Tag Archives: responsibilities

Roberts’ Court

Posted on by
Reply

Aside from the misnomer of the title, which is implied by the thrust of a piece in Sunday’s Wall Street Journal centered on Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation and the hoo-raw surrounding that, Chief Justice John Roberts has a problem with the perception of the Supreme Court—according to Brent Kendall and Jess Bravin, the authors of the piece.

“We don’t work as Democrats or Republicans, and I think it’s a very unfortunate perception that the public might get from the confirmation process,” CJ Roberts…2016.

The Court can’t worry about perceptions, though.  It can—should—only rule on what the Constitution or law actually says.

“Every single one of us has an obligation to think about what it is that provides the court with its legitimacy, to think about how we can be not so politically divided as some of the other political institutions in the nation,” Justice Elena Kagan said[.]

No.  What provides the court with its legitimacy is its rulings based on the text of the Constitution or the law. A Justice’s empathy, or the particular wisdom of Latinas, or the concept that a judge should take account of…the climate of an era, have no place on the bench. Nor does an automatic reach for the middle.

The handling of any of those things—and they are important (as are the social climate generally; the wisdom of non-Latinas, also; empathy)—can only be done politically, not judicially.

Partisanship

Posted on by
Reply

Chris Wallace interviewed Senator Ben Cardin (D, MD) on his Fox News Sunday program last Sunday.

Here are some of the claims Cardin made.

The change that Senator McConnell made to the rules on the Supreme Court really caused us to be much more partisan in this[.]

And

I don’t believe that Justice Kavanaugh’s in the mainstream of judicial thought.

And

Kavanaugh’s confirmation puts at risk “the progress we’ve made on health care issues, on women’s Constitutional rights, and on protecting the Mueller investigation.”

Not quite, although this is America, and Cardin is entitled [sic] to his spin.

However.

Filibustering confirmations is by design partisan. Absent overt filibustering—courtesy of Cardin’s erstwhile Leader Harry Reid; McConnell only completed Reid’s program—engaging in character assassination and smear as the preferred means of blocking a confirmation is especially, despicably partisan.

Not mainstream?  In Cardin’s fetid imagination and that of his fellow Progressive-Democrats, “mainstream” is judges with feelz and Latina wisdom. “Mainstream” also is the Constitution meaning whatever a judge thinks it should mean instead of what its text says.  No, Kavanaugh is in the heart of the envelope: the text of the Constitution and of a law is what should be adhered to.

Regarding what Cardin is pleased to call “progress,”—health care issues, women’s Constitutional rights, and protecting the Mueller investigation—these are political matters, not judicial ones.  Cardin and his fellow Progressive-Democrats need to make their case in the political branches and quit hiding behind judges’ robes.  If these politicians are unable to impose their political views on the rest of us, they need to accept that us unwashed masses disagree with them, and move on.

In Other Parts of the World….

Posted on by
Reply

A man in Austria was shocked to be handed a bill from a debt collection agency for €10,365 ($12,000) after misplacing his hotel key….

After all,

the key was a skeleton key for the entire building, and now the owner is claiming all of the hotel’s intricate locks must be replaced.

So—a hotel is careless of its security setup, and that makes its customers responsible for any potential breach.

Hmm….

Free Markets for Health Care

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s an illustration of why one is badly needed.  The Wall Street Journal‘s article is centered on health coverage plans, but the underlying problem is in health care provision and the monopolistic nature of both provision and coverage.

Last year, Cigna Corp and the New York hospital system Northwell Health discussed developing an insurance plan that would offer low-cost coverage by excluding some other health-care providers, according to people with knowledge of the matter. It never happened.
The problem was a separate contract between Cigna and NewYork-Presbyterian, the powerful hospital operator that is a Northwell rival. Cigna couldn’t find a way to work around restrictive language that blocked it from selling any plans that didn’t include NewYork-Presbyterian, according to the people.

And

Dominant hospital systems use an array of secret contract terms to protect their turf and block efforts to curb health-care costs. As part of these deals, hospitals can demand insurers include them in every plan and discourage use of less-expensive rivals. Other terms allow hospitals to mask prices from consumers, limit audits of claims, add extra fees and block efforts to exclude health-care providers based on quality or cost.

We’re on track to commit 20% of our GDP to health care costs, and the industries of health care provision and health care coverage operating outside a free market environment is the major driver of that expense.

The WSJ piece goes on at length in this vein.

If patients and our doctors were able to shop around and force hospitals, clinics, and coverage providers to compete for our business, we’d very quickly see better health care, better (actual) health insurance, and lower costs.  If our doctors had to compete for our business, we’d see just as quickly better care at lower cost.  And our doctors would need have no fear of costs—their fees—going too low: there’s a lot to be said for patient loyalty to a good doctor, both from a quality of care and continuity of that care perspective.

Jobs

Posted on by
Reply

French President Emmanuel Macron had the effrontery to say to a heretofore unsuccessful job seeker that, were the latter not absolutely set on a job in his chosen career field, the man easily could find work in France.  And the man wouldn’t even have to relocate very far.  The Left is in an uproar over Macron’s arrogance in saying an obvious truth.

The jobseeker, an aspiring gardener, said to Macron at an Elysee Palace open house,

I’m 25 years old, I send resumes and cover letters, they don’t lead to anything[.]

Macron’s terrible advice?

The president responded: “If you’re willing and motivated, in hotels, cafes and restaurants, construction, there’s not a single place I go where they don’t say they’re looking for people. Not one — it’s true!”

Macron went on to suggest that young gardener go to Paris’ Montparnasse district, an area brimming with cafés and restaurants, assuring him he would easily find work. “If I crossed the street I’d find you one,” Macron said.

How terribly thoughtless.  Society—or Government—owes the man a job because he wants to follow his bliss.  The fact that his bliss is very limited in value is of no import.  None at all.