Search


Subscribe to AFM


Subscribe to AllFinancialMatters
by Email

All Financial Matters

Promote Your Page Too

The American's Creed

Site Sponsors

Books I Recommend


AFM in the Media


Money Magazine May 2008

Real Simple March 2008

Blogroll (Daily Reads)

« | Main | »

Another Piece of Drivel from Alan Blinder

By JLP | April 26, 2012

It’s been awhile since I have posted something controversial. This one is an opinion piece by Alan Blinder regarding the Supreme Court and the health care law.

Whether you are for or against the health care law, Alan Blinder misses the point of the Supreme Court, which is to decide whether or not something is constitutional. And, Mr. Blinder is trying to make this a party issue by claiming that since the Supreme Court is more conservative-leaning, it will vote along party lines.

Anyway, I’m interested to hear your thoughts on Mr. Blinder’s piece. Oh, and if you’re interested, there is an interesting reponse to the Blinder piece.

Topics: Health Insurance, Politics | 27 Comments »


27 Responses to “Another Piece of Drivel from Alan Blinder”

  1. JLP Says:
    April 26th, 2012 at 4:06 pm

    Test

  2. BG Says:
    April 26th, 2012 at 6:09 pm

    A valid (and legal way) for Obama to force it through the Supreme Court: threaten to increase the number of sitting justices.

    There is nothing in the constitution that says the Supreme Court is limited to 9 justices. I believe it was exactly this threat that Roosevelt used to get his ‘New Deal’ garbage passed.

    Note: increasing the number of justices requires an act of Congress, so a president can’t just pull this off in isolation.

  3. Dave Says:
    April 26th, 2012 at 11:47 pm

    @BG: Not to mention the additional fact that the Senate has to confirm Supreme Court nominees, and the Democrats no longer have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, meaning that the Republicans can prevent packing the court in a second way.

  4. BG Says:
    April 27th, 2012 at 7:37 am

    My prediction: Supreme Court finds the entire thing constitutional (valid).

    My hope: mandate is found unconstitutional, neutering the federal government, and this precedent is used to start disbanding SS.

  5. Retiredat40 Says:
    April 27th, 2012 at 2:06 pm

    I’d say Blinder had it about right. Do you really think this isn’t going to be a political decision. It’s going to be 5-4 against. You can see that coming a mile away.

    That’s when the fun really begins because both the Republicans and Dems are going to have a tiger by the tail then. There is no going back on some of the provisions.

  6. Jack Says:
    April 27th, 2012 at 2:13 pm

    A right is not something that the government must give you, it is something that the government cannot prevent you from getting.

  7. Retiredat40 Says:
    April 27th, 2012 at 2:22 pm

    All rights are given by governments. You are born naked with no rights in this world.

  8. JLP Says:
    April 27th, 2012 at 2:42 pm

    For those judges who might vote in support of Obamacare, I would like to know where in the Constitution do they find support for their decision.

    And yes, Retired, it will be a partisan vote. That’s because liberals want to do whatever they want regardless of what the Constitution says.

  9. Retiredat40 Says:
    April 27th, 2012 at 2:49 pm

    You don’t say? There was a Republican president that had that same attitude recently and Republicans were all for it. I wonder what changed their minds?

    Personally, I hope they do overturn it. I doubt Republicans are going to like the long-term results though.

  10. BG Says:
    April 27th, 2012 at 2:51 pm

    The constitution is an ancient document full of loopholes. Take the constitutional requirement for post offices and the overreach of the federal government (aka: abuse of the commerce clause).

    It is time for a constitution rewrite.

  11. Retiredat40 Says:
    April 27th, 2012 at 2:58 pm

    I’d hate to see what they’d come up with with a re-write.

  12. JLP Says:
    April 27th, 2012 at 3:07 pm

    Retired,

    I misspoke. I should have said conservatives. I realize that not all Republicans are conservative. Bush definitely was not a conservative.

  13. Retiredat40 Says:
    April 27th, 2012 at 3:09 pm

    He was until he wasn’t…when they didn’t want to claim him anymore.

  14. Jack Says:
    April 27th, 2012 at 4:09 pm

    > There was a Republican president that had that
    > same attitude recently and Republicans were
    > all for it.

    Really? And what case was that?

  15. Retiredat40 Says:
    April 27th, 2012 at 4:59 pm

    Duh.

  16. BG Says:
    April 27th, 2012 at 5:29 pm

    Jack) Bush on the Constiution: “Stop throwing that in my face…it is just a God-d@mned piece of paper!”.

  17. Valkyrie Frost Says:
    April 27th, 2012 at 6:22 pm

    JPL says, “That’s because liberals want to do whatever they want regardless of what the Constitution says.”

    Damn, I must not be liberal enough, because I’m liberal and that’s not what I want. I like (some) social programs, but I believe they should be done at the state level.

    Anyone have good idea’s about replacing Soc Security with state programs?

  18. Jack Says:
    April 28th, 2012 at 6:02 am

    Still waiting, Retired.

    BG, I’ve never heard that. Show me your source.

  19. Retiredat40 Says:
    April 28th, 2012 at 10:11 am

    Keep waiting Jack. I have no interest in entering bizarro world. Keep flying the flag.

  20. Evan Says:
    April 29th, 2012 at 6:59 pm

    I’d literally be terrified if there were a rewrite!

    I actually have faith that this won’t be 5-4 I think it is going to be a 6-3 or even more against the mandate. I think (read: hope) that even the left leaning judges can see what kind of CRAZY precedent this might set

  21. Jack Says:
    April 30th, 2012 at 9:52 am

    Thank you, Retired. Your gratuitous assertion is gratuitously dismissed.

  22. Retiredat40 Says:
    April 30th, 2012 at 11:59 am

    The bublle remains intact!

  23. Jack Says:
    April 30th, 2012 at 12:09 pm

    Perhaps because that which is pressing against it is not at all sharp.

  24. Retired at 40 Says:
    April 30th, 2012 at 12:52 pm

    Maybe. Or maybe perhaps something else is not all the sharp.

  25. Jack Says:
    April 30th, 2012 at 2:08 pm

    “all the sharp”?

    And what’s a “bublle”? ;-)

  26. Retired at 40 Says:
    April 30th, 2012 at 2:11 pm

    Na Nanny Boo Boo.

  27. Jack Says:
    April 30th, 2012 at 3:18 pm

    No wonder you want a Nanny State.

Comments