the supreme court decides on healthcare and the individual mandate itt

http://i.imgur.com/RbUXQ.jpg

good luck usa

Yes--good luck, U.S.A.

haha we're fucked no matter what guys don't kid yrselves

not a prediction re: this case btw just general statement

so 3 possible results right, someone feel free to clarify any misreading of cw:

1) obamacare completely upheld: unmitigated win for obama
2) obamacare upheld - mandate: loss for obama on optics, arguable win for left on policy or potential for same
3) obamacare completely overturned: unmitigated loss for obama, presidency accomplishes as much (or little) addressing progressive priorities as clinton's, possible gotv silver lining (at a stretch), maybe left finally realizes necessity of playing long game, that power always trumps principle, maybe dems actually get >40% as ruthless/effective as gop (ha)

Some chatter in progressive circles about pushing for Medicare expansion should Roberts destroy the whole thing.

ha good luck w/ that

Meanwhile the WaPo editorial board calls for Nino's resignation.

i think the only shot at progressive reform that comes out of this is if only mandate goes (and even then w/ likely gop house and very possible gop senate i'm not sure how you get medicare expansion w/ a plurality that wants to do w/ medicare entirely, esp since gop house is clearing a path toward impeachment - fast & furious, solyndra, new black panther party, whatever works - should obama be reelected)

really would love for pundits to start tossing out 'scalia's senile and clearly in early stages of dementia, time to step down' argument a la what the right did to thurgood marshall in the late 80s, if only to piss him off.

I'm no lawyer but have always been interested in the Court as an institution: its history, personalities, decisions. I often get impatient with liberals when they decry "judicial activism" or conservatives when they regard the Constitution as inviolate. If it's so inviolate how have we accepted the Bill of Rights applying to the states and the full integration of African-Americans into the body politic (to take two) when sixty years of conservative jurisprudence ruled otherwise? At least William O. Douglas was honest: he first decided what he thought was right then found the precedents to support those results; none of this nonsense about "original intent." It led to slipshod opinions but at least he was enough of a realist to accept that the law is like a poem or essay, subject to dozens of possible interpretations.

My only response: win elections and we'll get the justices we want.

agreed for the most part

I mean, Breyer-Ginsburg-Sotomayor (and Kagan as soon as she stops recusing herself) vote as a bloc too but it's our bloc.

A summary of predictions

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jun/28/supreme-court-ruling-health-care-live?newsfeed=true

I don't think I'll be able to stomach visiting my family over the upcoming holiday if this thing goes down, for all the smirking asides made just out of earshot (but not so much) so as not to incur my 'liberal soapbox routine' (their term for any kneejerk defensive reasoning I might be pushed into which can't be synopsized in three to five words).

the best thing to do anyway is 1. make a national optional health plan people can buy into - huge risk pool, lower premium 2. give hopitals money to take care of people who cant pay

circumvent all this "OH SHIT WE ARE GOING TO BE LIKE CANADA" nonsense

"9.40am: In all the political excitement over today's ruling, let's not forget what's at stake: the nearly 50 million Americans without health insurance."

translation - updating this page live is turning out more boring than we thought

Just killing time here. I'm reading Scalia's dissent in Arizona for the first time. Man.

Even in its international relations, the Federal Government must live with the inconvenient fact that it is a Union of independent States, who have their own sovereign powers. This is not the first time it has found that a nuisance and a bother in the conduct of foreign policy.

BOOM

this live page is way more exciting

http://www.scotusblog.com/cover-it-live/

hahaha Scalia, what a clown

You think The Nine are huddling now behind the curtain with a bottle of Beam?

tossing a coin

Scalia really needs a good tarring and feathering in the American tradition - or at least weiner in a mousetrap

"You think The Nine are huddling now behind the curtain with a bottle of Beam?"
I'm sure they are astride their Nazgul -dragons at this point in DC's sky

This is not the first time it has found that a nuisance and a bother in the conduct of foreign policy.

What the fuck is this assclown on about? Has he no knowledge of the history of the Articles of Confederation? The Civil War? Does he, like so many of his ilk, prefer his hidebound, rigid, partisan ideology to reason and this republic. I curse him.

It's on!

"Lying was his habit" is how the opinion begins.

Tom: 1,000 requests to the liveblog per second.

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2012/6/28/1340888663032/Justices-of-the-US-suprem-008.jpg

ONE RING TO RULE THEM ALL AND IN THE DARKNESS BIND THEM

Ginsberg seems like the Yoda of the group

Alito always looks like he's anticipating someone giving him a noogie

Scalia looks like he should have used preparation H

Amy Howe: We have health care opinion.

drumroll

parsley asap clearly a reference to government mandated broccoli

Amy Howe: Parsing it asap.

Amy Howe: The individual mandate survives as a tax.

?

!

interesting.

YES

!!

so we're back in 2014?

new york times headline:

?

