Wednesday, June 27, 2012

Health Care Reform: Here Come the Judges!

It's time to Break It Down!

The Supreme Court of the United States, or SCOTUS, is the ultimate arbiter of jurisprudence in the United States of America.  The Court, as it is often referred to, exercises appellate authority over all other federal courts, and state courts when dealing with federal law.  SCOTUS also maintains original jurisdiction over a limited array of cases.

The Supreme Court, by statute, opens the first Monday of October each year.  From October to late June or early July, The Court progresses through various stages of case review.  Justices work through alternate periods of hearing and considering arguments, and rendering opinions.  These alternating opinions last approximately two weeks each.

Annual Sessions of SCOTUS last 365 days, or one year.  However, individual cases are not heard after late June or early July.  The remaining time, approximately three months, is spent preparing for the next year’s Session.

There are three acknowledged branches of the federal government; the Executive (President), the Legislative(Congress – The Senate and the House of Representatives), and the Judicial (SCOTUS).  Of the three branches, many observers and analysts consider Supreme Court to be the most powerful.

The President is often the central figure in discussions about our national government.  However, Congress acts in a check and balance capacity to prevent a President from acting as a Monarch or a Dictator.  Both Houses of Congress must pass legislation before the President signs a bill into law.  If however, the President believes a piece of legislation is not in the best interest of the Country, he may veto it.  When that happens, both Houses must assemble what amounts to a super majority (2/3 in both Houses) in order for such a bill to be veto-proofed, and enacted into law.  Of course, the President, and members of both Houses of Congress must run for and win election in order to serve in their respective capacities.

Contrasting a few of the basic parameters, aside from eligibility, that the President and members of Congress must meet, with those of the Supreme Court, one finds stark distinctions.  While there is only one President at a time compared to nine Justices, eight Associates, and one Chief, the President must run for and win in a nationwide election.  Meanwhile, there are 435 members of the House of Representatives, and 100 Senators.  House members must compete for election in intrastate legislative districts, while their Senate counterparts run in statewide elections.

The Justices, affectionately known as The Supremes in some circles, are appointed rather than elected.  Perhaps, more important, their appointments are lifetime, or until/if they decide to retire, become too ill to serve, get removed by Impeachment, or die in office.  Frequently they have historically served until death, or physical incapacity.  With regard to Impeachmentmy commitment to full-disclosure requires that I advise you that in the History of the United States more Justices have died while hearing a case before The Court, than have been removed from office by Impeachment.

Chief Justice Harlan Stone suffered a cerebral hemorrhage April 22, 1946 while reading aloud from his dissenting opinion in the case of Girouard v. United States.  He is the only Justice to actually die in the Court.

There has also been only one Supreme Court Justice Impeached…ever!  SamuelChase was Impeached by the House of Representatives in 1804.  However, in his subsequent Senate trial he was acquitted.  Justice Chase continued to serve until his death in 1811.  Therefore, no Supreme Court Justice has ever been removed from office due to Impeachment.

There have been 112 Supreme Court Justices to date.  An historical argument can be made that it is more likely that a Justice will die while hearing a case than be removed from office by virtue of Impeachment.  Moreover, 49, or 43.75% of Justices have died which in their active term of service.  In other words, though it is surely a tough gig to obtain, job security is off the chain!  On top of that, Justices frequently dispense rulings that decide the fate of statutes Congress has created, and that Presidents have signed into law.

As you have likely heard by now, tomorrow is the last day of the active case portion of this year’s Session of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS).  The signature item on the docket, not just for tomorrow, but for this entire year, is Health Care Reform, which includes two pieces of legislation, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA/signed March 23, 2010), and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (H.R. 4872), (enacted March 30, 2010).

As The Court winds down for the year, controversial cases, opinions, and rulings are par for the course.  In that regard, this year is no exception.  The dynamic that has super-charged the energy surrounding the conclusion of cases for this Session of The Court is the palpable tension between President Obama’s efforts to institute health care reform, and the solid bloc of opponents challenging what they not so affectionately refer to as Obamacare, because the President expended an exceptional amount of political capital to get the landmark legislation passed in 2010.

I have not crystal ball, Tarot Cards, or other special insight that allows me to pre-share tomorrow’s ruling.  There are any number of projections, a good many that expect a split decision, both based on votes by the Justices (5-4 would not be surprising), and among the provisions of the statute.  The infamous health insurance mandate, a provision which would require virtually every American to purchase and maintain health insurance, is by most accounts the single most controversial aspect of a program widely viewed as controversial throughout.

