Nel's New Day

June 25, 2012

Immigration Not a ‘Victory’ for Brewer

The U.S. Supreme Court is probably holding onto its revelation of the health care ruling until the last minute (aka Thursday), but justices did reveal their decisions on immigration and Montana’s version of Citizens United today. Both these cases will set the direction of the United States for decades to come.

American Tradition Partnership Inc. v. Bullock, the Montana case, was lower profile than the Arizona case on immigration but equally important. Those who watch the millions of dollars rolling into the Republican candidate campaigns know that Citizens United gave corporations unrestricted political spending in the name of “free speech.” Before this SCOTUS 2010 ruling, Montana had passed a law, exactly one century ago, against corporations buying elections, but a 5-4 ruling from SCOTUS refuses to let this law stand.

The immigration ruling, Arizona v. United States, has been far more publicized and perhaps more misunderstood. Justice Elana Kagan recused herself from the decision, resulting in a 5-3 split for most of the decisions.  (Clarence Thomas should take a lesson from Kagan because of his conflict of interest in an extensive number of cases!)

Three provisions of Arizona’s immigration law were struck down; making it a state crime for an immigrant not to be carrying papers, criminalizing the failure of immigrants to register, and forbidding an illegal immigrant from working in Arizona. The fourth provision, the requirement that police check the immigration status of people they stop for traffic or other offenses, was allowed to stand because it seemed to coordinate with federal law and had not gone into effect. The justices left the door open for this provision to be challenged again after it does go into effect, allowing the possibility that it, too, will be declared unconstitutional.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer has been touting the decision as a victory. However, most law officials in Arizona, other than the infamous Sherriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, disagree; they view the SCOTUS ruling as a way for them avoid racial profiling. The provision does require Arizona police to check the immigration status of people reasonably stopped in the course of keeping public order in the state, but it doesn’t permit police to hold people if they don’t have papers. The only responsibility that police have is to tell immigration authorities about undocumented immigrants.

According to the ruling, a state doesn’t have the right to make laws on a law reserved for the federal government. In the decision, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, “The state may not pursue policies that undermine federal law.” Supporting Kennedy’s decision were Chief Justice John Roberts and liberal Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor. Justice Samuel Alito joined the majority of five in striking down the provision that immigrants not carrying papers are guilty of a misdemeanor.

From these two rulings came two revelations that are not connected to the decisions themselves. The first is the lack of professionalism from at least one of the justices. Antonin Scalia used his dissent to rant against President Obama’s executive directive to allow undocumented immigrants under the age of 30 to stay in the United States to apply for citizenship if they meet certain criteria including being brought into the country as a minor.

Scalia also declared that the Constitution’s Framers would have “rushed to the exits” if they’d known an executive branch would wield such power and that some of the states would not have joined the union if they knew what the president was going to do. In addition, he stated that keeping the Arizona immigration law was important to protect the state.

This and other comments show that his dissent came from an opinion regarding what “should” be done and not the constitutionality of the Arizona law. Like his arguments during the health care debate, Scalia is showing himself to have lost his ability to “judge”; instead he wants to make law. The conservatives should take notice that Scalia has gone far beyond the classic “activist judge.”

Scalia’s fury may also have come from the way that the ruling seemed to approve of the president’s directive to allow young undocumented workers to remain in the country. On page 17 of the opinion, the Court explicitly lists “a veteran” or a “college student” as two examples of undocumented immigrants who should not experience “unnecessary harassment.”

The other revelation from these two landmark rulings is the consistent rejection of state’s rights. Both decisions put federal rule over states’ rights, the opposite of traditional conservative views. Ironically enough, the four more liberal judges voted for states’ rights in the case of Montana’s case. Scalia, who had a temper tantrum about the sovereignty of state law in the Arizona case voted against Montana having the right to retain a century-old law to keep fraud out of elections.

The decision for a third case, Miller v. Alabama, announced today also ruled federal law over states’ rights when it forbid mandatory life sentences for juvenile offenders. The dissent in this case also shows the stress that at least one justice may be feeling. In his dissent to the decision, Alito mixed up the name of the prison administrator, Donald Roper, and the name of the 17-year-old juvenile offender, Christopher Simmons. Alito’s dissent read that Roper “committed a brutal thrill-killing just nine months shy of his 18th birthday.”

The health care case could also be seen as a states’ rights situation, with 26 states trying to keep the Affordable Care Act out of their terrain. There is no second-guessing this court. It may come down to Kennedy’s vote.

November 14, 2011

Supreme Court Takes on Health Reform Law

The U.S. Supreme Court announced today that it would hear the constitutionality of the health care law, passed 18 months ago. On the same day, Health Care for America Now, a coalition of more than 1,000 organizations that joined to overhaul the nation’s health care system and then protect the recent law, announced that state insurance regulators are having secret meetings tomorrow to gut the new control on insurance premiums.

The current law requires insurance companies to spend at least 80% of their premiums on medical care. The meeting tomorrow will consider a resolution to revive stalled legislation removing insurance sales commissions from industry administrative costs for purposes of calculating the medical loss ratio and count much of the sales commission as “health care” instead of an overhead expense. If passed, the resolution would cost consumers $1 billion. Clicking here would send a message to your state insurance commissioner.

The Supreme Court will consider the health care law’s constitutionality, the separating the mandate for everyone to have health insurance from the law, Medicaid expansion, and the question of whether or not the mandate is a “tax.” The ruling would probably be one of three choices: declare the entire law constitutional; declare the entire law unconstitutional; and declare just one or more pieces, i.e., making mandated health insurance, unconstitutional. Another possibility, however, is  the ruling that no one has any standing because the law has not gone into effect, negating any ruling about the law’s constitutionality.