― caek, Thursday, June 28, 2012 3:08 PM (12 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

!

― Mad God 40/40 (Z S), Thursday, June 28, 2012 3:09 PM (6 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Amy Davidson ‏@tnyCloseRead
Per CNN, the individual mandate has been struck down.
Expand
Reply Retweet Favorite

hmm, reminds me of something i was reading on tpm this morning:

To name just one example, an explicit health insurance tax incentive would’ve accomplished the exact same thing the law’s mandate and penalty intend, and made it constitutionally bulletproof.

doesn't "survives as a tax" mean they will need to rewrite the law, but they have said there is a particular way they could rewrite it that would work?

Amy Howe: It's very complicated, so we're still figuring it out.

oh no doubt

fwiw one pillar of medical education is learning The Patient Presentation, wherein the student plays the role of field scout and reports to the attending the exact amount of information necessary to diagnose and treat the patient, as gleaned from the interview exam and chart. and even if you dont tell the staff everything, youre still supposed to know it. the whole enterprise is predicated on accurate reporting (med students are like Fair Witnesses), so it's funny to me that thus far we havent done the greatest job with EMRs. on the other hand, in a teaching environment, the students and interns and residents are basically the embodiment of an EMR. need to know what this dudes meds are? ask the intern, if she doesn't know, wait, you'll know soon enough

ahem!

of course, there IS a historical standard for patient reports, the SOAP note, and it's stood the test of time, and would likely be the model for any standard EMR format, but that doesn't mean you'd see a change in how surgeons ("pt sleeping, wound c/d/i") or psychiatrists (*cracks fingers over keyboard*) actually choose to relay info

― catbus otm (gbx), Wednesday, August 8, 2012 12:53 PM (Yesterday)

haha god yes. social work too

u ok gbx http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/09/the-bullying-culture-of-medical-school

coping

you big bully :(

The leading theory basically goes that if you get yelled at every time you fuck up as a junior and something bad happens, even though you have to go and excuse yourself to the bathroom to cry, by the time that you are in a position of some authority and one of your juniors fucks up and something bad happens, you really don't have another way to process it other than yelling. Also because there are some total psychos out there in the world (especially the operating room world).

NB: I have excused myself to the bathroom to cry, but mostly because of self-directed feelings of gross technical incompetence. I have a lil suspicion that many of the emotional breakdowns in medical education are largely self-directed but amplified by exposure to some sort of terrible person telling you that you are terrible. And then there are the stories of hilarious awfulness, also. But like, the last time I was yelled at by a surgeon for fucking up (last week!) I was in a more emotionally stable place in my life and so I was like "LOL Sorry dude, didn't know" and then when the med students told me stories of how awful said surgeon was to work with I was like "Hahaha fuck that guy".

PS: Aero I am sure your nursing notes were spun from finest gold, but then most people writing notes do not make a living writing things as you yourself kind of do.

So has anyone asked Eric Erickson about this:

It seems very, very clear to me in reviewing John Roberts’ decision that he is playing a much longer game than us and can afford to with a life tenure. And he probably just handed Mitt Romney the White House.

I'm guessing Erickson's idea was that the SCOTUS decision delegitimized the rhetoric of the candidates who called it unconstitutional and the death knell of American freedom, etc. This cleared Romney's path to the nomination, because it marginalized the one issue that was hurting Romney most. Then he figured that because of the economy, winning the Republican nomination was tatamount to winning the White House.

I think the ACA ruling was as underdiscussed component of Obama's win--I honestly think he would have lost if it had gone the other way. Two things:

1) If it had gotten overturned, it would have been months of the Republicans saying "With the economy sputtering, the president spent his time passing unpopular legislation that's now been ruled unconstitutional." They would have reduced his whole term to that one decision, and I think it would have worked with enough voters to matter.

2) On the Democratic side, I have to believe that, whatever one's overall view of Obama, voting to assure the survival of the ACA was a motivating factor with (again) enough voters to matter. It it had been overturned, I don't believe (as some suggested) that reinstating it would have been a motivating factor. That would have been so unlikely, I would have expected demoralization instead.

I'm not saying it was the most important factor; if the decision had gone the other way, Romney would have still been the same candidate, Obama's demographic advantages would have been the same, etc., etc. But I do think it mattered a lot.

romney had the nomination by then, i think erickson along w/ many (limbaugh calling it the 'biggest tax increase in history') figured/hoped/spun for one newscycle this would fire up not just the base incredibly but also the american ppl and turn the election into a referendum on incredibly unpopular obamacare since the only way to get rid of it now was romney election (esp since at that point there were probably many ppl who assumed gop would take senate). instead what actually happened is the issue effectively died, romney brought it up some but it was hardly a focus. then in the aftermath this supposedly incredibly unpopular piece of legislation that obama forced on the american ppl against their will and that would seal his doom in the ballot box instead won the election cuz most americans (esp the brown ones or the ones who don't even have dicks) now are takers who want free stuff. what cracks me up about that quote isn't so much the lol prediction as the idea that the 'playing a much longer game than most of us' possibly means 'thinking ahead five months' though there is the possibility there that erickson is referring to the cover this decision gives roberts to now give more radical decisions a la citizens united.

why would Roberts need "cover" though, he is CJOTUS. You don't need cover from anything.