Insiders have suggested if there is a razor-thin ruling (5-4), Justice Anthony Kennedy is likely to be the pivotal actor.  Of current Justices, all attended Ivy League Law Schools, 5 Harvard, 3 Yale, and 1 Columbia.  So while there are elements of racial, ethnic, and sexual diversity, represented on the High Court, there is remains a likely predictable homogeneity guiding their legal pedagogy.  So ill-defined and unpredictable are the overall distinctions among them that in the midst o this highly charged partisan matter, the Justice predicted to be most apt to hold the decisional balance that could drive the decision President Obama’s way is Justice Kennedy; a Reagan appointee.  How ironic!

The flip-side of the Kennedy White Knight scenario is that based on seniority calculus (which relates to the Justices that have written the Session's preceding opinions), Chief Justice John Roberts, the current (and 17th) may be poised to write the opinion on Health Care Reform.  Because of the Chief Justice's well-known (ultra) conservative leanings, this is thought to bode poorly for the law's prospects of being upheld.    

My expectation is that at a minimum, the mandate will be found to be Unconstitutional.  Moreover, while there are some popular elements of the law, elimination of the pre-existing condition principle, standard in current health insurance, and implementing a dependent child provision that extends a child's coverage on parents' policies until age 26, for example, I think it more likely that the law will be scuttled in toto than that it will beadopted fully.

In any event, hang in there, it won’t be long now.  Remember, Health Care Reform: Here Come the Judges!  I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.blogspot.com. A new post is published each Wednesday. For more detailed information on a variety of aspects relating to this post, consult the links below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States










Wednesday, June 20, 2012

Who Are Artur Davis and Neil Munro...and Why Does it Matter?

It's time to Break It Down!

Last week, I wrote about President Obama having a tough end of spring, beginning of summer.  I don’t usually do sequels, but if anything blog-worthy has leaped out at me over the past week, it is that there has continued to be a steady stream of “more of the same.”  In this post I will highlight just a couple of examples; as in the gentlemen referenced in the Title above.

First, Artur Davis is a former Democratic member of the U.S. House of Representatives.  He held the seat in Alabama’s 7th Congressional District, from 2003-2011, and ran unsuccessfully in the state’s Gubernatorial Primary in 2010.

Davis, by most accounts, achieved his 15minutes of fame by seconding President Obama’s nomination at the 2008 Democratic National Convention in Denver.  That seminal fact took on added significance recently.

The May 29th edition of TheFix, a Washington Post Blog by Chris Cillizza, indicates Davis wrote on his Web site, “If I were to run, it would be as a Republican, and I am in the process of changing my registration from Alabama to Virginia, a development which likely does represent a closing of one chapter and perhaps the opening of another.”

The former Congressman has now, in effect, moved 180 degrees away from that pivotal moment in 2008.  He has renounced support for President Obama, and indicated he is ditching the Democratic Party in favor of the GOP.

In an on-air interview featured on CNN’s The Situation Room, this past Monday, Davis told host Wolf Blitzer, his principal reasons for supporting then Senator Obama were that he thought:

·         Obama, as President, would foster a significant improvement in race relations

·         He (Obama) would move the Democratic Party further toward the center.

Ultimately, he dropped his support for the President because of what he termed broken campaign promises.  He added, "I think the Obama administration has candidly gone too far to the left. You can raise all kinds of questions on whether that's good politics or not.  Obviously the election will determine that."

In the interview with Blitzer, Davis claimed that he is among 10 million Americans who voted for President Obama in 2008 who have subsequently made the switch to the Republican Party.  By the way, did I mention Artur Davis is black?  By abandoning the President, and the Democratic Party, Davis is striking a blow for what he believes will become an increasing trend…after the 2012 Election, when President Obama cannot appear on the ballot again.

I don’t claim to have a clear window into the definitive research on whether this assertion reflects an accurate depiction of life on the ground in 2012.  If, however it does amount to the irreducible truth, one can rightfully presume that POTUS is in for an exceptionally rigorous and challenging election fight over the course of the next four and a half months.  Moreover, the prospect is certainly strong, if not likely, that the President is in stark jeopardy of being relegated to one term.

Second, last Friday, Neil Munro made himself next in line as one of the men who has taken great pains to distinguish themselves as part of a growing litany of individuals who seek/find honor in heckling and/or publicly attacking President Obama.  This latest incident took place Friday afternoon in the Rose Garden at the White House as President Obama made an announcement unveiling a new immigration policy.

Munro, works for an organization named The Daily Caller, a news and opinion website based in Washington, DC.  In self-describing, The Daily Caller notes that its major foci include politics, original reporting, and breaking news.

On Friday afternoon, as the President described his new policy, Mr. Munro interrupted him by asking why he favored foreigners over American workers.  The President continued speaking, eventually indicating to Munro that, in answer to his question, the policy was the right thing to do for the American people.

