Another Piece of Drivel from Alan Blinder

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.

27 thoughts on “Another Piece of Drivel from Alan Blinder”

  1. 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.

  2. @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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

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

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

    1. Retired,

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

  8. 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.

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

    Really? And what case was that?

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

  11. 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?

  12. 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

Comments are closed.