Justices have assigned five and a half hours for oral argument, more than any other in the past century. They may hear these arguments in March and issue a decision in June.

Those opposed to the federal health care law argue that the decision to not do something, for example, not buy health insurance—is economic inactivity, rather than activity, and therefore cannot be regulated by the federal government. Supporters argue that the decision to not purchase health insurance has an economic effect. For example, a person without health coverage may not have the money to pay for an emergency room visit, forcing hospitals or taxpayers with the bill. Therefore not purchasing health insurance is an economic decision.

Earlier this year, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the mandate piece of the health reform law to be unconstitutional. Courts in Washington, D.C. and in Michigan both upheld this mandate to be constitutional. The Virginia-based 4th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed two cases against the health reform law because penalties for not purchasing health insurance don’t start until 2014. As a result, no one had suffered any injury and could not bring a case against it. Decisions don’t seem to be partisan. Clinton-appointee Judge Frank Hall in the 11th Circuit ruled against the law; Reagan-appointee Judge Laurence Silberman in the DC Court of Appeals defended the law.

Since the 1930s, the court has consistently held that Congress has broad constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce, including authority over not only goods moving across state lines but also the economic choices of individuals within states that have significant effects on interstate markets. Using this standard, judges could determine the law constitutional because of the multitrillion-dollar interstate health insurance industry.

The argument against the ban on discrimination based on pre-existing conditions may not be successful. Allowing healthy or risk-prone individuals to opt out of insurance would lead to unacceptably high premiums for the other people just as individual Social Security taxes would rise if people were given a choice of whether to participate . The court unanimously recognized in 1982 that it would be “difficult, if not impossible” to maintain the financial soundness of a Social Security system from which people could opt out. Restricting certain economic choices of individuals ensures the vitality of a regulatory regime clearly within Congress’s power to establish, an argument reasonable for the health care law.

The argument regarding the theory that Congress is entitled to regulate only economic “activity,” not “inactivity” is specious. Individuals who refuse to buy insurance choose to take a free ride on the health care system. If they need emergency-room care that they can’t pay for, the public will pick up the tab. They know that, and this conscious choice carries serious economic consequences for the national health care market, which makes it a proper subject for federal regulation.

Another argument that the health care law is constitutional comes from Congressional power to impose taxes. Conservative justices’ earlier votes show their willingness to impose the law’s power on the people in this country.

Antonin Scalia upheld in 2005 Congress’s power to punish those growing marijuana for their own medical use; a ban on homegrown marijuana, he reasoned, might be deemed “necessary and proper” to effectively enforce broader federal regulation of nationwide drug markets. Anthony Kennedy determined in 1995 that Congress has the power to regulate—in this case possession of guns near school—in a way that is not in itself “commercial” or “economic” but may set off a cascade of economic effects.

Elena Kagan has been asked by some people to disqualify herself because of questions about her involvement in the health-care law when she was an Obama administration attorney. On the other hand, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, were feted at a Federalist Society dinner, a longstanding group dedicated to advocating conservative legal principles, in part sponsored by the law firm that will argue the case before the high court. Samuel Alito was also present as was Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), an avowed opponent of the healthcare law and one of 2009’s 15 most corrupt members of Congress, according the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics.

Paul Clement, the most likely lawyer who will argue the case and U.S. solicitor general for George W. Bush, is with Bancroft PLLC, one of almost two dozen firms that helped sponsor the event. A firm that sponsored the dinner, Jones Day, represents one of the trade associations that challenged the law, the National Federation of Independent Business, and another sponsor was pharmaceutical giant Pfizer Inc, which has an enormous financial stake in the outcome of the litigation.

Several dozen Congressional Democrats signed a letter earlier this year saying that Thomas’ wife’s work for the Heritage Foundation, which opposed health care, should disqualify her husband. A federal law requires justices to recuse themselves in a number of circumstances where real or perceived conflicts of interest could arise, including in cases where their spouses could have a financial interest, but this law is not in effect for the U.S. Supreme Court.

This is not the first case in which Virginia Thomas’ work might present a conflict of interest for Thomas. Common Cause asserted that Thomas should have withdrawn from deciding the 2010 landmark Citizens United case on campaign finance because of both Virginia Thomas’s founding of another conservative political group in 2009 and his appearance at a private political retreat organized by Charles Koch, a prominent conservative financier.

However the nine people in robes decide, the actions of the Supreme Court will  impact the elections of 2012, the Supreme Court, and the people of the United States.

© blogfactory

Genuine news

Civil Rights Advocacy

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. -- Margaret Mead

AGR Daily News

Transformational News; What Works For Seven Future Generations Without Causing Harm?

JONATHAN TURLEY

Res ipsa loquitur - The thing itself speaks

Jennifer Hofmann

Inspiration for soul-divers, seekers, and activists.

Occupy Democrats

Progressive political commentary/book reviews for youth and adults

V e t P o l i t i c s

politics from a liberal veteran's perspective

Margaret and Helen

Best Friends for Sixty Years and Counting...

Rainbow round table news

Official News Outlet for the Rainbow Round Table of the American Library Association

The Extinction Protocol

Geologic and Earthchange News events

Central Oregon Coast NOW

The Central Oregon Coast Chapter of the National Organization for Women (NOW)

Social Justice For All

Working towards global equity and equality

Over the Rainbow Books

A Book List from Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Round Table of the American Library Association

The WordPress.com Blog

The latest news on WordPress.com and the WordPress community.

%d bloggers like this: