A peek under the robes of an increasingly partisan court
" ... just another political body"
In another 5-4 vote Monday, and without bothering to hear arguments in the case, the U.S. Supreme Court blithely tossed out a longstanding Montana law that barred corporations from making campaign contributions in state elections. States’ rights, it seems, must bow to corporate power in the Roberts court.
Or as Montana Attorney General Steve Bullock noted afterward, “It is a sad day for our democracy and for those of us who still want to believe that the United States Supreme Court is anything more than another political body.”
Bullock’s condemnation of the nation’s highest court as just “another political body” may sound harsh to some ears, but it is depressingly accurate. The Montana law had been on the books for 100 years, and for most of those 100 years its constitutionality had not been called into serious question. It was considered well within established law.
The absurd notions that have now forced its demise — corporations are people and speech is money — are novel law that has been imposed upon Montana and the rest of the country by an increasingly activist, inventive and yes, partisan Supreme Court.
Let’s be honest about this: The increasingly partisan nature of the court is not an accident. It did not occur by magic, but by concerted effort. For at least a quarter of a century, the Republican Party has made the creation of such a court one of its primary goals. The same sort of rigid ideological tests that the party has imposed on candidates for elective office have also been imposed on those it supports for nomination to the federal judiciary. Over a generation, that campaign has succeeded in creating a court that is far more friendly to the powerful than to the individual citizen.
The “smoking gun” in that evolution is of course the court’s “Citizens United” decision, in which the conservative majority decided that bans or limits on corporate expenditures are unconstitutional because “independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.”
That finding is ludicrous for a variety of reasons. It contradicts common sense, it contradicts history, it contradicts what we can see taking place in plain sight at this very moment and it contradicts the elected politicians who passed campaign-finance laws in the first place. Unlike the unelected justices, those politicians know the system intimately; they know firsthand what power can be wielded by unlimited money spent anonymously.
The people of Montana know it as well. I would strongly advise those interested in the issue to read last year’s 5-2 decision of the Montana Supreme Court (available here) as it attempted to uphold and defend their state’s law against the conservative judicial majority in Washington. The decision lays out in clear language that state’s difficult history in trying to fend off outside corporate control.
It’s also important to note that neither of the two dissenters on the Montana court embraced the logic of the Citizens’ United decision. Instead, they based their dissent on the fact that Montana had no choice but to bow to the federal court’s greater authority, however irrational it might be.
One of those dissenters, Justice James C. Nelson, used the opportunity to express his clear and eloquent disgust with the decision of his federal counterparts. I cannot recommend it more highly.
Here’s part of what he had to say:
“For starters, the notion that corporations are disadvantaged in the political realm is unbelievable. Indeed, it has astounded most Americans. The truth is that corporations wield inordinate power in Congress and in state legislatures. It is hard to tell where government ends and corporate America begins; the transition is seamless and overlapping.
In my view, Citizens United has turned the First Amendment’s “open marketplace” of ideas into an auction house for Friedmanian corporatists. Freedom of speech is now synonymous with freedom to spend. Speech equals money; money equals democracy. This decidedly was not the view of the constitutional founders, who favored the preeminence of individual interests over those of big business.
Furthermore, it defies reality to suggest that millions of dollars in slick television and Internet ads — put out by entities whose purpose and expertise, in the first place, is to persuade people to buy what’s being sold—carry the same weight as the fliers of citizen candidates and the letters to the editor of John and Mary Public. It is utter nonsense to think that ordinary citizens or candidates can spend enough to place their experience, wisdom, and views before the voters and keep pace with the virtually unlimited spending capability of corporations to place corporate views before the electorate….
