Streams

Judicial Activism 2012

Thursday, April 05, 2012

Two policemen guard outside the US Supreme Court on the third day of oral arguements over the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act on March 28, 2012 in Washington, DC. (Getty)

Anup Malani, professor of law and health law at the University of Chicago, discusses the line between the courts and the administration -- from President Obama applying pressure on the Supreme Court to a Fifth Circuit judge calling out the Justice Department.

Guests:

Anup Malani

Comments [13]

The Lives of 50M Americans v Supr Court Politics from Voiding Healthcare Law will kill 1000s of Americans/yr


If the Supreme Court voids this healthcare law, it will -
as a PRACTICAL MATTER - DIRECTLY result in the DEATH of 1000s of US citizens EVERY YEAR.

That is more innocent Americans killed PER YEAR than from all
terrorism attacks against the U.S..

The facts are clear. There are 50 million uninsured American
citizens. These Americans are overwhelmingly uninsured by NECESSITY -
NOT for reasons of greed, foolishness or selfishness. They are
the working poor or the unemployed. They cannot AFFORD what in
most of the world is a basic human right.

By necessity, these 50 Million Americans delay access to care
and have decreased access to care. When they do become sick they
are usually bankrupted. "Not for profit" hospitals are usually
brutal about hiring collection agents - and they charge the
poor, weak and uninsured MANY TIMES more FOR THE SAME SERVICES
than anyone else.

They are very stingy about "charity care" - and much like the banks -
they use bureaucratic mazes to inappropriately deny people help.

Most importantly :

The Uninsured are more likely to DIE unnecessarily of READILY
TREATABLE conditions like Asthma, Infections, High blood pressure
and high cholesterol leading to stroke and heart attack, diabetes.

The Uninsured are also much more likely to DIE in the hospital
even controlling for risk factors.

The Uninsured have life expectancies comparable to the THIRD WORLD
-they die YEARS earlier than other American Citizens. EACH ONE YEAR
OF REDUCED LIFE EXPECTANCY FOR THE UNINSURED TRANSLATES TO MORE
THAN 500,000 innocent American citizen's lives NEEDLESSLY LOST.

Fancy arguments are always entertaining.
No doubt smart lawyers and judges can make arguments for
any side of an issue. Academic debates are an art form
in themselves. But the Supreme Court is not a think tank
or an academic ivory tower.

If the Supreme Court voids the healthcare law, they will be sentencing
1000s of innocent American citizens a year to an unnecessary and
premature death.

They will be inflicting needless pain and suffering on millions more.

The Supreme court should focus on the practical reality, not
empty word play. If they can not act for JUSTICE, but only
for technicalities - they should remain silent.

Voiding this law will kill 1000s.
The Supreme Court should not play politics with innocent American's lives.

Apr. 05 2012 01:45 PM
The LIVES of 50M Americans v Supr Court Politics from Voiding the Healthcare Law will kill 1000s of Americans/yr


If the Supreme Court voids the healthcare law, it will -
as a PRACTICAL MATTER - DIRECTLY result in the DEATH of 1000s
of US citizens EVERY YEAR.

That is more innocent Americans killed PER YEAR than from all
terrorism attacks against the U.S..

The facts are clear. There are 50 million uninsured American
citizens. These Americans are overwhelmingly uninsured by NECESSITY -
NOT for reasons of greed, foolishness or selfishness. They are
the working poor or the unemployed. They cannot AFFORD what in
most of the world is a basic human right.

By necessity, these 50 Million Americans delay access to care
and have decreased access to care. When they do become sick they
are usually bankrupted. "Not for profit" hospitals are usually
brutal about hiring collection agents - and they charge the
poor, weak and uninsured MANY TIMES more FOR THE SAME SERVICES
than anyone else.

They are very stingy about "charity care" - and much like the banks -
they use bureaucratic mazes to inappropriately deny people help.

Most importantly :

The Uninsured are more likely to DIE unnecessarily of READILY
TREATABLE conditions like Asthma, Infections, High blood pressure
and high cholesterol leading to stroke and heart attack, diabetes.

The Uninsured are also much more likely to DIE in the hospital
even controlling for risk factors.

The Uninsured have life expectancies comparable to the THIRD WORLD
-they die YEARS earlier than other American Citizens. EACH ONE YEAR
OF REDUCED LIFE EXPECTANCY FOR THE UNINSURED TRANSLATES TO MORE
THAN 500,000 innocent American citizen's lives NEEDLESSLY LOST.

Fancy arguments are always entertaining.
No doubt smart lawyers and judges can make arguments for
any side of an issue. Academic debates are an art form
in themselves. But the Supreme Court is not a think tank
or an academic ivory tower.

If the Supreme Court voids the healthcare law, they will be sentencing
1000s of innocent American citizens a year to an unnecessary and
premature death.

They will be inflicting needless pain and suffering on millions more.

The Supreme court should focus on the practical reality, not
empty word play. If they can not act for JUSTICE, but only
for technicalities - they should remain silent.

