Scott Bradford: Off on a Tangent

Supreme Court Upholds ‘ObamaCare’

Posted

The United States Supreme Court has voted 5-4 to uphold the the ‘Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,’ which is colloquially known as ‘ObamaCare,’ including the controversial individual mandate. The court also voted to limit, but not invalidate, some of the law’s Medicaid provisions.

The court ruled that the mandate is actually a tax, and therefore falls under the federal government’s broad taxing authorities. The argument put forth by the court is that the mandate is not actually a mandate, per se, since citizens still have a legal option to not comply with it and pay a fine (now redefined as a tax) instead. So, in short, citizens have the option to buy health insurance and pay lower taxes (i.e., not pay the fine), or not buy health insurance and pay higher taxes (i.e., pay the fine). Notably, the court also ruled that the mandate would not have been constitutional under the commerce clause.

It is unclear what limits, if any, the court has left in-place on the extent of federal authorities. Under the precedent now established by this ruling, it would appear that the federal government can require any action or inaction on the part of its citizens, so long as the punishment for failure to comply is a monetary fine (now redefined as a tax) rather than criminal charges. For example, imagine a federal requirement that all families purchase a Chevrolet Volt or pay a $60,000 fine. It appears that this would now be perfectly legal.

The majority opinion was issued by Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Justice Stephen Breyer, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, and Justice Elena Kagan. A dissenting opinion was issued by Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Anthony Kennedy, Justice Clarence Thomas, and Justice Samuel Alito.

Supreme Court Overturns Bulk of AZ Immigration Law

Posted

The United States Supreme Court has voted 5-3 to overturn the bulk of Arizona’s controversial immigration law, ruling that many of its provisions are preempted by federal immigration law. In particular, the court has overturned the state-level requirement that aliens carry registration papers, the state-level prohibition on illegal immigrants seeking work, and the requirement that police stop and arrest anybody they suspect of being an illegal immigrant.

The court did, however, uphold the law’s requirement that police officers verify the immigration status of anybody lawfully detained for other reasons when there is ‘reasonable suspicion’ that the detained person is in the U.S. illegally. Also notable, many of the law’s provisions—the requirement that aliens carry registration papers, for example—simply mirror federal immigration laws which remain in-place.

At issue in this case was the doctrine of federal preemption. Immigration policy clearly falls under the federal government’s constitutional authorities, but it was unclear whether states had the authority to enforce federal immigration policy on their own when federal authorities failed to do so, or whether they had the authority to enact their own, stricter immigration policies within their own borders. This ruling strictly limits state authorities and places immigration matters almost wholly in the federal sphere.

The majority opinion was issued by Justice Anthony Kennedy, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Justice Stephen Breyer, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Separate opinions were issued by Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Clarence Thomas, and Justice Samuel Alito that concurred and dissented with different parts of the majority opinion. Justice Elana Kagan recused herself from participation due to her involvement in the case as Solicitor General under President Barack Obama (D) before being appointed to the court.

Gonzales, Holder, and Perjury

Posted

Back in 2007, U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales (R) stood before the Senate Judiciary Committee and testified about two headlining controversies: President George W. Bush’s (R) firing of seven U.S. attorneys and the administration’s domestic wiretap programs. In reality the attorney firings were a complete non-issue (since presidents can fire their appointees for any reason they wish), and the wiretap programs were not particularly noteworthy. The hearings were little more than an opposition gimmick designed to score cheap political points, but that’s just par for the course in Washington.

It soon became clear that elements of Gonzales’s testimony did not align with information in White House documents, and other administration officials had provided contradictory testimony. Gonzales had mislead congressional investigators. The chief law enforcement officer of the United States, the head of the Department of Justice, had committed perjury. Regardless of how baseless or trumped-up the controversies may have been that brought Gonzales to Capitol Hill in the first place, once he was there he was required to tell the truth. His only other option was to refuse to answer questions by citing his Fifth Amendment protections or executive privilege. Lying under oath was inexcusable.

At the time, I called for the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate Gonzales’s testimony and, if he had indeed lied, bring appropriate charges against him. I don’t care if somebody is Republican, Democrat, conservative, or liberal; criminals don’t belong in high office. Gonzales resigned soon thereafter, and he was never prosecuted for what he did.

Read more . . .

It’s Not About Health Care

Posted

These are the final days before what is almost certain to be the most monumental U.S. Supreme Court ruling in decades. Some time in this week or the next, we will find out what the court’s nine justices have to say about Florida v. United States Department of Health and Human Services—in other words, they will be deciding the constitutionality of the ‘Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,’ colloquially known as ObamaCare, which is being challenged by twenty-six of our fifty state governments.

To hear the law’s proponents describe it, what’s at stake here is universal access to health care—which is a clear public good. To them, a Supreme Court rebuke would mean that the ‘conservative’ wing of the court had used its right-wing political beliefs to overturn the will of the people (expressed via Congress). ‘This is the worst kind of judicial activism,’ will be the refrain. ‘How dare the justices take health care away from poor, needy Americans?’

This is misdirection of the worst kind. The questions before the court have nothing to do with health care, but with the limits of federal authority under the U.S. Constitution. If the court overturns ObamaCare, it may indeed ‘take health care away from [some] poor, needy Americans,’ but that will not have been the court’s fault. If you want to blame government entities for how our health care system works in this country, there are fifty statehouses I can refer you to, since regulation of health care is their job.

Read more . . .

The Joys of Air Travel, and Draft Election Site

Posted

Melissa and I returned Monday from an excellent Bradford family reunion in Hood River, Oregon, which is about sixty miles east of Portland. We saw a lot of really interesting and fascinating sights in the area and, more importantly, spent a lot of quality time with my extended family. But unfortunately, that meant I had to fly.

I managed to avoid the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) nude photos and feel-ups, but only by sheer luck. Agents at Dulles International Airport were subjecting almost all travelers to these Fourth Amendment violations, but I was randomly pulled-out of the line and sent through a regular metal detector. At Portland International Airport, only about half of the travelers were being violated while the other half went through normal metal detectors; I happened to be in the lucky half. Yes, it’s a brave new world here in America.

Anyway, somebody must have been carrying a virus on one of our two flights back . . . which United Airlines kindly recirculated over-and-over through the cabin. Half of our travel party was ill within a few days, myself included. From mid-day Wednesday through to today I’ve been spending most of my time resting and drinking fluids, although I’m finally starting to feel a bit better today.

I did accomplish one thing though: I built out most of my election night live coverage site, complete with an electoral map and liveblog. It’s going to be much easier for me to update in real-time than the setups I’ve used in the past, so you’ll get your live results faster and with fewer errors than before. You can get a look by going to http://election.scottbradford.us/.

Scott Bradford is a writer and technologist who has been putting his opinions online since 1995. He believes in three inviolable human rights: life, liberty, and property. He is a Catholic Christian who worships the trinitarian God described in the Nicene Creed. Scott is a husband, nerd, pet lover, and AMC/Jeep enthusiast with a B.S. degree in public administration from George Mason University.