In an instant, Munro had completed the self-transformation into conservative icon, while simultaneously catapulting himself to the top of a super select pecking order; Americans who have launched a direct verbal assault on President Obama, captured in real time by mainstream media.  He joins the Southern swagger of Joe Wilson, the South Carolina Congressman of You lie fame, and the irrepressible Arizona Governor Jan Brewer; she of finger wagging in the President’s grill (face) notoriety.  Together, they form three-quarters of a virtual Mount Rushmore of Obama bashers.

A number of sources among traditional media viewed the outburst by Munro as inappropriate, even rude.  Be that as it may, in his own words (defense), Mr. Munro said of the encounter:

“I timed the question believing the president was closing his remarks, because naturally I have no intention of interrupting the President of the United States. I know he rarely takes questions before walking away from the podium. When I asked the question as he finished his speech, he turned his back on the many reporters, and walked away while I and at least one other reporter asked questions.”

Further, in full-throated support of Munro, described as an Irish Immigrant, by Tucker Carlson, co-founder of The Daily Caller, Munro was only doing his job.  He said, specifically:

“A reporter’s job is to ask questions and get answers. Our job is to find out what the federal government is up to. Politicians often don’t want to tell us. A good reporter gets the story. We’re proud of Neil Munro.”

Alternately, according to the Washington Post 2012 Election Blog, Sam Donaldson, retired ABCNews correspondent, known for his dogged pursuit tactics while interviewing Presidents said:

“I never interrupted any president while he was making a formal presentation of any sort. You don’t do that, do you?”

Britt Hume, a senior political analyst for Fox News Tweeted:

"I never did that in my 8 years at the White House & don't recall anyone else doing it either."

In taking a long lens view of this matter, many of those media types who line up on the political right find Mr. Munro’s actions logical, defensible, and even necessary.  Rush Limbaugh and Lou Dobbs are two other examples of folks who have praised Munro, while skewering the President for their respective roles in this encounter.  Dobbs said Munro did the right thing, and since the President took no questions, he had no choice.  Limbaugh ridiculed those who chided Munro.

And then there are other views.  Munro framed the rationale for his attack questions as being based on his belief the President was wrapping up his comments.  Several reporters in close proximity to Mr. Munro at the time saw it differently.

BriannaKeilar, of CNN Tweeted:

“I was two people over from Neil Munro.  No one thought the president was wrapping up.  I give that statement a great big Cow Pie Award.”

ToddZwillich, Washington correspondent for The Takeaway from Public Radio International Tweeted:

“Idea he mistimed his question isn’t credible.  He purposely interrupted.”

Neil Munro flouted a key rule for White House correspondents: Don’t interrupt the President’s formal remarks.  Munro and the many folks who agree with him argue, publicly anyway, that the basis for their relentless pushback is predicated upon an earnest disagreement on matters of policy and principle.

Frequently, other observers believe there is a varied agenda on the part of people who routinely and consistently attack President Obama, much of it having nothing whatsoever to do with policy and principle.  These observers note the level and depth of antics and tactics that have been deployed against President Obama exceed, by far, in their extremity, the measures taken against previous Presidents.

So, the question remains, Who are Artur Davis and Neil Munro…and Why Does it Matter?“  The answer; Davis and Munro are just two of the latest exhibits of the thorny problems President Obama will have to transcend if he has any chance of reclaiming the White House come November 6th.  Why does it matter?  Simple; if Team Obama is going to devise and execute a successful strategy to connect with the American electorate, and persuade them he deserves another term, the President and his team must catalogue and understand the complete span, scope, and complexity of issues at hand.

Without question, the economy and employment matters (including monthly jobs estimates) will dominate the election landscape.  But the European economy, national security, immigration, Obamacare, and the perpetually moving target of the compelling interest of Independent voters will also come into play.  Buckle your seat belts; the ride is going to get bumpy.

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.blogspot.com. A new post is published each Wednesday. For more detailed information on a variety of aspects relating to this post, consult the links below:






















Wednesday, June 13, 2012

Summer is Upon Us; But for This President, No Sign the Livin' is Easy!

It's time to Break It Down!

George Gershwin composed the music for the aria Summertime for the 1935 opera, Porgy & Bess.  The words were written by DuBose Heyward, author of the novel Porgy, on which the opera was based.  Ira Gershwin also received writing credits for the song.

As most elementary and secondary schools kick-off the annual ritual of Summer Vacation, the NBAFinals gear up, and the calendar signals we are a mere week away from the Summer Solstice (First day of summerJune 20, 2012, this year), it is natural to reflect on the opening line of this immortal standard from Porgy & Bess, “Summertime, and thelivin’ is easy.”