I absolutely do not agree that corporate money in the form of “independent expenditures” expressly advocating the election or defeat of candidates cannot give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. Of course it can. Even the most cursory review of decades of partisan campaigns and elections, whether state or federal, demonstrates this. Citizens United held that the only sufficiently important governmental interest in preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption is one that is limited to quid pro quo corruption. This is simply smoke and mirrors. In the real world of politics, the “quid pro quo” of both direct contributions to candidates and independent expenditures on their behalf is loyalty. And, in practical effect, experience teaches that money corrupts, and enough of it corrupts absolutely.
I cannot agree with the holding that the prevention of corruption in the form of independent expenditures is not a compelling state interest. There is no plausible reason why a state would not want to protect the integrity of its election process against corruption and undue influence; to do otherwise would render the fundamental right to vote a meaningless exercise….
Lastly, I am compelled to say something about corporate “personhood.” While I recognize that this doctrine is firmly entrenched in the law, I find the entire concept offensive. Corporations are artificial creatures of law. As such, they should enjoy only those powers — not constitutional rights, but legislatively conferred powers — that are concomitant with their legitimate function, that being limited-liability investment vehicles for business.
Corporations are not persons. Human beings are persons, and it is an affront to the inviolable dignity of our species that courts have created a legal fiction which forces people — human beings — to share fundamental, natural rights with soulless creations of government. Worse still, while corporations and human beings share many of the same rights under the law, they clearly are not bound equally to the same codes of good conduct, decency, and morality, and they are not held equally accountable for their sins. Indeed, it is truly ironic that the death penalty and hell are reserved only to natural persons.”
President Obama, name that man to the U.S. Supreme Court.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
1,368 comments Add your comment
Adam
June 27th, 2012
8:37 am
Towncrier: For the record, of course all HUMANS are capable of cooking up a conspiracy. But the way you worded it implied that BECAUSE Republicans were cooking one up, that mean that NECESSARILY the Democrats are ALSO cooking one up to counter them. And that is simply not logical.
Second, yes it is quite a charge for me to say they’re doing it on purpose to give themselves an advantage. Only if you buy into the idea that they are actually trying to address a problem that doesn’t exist would you think it’s not a conspiracy. So if you live in fact based land rather than “make excuses for my chosen party” land, you have either A) They are incompetent and do not realize what the hell they’re doing or B) they know exactly what they’re doing, and support it.
We already know it’s not just coincidence, though, that the voter ID laws came up all at once. ALEC drafted this legislation, and that is documented by more than a few news outlets. And ALEC, as has been documented, supports right wing causes to perpetuate right wing agendas. Why would you think giving themselves an advantage would be something they wouldn’t try to do? Especially when it is also well documented what the effect of these laws being pushed out quickly will have on voters.
Take a look at Michigan, too. The Republicans don’t like democracy over there. They oust local elected officials and pass laws into immediate effect without a 2/3 vote as required by their own state constitution.
Sorry, Towncrier, but when I look at all these things and how the Republican party has morphed over just the past 2 years, I can see a party made up mostly of officials who will do the bidding of someone else’s design – a design of suppressing votes of those who traditionally vote Democrat, and any who might. It’s a party of talking points fed to them – don’t think, just act. It’s a design of remolding our country and our Constitution to their liking – to a Christian nation where abortions are illegal and women are second class citizens and god help any black or brown people being considered as having any “rights,” the free market will determine whether they will be served food or not. The party is fundamentalist now, and does not deserve to be running a damn thing in this country until they back off the crazy.
stands for decibels
June 27th, 2012
8:37 am
I swear, Miss Peadawg
Could we all agree not to fall into the trap of “insulting” fellow posters by intentionally changing their gender from male to female?
(I put the word “insulting” in bunny ear quotes because, of course, there should be no shame in being a man who is confused for a woman or vice versa.)
Brosephus™
June 27th, 2012
8:39 am
Just don’t fall into the trap of believing that because the companies aren’t willing to pay for all the testing that someone might want, that they are hiding something.
I’m not claiming that’s the only possible motivation. When you start off negotiations thinking that the opposition “are not reasonable people” (using your exact wording), you don’t leave much room for any positive negotiations. I would suggest sitting at the table with a blank slate and not pre-judging those who you are trying to negotiate with for starters. If they give you ample reason to think they won’t be reasonable, then you go to the “dealing with unreasonable people” style of negotiating.
Adam
June 27th, 2012
8:39 am
stands: I prefer gender neutral terms as much as possible. And I would love to stop all insults in general but I’ll admit I can’t help myself sometimes because of how personal some people like to get.
Paul
June 27th, 2012
8:40 am
All sorts of news this morning. Lots not all that great for cons who don’t read many sources.
Had on Fox and Friends, they had a quote and a pic of Utah Democratic Rep Matheson with a statement why he’s voting to hold to hold Holder in contempt. That was it. I’d just read a newspaper article that highlighted him in a story about how the NRA’s bringing pressure to bear. But big-money special interests don’t influence the process, do they?
Sen Orrin Hatch easily trounced his Tea Party challenger. Look like their time it is a’passing.
Texas lost a big case with the EPA over greenhouse gas emissions. Sounded like this blog – ‘it isn’t science, can’t prove it, etc etc.”
Court said “This is how science works. (THE EPA) is not required to re-prove the existence of the atom each time it approaches a scientific question.”
I know, I know, they’re judges. What do they know about science, right? //sarc//
Military services report NO ill effects on morale or unit cohesion with end of DADT. Sounds like some general officers predicting the end of the military were spending too much time in foxholes and not enough time with the troops. Time for them to retire and find something they can get in touch with.
And finally, “the president of the country’s best-known Christian ministry (Exodus Internationsl) dedicated to helping people repress same-sex attraction is trying to distance the group from the idea that gay peoples’ sexual orientation cna be permanently changed or ‘cured.’
The best, he said, they can hope for is to reconcile their religions beliefs with their sexual feelings.
Oh, and that group’s president? Has same-sex attraction.
Gonna be a messy morning, what with all the exploding heads.
TaxPayer
June 27th, 2012
8:42 am
godless heathen,
Given the fact that groundwater can and is in some cases contaminated as a result of at least some current practices used in the “fracking” process, we need to implement a methodology to ensure a safe supply of ground water and the industry should bear the cost of said methodology. Of course, they are free to pass on said costs to end users. After all, we’re not savages! We’re civilized.
stands for decibels
June 27th, 2012
8:43 am
They were from this little country that sits on the Mediterranean Sea that has lots of the locals angry at it all the time.
whatsa the matta for you, eh? Why-a you no tell me the name?
stands for decibels
June 27th, 2012
8:44 am
oh, wait, Bros. I think I get it now.
Oy, I’m such a schmuck sometimes.
Adam
June 27th, 2012
8:45 am
This is how science works. (THE EPA) is not required to re-prove the existence of the atom each time it approaches a scientific question
HA! Best line I’ve heard from a court recently, and at least it gives me HOPE that CHANGE has come to enough of a point that the backwards thinking anti-science people can’t make headway on stuff like this.
stands for decibels
June 27th, 2012
8:45 am
because of how personal some people like to get.
like accusing me of riding a scooter to work at Trader Joe’s! that kinda thing cuts deep and never heals.
Adam
June 27th, 2012
8:48 am
By the way, does anyone else think that the SCOTUS is smart enough to realize that a downright dismissal of Obama care will take the wind right out of the conservative sails? They’ll only have gays and abortion to fight against if the law is completely struck down.
Paul
June 27th, 2012
8:50 am
sfd 8:45
I smiled when I read that. Indicates how provincial some people are who consider that an insult.
Go to a large European city Find a bunch of young guys with funny hair and clothes with metal and tell them how sissy they look for riding their scooters.
You’d be lucky to get out of the hospital after two weeks.
Then again…. maybe we could take a collection and buy the guy who said that a ticket to Europe and….
stands for decibels
June 27th, 2012
8:50 am
…then there was the time that same poster (who picks a Clint Eastwood character as a screen handle between bannings) accused me (and Paul, I think) of…
having a $30K annual salary.
My therapy sessions help, but I’m looking for a support group.
Adam
June 27th, 2012
8:50 am
stands: Heh. I suppose. Some things don’t hurt when they’re wildly off base, and are more telling of the insulter.
For example the blanket insult of living in a tent, or not having a job, hardly flies when one has a job and is perfectly comfortable in it. Especially if that job ALLOWS down time to be used this way, which mine DOES.
Adam
June 27th, 2012
8:51 am
As for being telling of the insulter, my favorite is the “you get paid to be here” insults – by people who probably get paid to be here. Hilarious.
Paul
June 27th, 2012
8:52 am
Adam
Don’t forget the biggest expansion of big government we’ve ever seen; highest taxes we’ve ever seen; highest spending relative to anything we’ve ever seen; soshulizm and secret gubmint border plans to confiscate our guns!!!
Normal Free...Pro Human Rights Thug...And liking it!
June 27th, 2012
8:53 am
“having a $30K annual salary.”
You make that much??? Gawd…now I’m depressed.
Paul
June 27th, 2012
8:53 am
stands
Aw, nuts. I kinda liked the guy. I thought the $30k crack was about our quarterly tax payments…..
St Simons - he-ne-ha
June 27th, 2012
8:54 am
from Quinnipac today, after the NBC/WSJ polls yesterday
“Obama has the biggest lead in Ohio, where he leads presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney by a 47-38 margin. Obama leads Romney by a 45-39 margin in Pennsylvania and has a 45-41 edge in Florida. The results are better for Obama than the firm’s June 21 poll showing Florida and Ohio too close to call and Pennsylvania with an identical six-point margin.”
The results follow an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll released Tuesday showing the president’s lead expanding in battleground states.
This could explain the McVeigh-ish unhinged derangement
dripping from greater wingnuttia.on the intertubes the last few days.
The cherry on top will be when they spend more koch money
than god, and still lose.
I don’t think strapping citizens united to their ass and laughing
into the camera is turning out quite like they planned.
godless heathen
June 27th, 2012
8:55 am
Tax: Given the fact that groundwater can and is in some cases contaminated as a result of at least some current practices used in the “fracking” process, we need to implement a methodology to ensure a safe supply of ground water and the industry should bear the cost of said methodology.
I agree. But there are those out there that say fracking should be stopped because of the potential for GW contamination.
Bro: Like I said, these companies know from experience that the people who will be demanding the most, are not reasonable people. To them any level of risk is not acceptable and that makes them unreasonable. An example of unreasonable would be the ones that have blocked the use of the Yucca Mountain repository because the models only covered the next 10,000 years.
Bro:
stands for decibels
June 27th, 2012
8:57 am
Go to a large European city Find a bunch of young guys with funny hair and clothes with metal and tell them how sissy they look for riding their scooters.
You’d be lucky to get out of the hospital after two weeks.
Screw Europe… try that with an actual vintage scooter club here in the states. They tend to attract their share of barely-reconstructed skinhead types, and you do not want to get on their bad side.
(and before anyone goes getting the wrong idea, there is a non-racist skinhead movement that’s been around for ages. They’re mostly into picking fights and getting drunk, save for those who are straightedge, and who merely pick fights without getting drunk… speaking from some personal experience, here.)
But the term “scooter” is so all encompassing, one could be describing a $1000 Chinese-made 50cc ratbike, or something like this. Or this.
USinUK - pro-gay-marriage thug and former Girl Scout
June 27th, 2012
8:58 am
Namaste, peeps!!
Rightwing Troll
June 27th, 2012
8:59 am
Towncrier, I understand the social ramifications and the whole “purient interest” thing, but these are social issues that arise from a completely voluntary activity. You wish to equate “free speech” with political donations, but deny porn the same.
Politics affect us all, involuntarily. But you wish to protect unlimited, anonymous, unfettered money being donated to political causes as “free speech”, and most likely you wish to view that as money given with no Quid pro quo, (at least when it’s donated in support of the side you support).
But then you wish to outlaw a voluntary form of “entertainment”?
Your attempt to insult me by insinuating that I’m some sort of creepy porn watching dude is duly noted and ingnored BTW… this is a discussion about why you wish to outlaw a legal industry over social issues that are important to you but don’t really affect you (do they?), continue to allow anonymous pay-for-play influence in politics, and ignore social issues that are important to others…
USinUK - pro-gay-marriage thug and former Girl Scout
June 27th, 2012
9:00 am
“there should be no shame in being a man who is confused for a woman or vice versa”
seriously, I don’t think people are insulting me when they think I’m a guy … don’t think they’re complimenting me, either.
Paul
June 27th, 2012
9:00 am
godless heathen
I avoided the discussion this morning, but my one observation is that no regulations and the free market go hand in hand. Let the industry use whatever methods and whatever chemicals they want. no regulations. (Romney said he’d overturn all regulations imposed during the Obama Administration, anyway). Then if there happens to be any water contamination, the people who live there can just move somewhere else and anyone else who wants to move in can buy their homes. Free market, supply and demand.
Simple, yes?
USinUK - pro-gay-marriage thug and former Girl Scout
June 27th, 2012
9:00 am
(clarifying … on the blog, that is … don’t have that problem in real life)
Jm-pass TSPLOST silly people
June 27th, 2012
9:01 am
Groundwater contamination from Fracking is completely unproven thus far
General Motors
June 27th, 2012
9:03 am
President Obama did not want to see GM go under nor did he want to see Detroit bankrupt…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxvURgyJ26w
Normal Free...Pro Human Rights Thug...And liking it!
June 27th, 2012
9:04 am
USinUK,
Yeah, I’m nasty…so sue me…
—————————
As to scooters. I have a full grown motorcycle and I still think the people who ride those scooters have bigger ‘nads than me. Scary stuff, those scoots…
Paul
June 27th, 2012
9:04 am
stands
When I was a kid my dad had a Heinkel scooter. Sucker was heavy, stable, handled great. Freeway cruiser. Dad also likes very nice metal models of cars he’s had and admired. Couple years back I found a Belgian manufacturer who did the Heinkel in the color dad had. Was a fine Christmas.
TaxPayer
June 27th, 2012
9:05 am
Chemicals used by some during the fracking process have resulted in contamination of ground water.
Jm-pass TSPLOST silly people
June 27th, 2012
9:07 am
If you guys believe in the scientific method so darn much, go find a scientific study that proves groundwater contamination
Gasland doesn’t count
Thomas
June 27th, 2012
9:07 am
If the mandate is struck down tomorrow are our leftist friends going to blame the idiocy of claiming a tax to be a “penalty” or is it going to be “evil, stupid, right leaning judges”?
Would have been a piece of cake as a tax as the federal gov’t sure as hades as the authority to tax-
The country would be better off if we all took off our rose colored glasses and held DC accountable for their actions.
edinathens
June 27th, 2012
9:08 am
Jay, it was actually a 5-3 decision with Kagan recusing herself. If she had voted, I believe it would have been 6-3.
Paul
June 27th, 2012
9:08 am
Morning, USinUK!
Check out the 8:40 for the latest fun news from the States –
(and I was gonna say, anyone who thinks you’re a guy needs some seriously thick glasses… or a radar recalibration…. )
edinathens
June 27th, 2012
9:09 am
Jay, oops, wrong case, my apologies.
Adam
June 27th, 2012
9:10 am
Jm: The EPA’s regulations that were being fought were to record emissions, as I understand it. It’s like you’re saying they have to prove the emissions cause something before they can ask that they be checked.