"legacy"?

court's legitimacy took a huge hit w/ bush v gore and another one w/ citizens. killing obamacare would mean he'd be the guy who put the final touches on the politicalization of the sc. he prob will be regardless.

yeah the theory is court legitimacy, cf conservative's whining about obama working the refs (as if they haven't done the same w/ the courts and the media for as long as i've been alive).

I mean yeah he is kinda that guy; saving ACA might turn out to be small potatoes compared to undoing a half-century of commerce clause jurisprudence.

what happens tho if the court's legitimacy gets seriously damaged? Impeachment proceedings for the bush appointees? Court-packing? Ppl stop appealing past the circuit courts out of spite?

politically nothing changes tbh. the people on the court lose what respect the public still has for them and turn into congresspeople in robes.

I'm all for demystifying the court: cameras, live tweets, etc.

by all means let the Court lose prestige.

we should insist on congressppl wearing robes tbh

I'm all for the court losing its leftover prestige too, tho I'm glad it's going to happen somewhere in the future instead of via taking away insurance from millions of people

nothing likely. fdr tried court packing when the court was overturning his incredibly popular legislation and was strongly rebuffed. rick perry had an idea for the supreme court i found very interesting but i'm skeptical anything major could be done. nixon managed to chase abe fortas off the court but considering more scandalous stuff didn't manage to prevent clarence thomas from getting on it i can't imagine anything like that happening soon.

in Toobin's book, it's obvious either a Roberts clerk or Roberts himself gave background/unattributed info, and SCOTUS as an institution unblemished by partisan shitstorms is a concept that the chief justice really does believe in. Toobin as a Beltway type believes it too. The problem for both of them is their pining for an ideal that never existed.

and the danger now is that with all the Ivy Leaguers on the Court it's closer to the ideal: nine insulated and isolated people who don't know fuck-all about legislation and its effect on people's lives. We won't see a sitting senator like Hugo Black again.

yup

or Sandra Day O'Connor! Apparently, according to the book, she's spent the last six years talking shit about Roberts and how poorly his wing understands how legislation works.

the streamlining of 'what an acceptable justice cv can look like' is a way bigger problem than people realize I think

Obama knocked Diane Wood for consideration twice precisely because she'd said things...in public!

I guess you can consider this mostly an effect of the politicalization f the court because when the nomination is inevitably going to be a partisan battle you end up making the safest pick possible.

or you end up w/ the miers shitshow

yeah increased partisanship of court is just another symptom of same root cause of increased partisanship in congress ie parties are more reflective of ideologies, geographic and demographic quirks that led to liberal republicans and conservative dems are effectively gone. plus need to give geography or other similar party politics concerns any consideration in appointing justices is gone as well, no more 'needs to appoint a southern justice' or whatever. plus 'no more souters' etc - gop determination to only appoint dyed in the wool confirmed conservatives, the younger the better.

citizens united probably due to naivety and isolation from reality as much as any conservative cynicism right? well maybe not as much as. i need to read that toobin book.

look who's unhappy

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.474782!/img/httpImage/image.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-hb-hQXi9s

can we get a gif

overturning part of the voting rights act right after a black guy gets reelected is nagl

soto you're the scotus dork - who's likely/possible to leave this term? would this newer, wiser, more combative obama some are hoping we have now (THAT ANGER!) dare to nominate wood? would the optics of republicans ganging up to block a woman from the supreme court give them pause? (ok i know the answer to that one) how's scalia's health? how's ginsburg's?

ginsburg had surgery or something recently and her husband died recently too right??

Ginsberg likeliest, although according to Toobin it's Breyer's who's most fed up.

Ginsberg also senior justice in the minority so she's been giving Kagan more opinions.

would put money on slobs not dying/leaving. g will leave I think.

Breyer, Ginsberg, Scalia, Thomas. Obama nominates Glenn Greenwald, Morbs, me and frogbs.

haha would love it for obama to nominate greenwald just to inflame the right and teach the internet left a hard lesson about the real world

ginsberg will leave and O won't nominate wood

ginsberg will leave and Liverpool won't win the premiership

this will surprise many

Like I don't want to own a self-driving car, I want to press a button on my phone and have the nearest available car drive up to where I am within three minutes and pick me up.

― "Holy crap," I mutter, as he gently taps my area (silby), Sunday, July 1, 2012 11:06 AM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I repudiate my past statements

everyone should assume I repudiate anything I said more than eleven seconds ago as a matter of course