Voiding this law will kill 1000s.

Apr. 05 2012 01:40 PM
Mitch Horn from South Salem NY

This is just another example of inherit racism - the Outrage being expressed by the right on our President's comments are to point out once again how this "Uppity Black man" does not know how to play by the rules of decorum because he is "Less than." As for the New Orlean's judge, He is just trying to put the Administration in their place - entering the back door.

Apr. 05 2012 10:42 AM
gary from queens

The president is so used to bullying and coercion, that weighing into the court's business in such demagogic fashion was natural for him. It reminded me of the presumptuousness of so many liberals when it comes to getting their way by fiat----exactly how Obamacare was enacted and will be implemented----by HHS fiat.

It reminded me of this paragraph:

QUOTE
the ruling class of both parties embraces a central planning scheme of “deeply imbedded social norms”: Politician A and lobbyist B get together to decide what service-provider C is going to be forced to do for interest group D. Adam Smith, Frederick von Hayek, and Milton Friedman told us why this never works, but by now we should know from our own experience. Coercion begets coercion: If you’re going to force the hospitals, then you have to force the insurers; if you’re going to force the insurers, then you have to force the citizens.
UNQUOTE

FROM this article

March 31, 2012 4:00 A.M.
Statism Goes to Court
Health care should not be a federal concern at all.

By Andrew C. McCarthy

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/294831/statism-goes-court-andrew-c-mccarthy

Apr. 05 2012 10:42 AM
Bob from Westchester, NY

If you listen to the President's comments in full, it sounds like he wasn't challenging the authority of the federal courts, but rather quoting the numerous past statements by Republicans complaining about judicial activism and asking them to be consistent in this case. could you guest comment?

Apr. 05 2012 10:41 AM
Edward from NJ

Can the 5th circuit court make Eric Holder stay after school and write "The courts can review the constitutionality of laws" on the blackboard 100 times?

Apr. 05 2012 10:40 AM
gary from queens

Obama probably meant to stress the importance of the court doctrine of Stary Decisis. But he did it in a very ham-handed way. So the Krautman was right.

Also, liberals were appallingly ignorant in their understanding of the cconservative arguments against obamacare. I think some of that isolation ignorance is apparant in Obama's reaction.

Apr. 05 2012 10:40 AM
Sheldon from Brooklyn

Yosif - you are wrong, Obama was out of order. That's why we have a Supreme Court - that is their role.

If it were not the case, there probably would still be segregation.

Apr. 05 2012 10:38 AM
alistair from manhattan

The law is going down. 5-4 on a party line. The SCOTUS is a political organ like any other and totally incapable of weigh issues without injecting idealogical points of view.

Apr. 05 2012 10:38 AM
Nick from UWS

Not only is President Obama absolutely right in his remarks, he didn't go nearly far enough. The ludicrous claim of the Citizens United decision, the idea that "corporations are people", and the fact that the Court passed that decision into law, is evidence of the deepest and most blatant corruption imaginable in the current Supreme Court. What needs to happen is a full independent inquiry into the finances of all the Supreme Court justices to determine how much they were paid to pass this decision putting into place full corporate control of our national politics.

Apr. 05 2012 10:38 AM
Yosif from Manhattan

People don't realize that the supreme court does not have the constitutional power to overturn laws made by the people. The unelected branch took that power and has recently been abusive with it.

Apr. 05 2012 10:34 AM
Joe from nearby

Gary- Plz enlighten yourself & read Dr Krugman's recent columns on this.

Apr. 05 2012 09:55 AM
gary from queens

Krauthammer: Obama Trying To Bully The Supreme Court While Liberals Are In Shock

"Here's the president talking about respect for the law and implying there's partisanship if the law is overturned. We all were witnesses to the oral hearings in which Obama's case for the constitutionality of the law was utterly demolished to the point where one liberal observer called it a 'train wreck,'" Charles Krauthammer said on FOX News' "Special Report" this evening.

"It's perfectly natural for a majority of the Court to side with the side that actually won the argument intellectually. That's not partisanship, that's logic. What is partisanship is when the four liberal justices are in such lockstep with the administration that they end up supporting the case that's been utterly destroyed in an open argument and be humiliated," Krauthammer said on the panel.

"Second, the president talks about the deal as unprecedented. What' he talking about? Since 1803, our system has been one in which the Supreme Court in the end, judges, whether the law is constitutional or not. And in this case, he talked about the law passing by majority. He had a strong majority, with 75 Democrats outnumbering Republicans in the House. Obamacare passed by seven votes. It was a very narrow majority. It wasn't a broad of a majority that he implied," he added.

"On every count he doesn't have an argument. This is liberals in shock over watching their side being demolished in oral argument and trying to bully the Supreme Court into ending up on their side in a case which they clearly lost intellectually and logically," Krauthammer concluded.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/04/03/krauthammer_obama_trying_to_bully_the_supreme_court_while_liberals_are_in_shock.html

Apr. 05 2012 09:52 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.

Get the WNYC Morning Brief in your inbox.
We'll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.