Kind of like if you were required to prove all of the health effects of a particular ingredient of food before you were required to list that food on the label. But before that, who cares what’s in it? Right, right, right?
TaxPayer
June 27th, 2012
9:12 am
This one’s for you, jm.
I’ve also posted info from the EPA confirming contamination of groundwater by chemicals used in the fracking process.
Adam
June 27th, 2012
9:13 am
Thomas: It will be stupid right leaning judges. The first three Presidents had mandates, doncha know. They were founding fathers. And in Congress, those laws were passed with very little objection, and none of the objection was on constitutional grounds.
And please, remember that Scout has already tried the “Founding Fathers only had an opinion about the Constitution” card. Also the “If it was Constitutional then, should it be Constitutional now?” card, which is also pretty ridiculous.
Brosephus™
June 27th, 2012
9:14 am
dB
That’s not the first country anybody thinks of when it comes to “anchor babies” either.
USinUK - pro-gay-marriage thug and former Girl Scout
June 27th, 2012
9:15 am
“Sen Orrin Hatch easily trounced his Tea Party challenger. Look like their time it is a’passing.”
Hatch may have survived, but Sullivan didn’t
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/oklahoma-rep-john-sullivan-loses-primary/2012/06/27/gJQAWcmo5V_blog.html
G’head Tea Party … keep killing the GOP softly with your song … killing it softly … with your song …
USinUK - pro-gay-marriage thug and former Girl Scout
June 27th, 2012
9:16 am
by-the-by … if anyone is in the mood for a bit of a boo, this story had me all blubbery on the train this morning
http://www.metro.co.uk/olympics/903336-badly-injured-afghanistan-veteran-carries-olympic-flame-on-torch-relay
JohnnyReb
June 27th, 2012
9:16 am
Not my expertise, but I believe you will find aquifers are not very deep compared to the rock where fracking occurs – separation is several thousand feet. In comparison, a septic tank drain field is only required to be a couple hundred feet from a drinking water well.
The point being, earth is a great filter and water comtamination from fracking is nothing more than a tree huggers wet dream. If there was any evidence at all, or even a hint, you can bet this Administraiton would stop the fracking and the Obama pocket media would crow for weeks.
Corporations as PINOS | Jim’s Blog
June 27th, 2012
9:18 am
[...] to place hold this piece from Bookman of the AJC — he excerpted a Montana Judge’s critique of several notions [...]
TaxPayer
June 27th, 2012
9:20 am
JohnnyReb,
You should have left it at not your expertise. The experts disagree with your non-expert opinion.
Steve - USA ("None of the Above")
June 27th, 2012
9:22 am
Paul – “Gonna be a messy morning, what with all the exploding heads”
That is a massive collection of nothing. The exploding heads will occur tomorrow.
Rightwing Troll
June 27th, 2012
9:22 am
Not my area of expertise, but if the EPA is concerned, then it needs to be allowed because the gubbamint is eeevil and those poor abused corporations have never done anything to damage anything or put profits ahead of people or the environment.
Brosephus™
June 27th, 2012
9:23 am
If the mandate is struck down tomorrow are our leftist friends going to blame the idiocy of claiming a tax to be a “penalty” or is it going to be “evil, stupid, right leaning judges”?
If the mandate is struck down, I will be somewhat surprised at the fact that those who’s actions tend to favor corporations over people would vote against the wholesale prostitution of citizens to insurance companies. Overturning the mandate would cut off what is set up to be a limitless supply of money, err.. customers, to insurance companies.
Would I shed a tear if this version of healthcare reform is overturned??? Probably not as I think there’s a better way to reform our system without selling us all as prostitutes to the insurance companies. Maybe overturning the mandate will push Congress to reform the system to completely remove the middleman and put healthcare back to being transactions between the provider and patient without the group in the middle who’s squeezing both parties.
