election.

2) Judges would have to be between the ages of 35 and 75 to be eligible to serve on SCOTUS.

3) Judges could be elected to no more than three 10-year terms on the court, or until they reach the age of 75 (whichever comes first)

4) No person that has been disbarred or removed from a judicial position by impeachment would be eligible.

Of course, to get the Constitutional amendment to pass, you'd have to make the existing SCOTUS judges exempt from these rules (which sadly means that Ruth Bader Ginsburg wouldn't be tossed off the court even though she's pushing 80). But once they died or retired, you wouldn't see more Souters or Stevens make it onto the bench.

[GOPsterinMA]

BB,

Your concept is BRILLIANT!!! I LOVE IT!!!

It’s a sensible and quite honestly, needed change to “the living document” that the Constitution is, right? Let’s see what the liberal objections wold be to your proposal, for example.

Two thumbs up!

[GOPsterinMA]

BB,

Your concept is BRILLIANT!!! I LOVE IT!!!

It’s a sensible and quite honestly, needed change to “the living document” that the Constitution is, right? Let’s see what the liberal objections would be to your proposal, for example.

Two thumbs up!

[BillyBoy]

As long as we're on this topic, I did a little tweaking to the existing federal judicial circuit map and came up with an example of what kind of districts we'd have for an elected SCOTUS. Since the existing 9th circuit is huge and known as a hotbed of insane liberal activist judges, I took a cleaver to it and reduced it down to 3 west coast states + Hawaii (California is already the most populous state, it shouldn't be in a big judicial district given the number of cases in California alone)

Under this map, districts 3, 4, 6, 8, and 9 would most likely elect conservative Republican judges, districts 1,2,and 7 would mostly elect liberal RAT judges, and district 5 would be a wildcard:

I know it would never happen, but it would be hilarious if the existing SCOTUS justices (and other federal judges at the appalate level) had to run for retention to the bench under this system. For example, Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sotomayor all live in New York, so they'd have to compete for the same SCOTUS seat in district 2. They'd only be able to avoid running against each other by moving to a new state.