Choate is not a Word

Irony in Stone

Was it a bitter twist of irony that the Justice whose confirmation Senator Barak Obama voted against in 2005 saved his Health Care Act?  Chief Justice John Roberts, whilst finding that the Affordable Care Act was unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause, nonetheless upheld the law saying that the law was constitutional by under the taxing power of the federal government.

In 1934, then Labor Secretary Frances Perkins found herself seated next to Justice Harlan F. Stone.  Stone inquired as to how her work was going. The secretary said hat they were were uncertain on what basis the new Social Security program should be founded. Upon hearing this, the justice leaned over to her and whispered: ‘The taxing power of the federal government, my dear; the taxing power is sufficient for everything you want and need.’ 

It appears that Justice Roberts was listening as well.  Ah, history does repeat itself, not content to merely rhyme.

Speak Antonin, and Don't Hold Back

The Supreme Court handed down its decision on SB 1070 [the Arizona immigration case].  The Court upheld the provision allowing state law enforcement to determine the immigration status of anyone they stop or arrest if they have reason to suspect the person might be in the country illegally.

The Court parted ways on three  other provisions, with the majority rejecting measures that would have subjected illegal immigrants to criminal penalties for acts such as seeking work.

In his dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia couldn't help himself.  He attacked President Obama's recent decision not to deport many illegal immigrants who have been in the United States since they were children.  This policy was announced approximately two months after the case was heard.

Illegal immigration is a campaign issue.  Why comment on the Obama policy? Scalia answered these criticisms of his criticism by saying "If the government is going to make me eat broccoli, I'll say whatever I damn well please".

Ok Justice Scalia, take it easy, the government isn't really going to make us eat broccoli now is it?  But maybe you should have some anyway. A bit constipated perhaps??

Supreme Whining

Following oral arguments in the Supreme Court re: The Affordable Care Act, President Obama publicly reminded the justices that they're "an unelected group of people" and warned them not to take the "unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress." That's the kind of chilling presidential warning you'd expect in "places like Balochistan" said Mark Steyn in NationalReviewOnline.com.

Balochistan isn't really a country but I guess that was the point.  Name some obsure province in Pakistan and hey, that sounds like some paleolithic backwater doesn't it?? Really, the Republicans are whining about this??

They clearly forgot how Lyndon Johnson nominated Ramsey Clark to be Attorney General in 1967; in all likelihood to force his father Tom C. Clark to resign from the Supreme Court thus clearing the way to nominate Thurgood Marshall. [It worked]

Now, that's manipulation, intimidation or whatever other outraged synonym you may conjure!

S.B. 1070, Ye Shall Self Topple

The Op-Ed page of the New York Times from April 23, 2012 featured an editorial by Peter J. Spiro, a law professor at Temple University entitled -"Let Arizona's Law Stand". The title itself is a misnomer- the author in no uncertain terms believes it [and its ilk] to be terrible law.  S.B. 1070 requires local law enforcement to determine immigration status and arrest illegals [although prior to demanding proof of residency, the "perpetrator" must have committed an act worthy of being stopped and questioned]. His central argument is that the law is so bad that the US Supreme Court should uphold it - so that the law can die a natural death and defang its supporters. 

He makes some interesting points and arguments:

1. States that adopt similar laws will lose foreign investment.  He recounts the example of the German Daimler-Benz executive who left his passport and home while out for a drive in Alabama and thus found himself in jail. I assume he must thought he was on the autobahn where 100 mph is considered slow. Opponents of Alabama's law traveled to Berlin to the Daimler-Benz shareholders' meeting to raise a ruckus.  They were no doubt summarily ejected - only members of Industriegewerkschaft Metall are allowed to raise a ruckus at shareholder meetings of German industrial behemoths.

2. Farmers in Alabama are up in arms over rotting fruit.  All the more rotten tomatoes to hurl at state legislators or Governor Bob Bentley.

3. An illegal-immigration bill died in a Mississippi State Senate committee earlier this month after opposition from local business groups.

He goes on to say that "the conventional wisdom among immigration advocates is that immigrant interests will be best served if the Supreme Court makes an example of Arizona's laws by striking it down.  But in the long run, immigrant interests will be better helped if the Supreme Court upholds S.B. 1070.  Laws like Arizona's are such bad policy that, left to their own devices, they will die a natural death  and their supporters will suffer the political consequences".

If the author was being facetious, I'd accompany him in a good chuckle, preferably over a margarita at a bodega served by a 80 year old grandmother [illegal] with lots of legal kin and deep ties to her churchgoing community [Newt would frown on any attempts to arrest and deport her].  But I don't think he is.

Is it the responsibility of the Supreme Court to teach the states a lesson by not passing judgement?  Really? And what makes Mr. Spiro think that the Justices will think this is a bad law? I thought it was precisely these kinds of questions that the Court is meant to address. Isn't the Obamacare suit about the federal government encroaching on states' turf?  Similarly shouldn't the Court weigh and deliberate the States enacting legislation on issues that are the purview of the Federal government?  I suspect that the law professor would think that it is.  And maybe he is being facetious.  I suspect that he is.