JohnnyReb
June 27th, 2012
9:25 am
Taxpayer – I stick by my observation and comments. Those concerned with fracking contaminating aquifers can’t prove it. There is zip evidence. Just because they think it so, does not make them experts. They are cousins to man made global warming nuts.
Peadawg
June 27th, 2012
9:26 am
“If the mandate is struck down tomorrow are our leftist friends”
will probably scream “activist judge” and “partisan” like Jay has so far w/ the Arizona ruling
godless heathen
June 27th, 2012
9:26 am
TaxPayer: I read the part of your linkee about groundwater contamination from fracking. by Earthworks. Here is a quote from the article: “a known human carcinogen that is toxic in water at levels greater than five parts per billion (or 0.005 parts per million).”
Benzene in water above 5 ppb is not “toxic”. You could drink water your whole life with benzene at a higher concentration than that without any toxic effects. You would however have a 1 in 10,000 risk of cancer (a very conservative estimate).
Stevie Ray..Clowns to the left and Jokers to the right..here I am...
June 27th, 2012
9:29 am
Bro,
Don’t forget the biggest benefactors of the healthcare bill…hospital owners and operators. Most, if not all hospitals have uncollectibles upwards of 20% of total revenues annually. After billions in contributions, these same operators will get those collected under Obamacare. I will be shocked if mandate is not shot down since a contract requires two willing parties….
Paul
June 27th, 2012
9:32 am
Steve
“That is a massive collection of nothing. The exploding heads will occur tomorrow.”
Why?
Insurance companies are keeping many aspects of Obamacare.
Republican leaders have said they’ll keep many of the features of Obamacare. My own Congressman, Rep Michael Burgess is head of the Congressional Health Care Caucus and he’s sent out numerous videos telling how they’re working on keeping much of it and finding alternatives for items the Court may strike down.
Only thing is making people take care of themselves and their families by buying their own insurance. But if Republicans want to let them skate and then continue to pay millions for their care, why should Democratic heads explode?
Stevie Ray..Clowns to the left and Jokers to the right..here I am...
June 27th, 2012
9:33 am
Also, if the mandate is shot down, the pricing insurers can get from diluted pool of insureds will not cover expenses…ie parents program til 26 and pre-existing conditions…
USinUK - pro-gay-marriage thug and former Girl Scout
June 27th, 2012
9:36 am
Single-payer system, babbee!!!
Stevie Ray..Clowns to the left and Jokers to the right..here I am...
June 27th, 2012
9:36 am
Paul,
The bill won’t work for insurers if mandate is struck down and balance of bill remains in effect. If that is the case, total bill should be struck in favor of states control and utilization of “assigned” risk plans or other residual market mechanisms to provide premium tax funded care for the uninsured….provider capacity will be the final problem to solve since it already takes over 6 months to get appointment with family practitioner in more rurual, exburban areas…
Stevie Ray..Clowns to the left and Jokers to the right..here I am...
June 27th, 2012
9:38 am
US,
Until private money (in this instance from insurance lobby…big bucks) is taken out of equation, we will never get single payer system since it does’t serve the interests of our corrupted politicians…
TaxPayer
June 27th, 2012
9:38 am
JohnnyReb,
The EPA has confirmed that groundwater has been contaminated by fracking operations.
godless heathen,
benzene is but one known toxic compound. What are you willing to subject you and your children to in order to allow a corporation to make another buck. Also, from that same link, did you happen to read the best practices section and note that the offshore drillers are required to use non-toxic compounds and that they manage to do it and make a profit at it and not kill the marine life. What’s so bad about that.
Adam
June 27th, 2012
9:38 am
Proof that the private sector always does things better than the government:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=insight-in-hours-caustic-vapors-wre
BTW, this also means JOBS JOBS JOBS!
(/snark)
Brosephus™
June 27th, 2012
9:40 am
Only thing is making people take care of themselves and their families by buying their own insurance. But if Republicans want to let them skate and then continue to pay millions for their care, why should Democratic heads explode?
Well, considering the opinion of one of the supremes in Knox v SEIU, you probably have a group of conservatives who are ok with freeloading as long as it fits their ideals. One doesn’t have to pay union dues in order to benefit from the benefits of collective bargaining. Using that line of thought, one doesn’t have to pay for insurance in order to benefit from the healthcare that it provides.
Adam
June 27th, 2012
9:40 am
I have a bill for Congress to pass right away:
“The age of eligibility for Medicare is eliminated.”
Boom.
USinUK - pro-gay-marriage thug and former Girl Scout
June 27th, 2012
9:43 am
“since it does’t serve the interests of our corrupted politicians…”
I know … and it’s tragic that the people of the US are the ones paying the price – that being the highest cost per capita for health care in the WORLD – and for that, we still are #25 for infant mortality, #38 for life expectancy and #9 for cancer survival
U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!
Paul
June 27th, 2012
9:45 am
Stevie Ray
“The bill won’t work for insurers if mandate is struck down and balance of bill remains in effect. If that is the case, total bill should”
And if it’s not?
Republicans made the bed but do not want to sleep in it, eh?
Heading upstairs.
Welcome to the Occupation
June 27th, 2012
9:49 am
TaxPayer, JohnnyReb was obviously talking about verifications from non-UN, commie-sponsored entities.
godless heathen
June 27th, 2012
9:49 am
tax: benzene is but one known toxic compound. What are you willing to subject you and your children to in order to allow a corporation to make another buck. Also, from that same link, did you happen to read the best practices section and note that the offshore drillers are required to use non-toxic compounds and that they manage to do it and make a profit at it and not kill the marine life. What’s so bad about that.
I just pulled the benzene quote to illustrate that Earthworks has an agenda and will use rhetoric to advance it. Even the Dentist on their Board of Directors knows the meaning of the word toxic, yet they willfully misuse it to attempt and scare people. Calls into question the veracity of the remainder of their article. Example of the unreasonable people that I was talking to Bro about.
Also, from that same link, did you happen to read the best practices section and note that the offshore drillers are required to use non-toxic compounds and that they manage to do it and make a profit at it and not kill the marine life. What’s so bad about that.
Well I suppose the on shore guys spend all that money on all those chemicals because they just hate kids and want them to drink “toxic” groundwater. I have no doubt they would rather not have to worry about the effects of the chemicals, but use them for good reasons.
Do you have any idea how much of these chemicals they would have to dump into the ocean to kill sea life?
St Simons - he-ne-ha
June 27th, 2012
9:54 am
The worst thing in the world for the Progressive communiteh is
for them to uphold the insurance mandate.
We can’t move to single payer with that bloodsucking
for-profit insurance man in the way.
really, how can we move on to takin away their gunz and
soocializin thar way of life until we get universal healthcare?
chuckles
June 27th, 2012
9:05 pm
egads, will your followers blindly believe you, Jay, that only repubs are desirous of dividing the nation? Probably.
Politicians and those whose living depends on clicks to “controversial” matter desire to divide the nation and destroy it from within.
If you find post that categorizes your behavior as an abomination – you probably just read a post from a paid troll, not a real human.
By and large people don’t care what you do as long as you are not messing with them. All these issues are so over trumpeted to the point I could care less about any of them. special interest groups, again – politically power motivated wish to rule my dollars. Period.
The rest of us real persons don’t care. Don’t wish to be divided, live in peace with our neighbors of all kinds and wish politicians would crawl back under their rocks along with media dividers manipulating the gullible.
George Watson
June 28th, 2012
9:00 am
When the truth spoken by a senior jurist like Justice Nelson, sounds like a political speech, we have abandoned our values as a nation and the consequences are inescapable. God save the Republic, for it is surely endangered.