It may be easy in 2012…that is, unless you are connected in some way to the Obama Presidency, re-election campaign, or really Democratic Party politics at large.  If your lot is to check any of those boxes, then chances are your may be wondering, what on earth happened to June?  In a short month (30 days as opposed to 31), that is not even half way over, the litany of jarring consequences already includes:

·         Continued slowing of job growth

·         Huge loss in the Wisconsin Governor’s recall

·         Potential Contempt-of-Congress citation for AttorneyGeneral Eric Holder


·         President Clinton going off message

·         Governor Romney winning the May Fundraising sweepstakes

·         Democrats & Republicans complaining about national security leaks

·         President Obama faltering with a McCain-like “The privatesector is fine” gaffe

·         Economic headwinds from Europe lengthening America’s economic malaise

·         Possibility that the Supreme Court might strike downObamacare before the month is over

With a Top 10 List as auspicious as the one above, it’s clear anything else, clearly, must be categorized at piling-on.  So be it, for over the weekend, Secretary of Commerce, John Bryson, wascited for his involvement in a bizarre 3xcar crash weekend.
 

Not surprisingly, the media have viewed this seemingly endless sequence as just that; the gift that keeps on giving.  Mr. Bryson tookmedical leave this past Monday; Deputy Secretary Rebecca Blank is slated toserve as Acting Secretary until Mr. Bryson returns.
The Romney Campaign, understandably, is attempting to leverage the events of this month, and to turn them into the beginning of the end for Team Obama’s prospects for recapturing to the White House.  It is a tad early to declare the Presidents’ efforts null and void…but by no means too early to consider the possibility.
As June turns into July, and the intensity of the Obama-Romney tête-à-tête escalates to white-hot, it is likely POTUS will claim better months than this one.  I do not possess a crystal ball, so I will not even hazard a guess at to the outcome.  Most current polls consider the race a dead heat, which is a prime reason to look for a tight finish.
It might happen that way, but at the moment, Mr. Romney is trending, as they say in the Twittersphere.  That status of events suggest it is indeed possible for Governor Romney to finish comfortably ahead.  With that in mind, if you are a fan of the sport called politics, buckle up, and get ready for the Grande Finale.  Summer is upon us; But For This President, NoSign the Livin’ is Easy!


I’m done; holla back!
Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.blogspot.com. A new post is published each Wednesday. For more detailed information on a variety of aspects relating to this post, consult the links below:








http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ira_Gershwin


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summer_vacation

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-2158575/NBA-Finals-2012-Kevin-Durant-eclipses-LeBron-James.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summer_solstice

http://www.lyricsmode.com/lyrics/g/george_gershwin/summertime.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bryson

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Secretary_of_Commerce

http://www.whitehouse.gov/

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/null+and+void

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/t%c3%aate-%c3%a0-t%c3%aate

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/escalates?s=t

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/Twittersphere

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/grand%20finale

Wednesday, June 6, 2012

"And Then There Was One: Down Goes Abu Yahya al-Libi!"

It's time to Break It Down!

 On December 8, 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt asserted that the previous day was “A date that will live in infamy.”  On December 7th, of course, the Japanese had bombed Pearl Harbor, and in the process, emphatically and irrevocably introduced the United States to the nitty-gritty aspects of World War II. 

There is no question, had he chosen to do so, President George W. Bush could have said the same of September 11, 2001.  Almost certainly, those old enough to remember the essential events of the day recall with vivid precision what they were doing that day.  The Pentagon, a field near ShanksvillePennsylvania, and the Twin Towers in Manhattan were the sites of terrorist attacks of a rank and order never before experienced in the United States. 

Osama bin Laden, the leader of Al-Qaeda is credited with having been the inspiration and force behind the four plane crashes turned suicide bombings that resulted in killing nearly 3,000 people in Manhattan, Washington, DC, and Pennsylvania.  Bin Laden, a Muslim cleric, a top terrorist target by the United States after those bombings, nevertheless remained at-large for nearly a decade.  The FBI issued a $25 million dollar bounty on him.  After being sought for nearly a decade, bin Laden was shot and killed in Abbottabad, Pakistan by Navy Seals and CIA operatives in a raid ordered by President Barack Obama. 

Over the course of President Obama’s term in office, he and his administration have made finding and killing top terrorist targets a high priority.  The administration reports that earlier this week, Abu Yahyaal-Libi was killed in a drone attack in an area known as Pakistan’s lawless frontier region.  According to U.S. intelligence officials, the death of al-Libi leaves al Qaeda’s ranks so depleted there is no obvious successor. 

Peter Bergen, a CNN national security analyst notes that “15 of the most important al Qaeda leaders have been killed CIA drone strikes under President Obama.  The addition of the direct assault on bin Laden, in concert with al-Libi’s killing this week means that there is only senior Al Qaeda leader left, Ayman al-Zawahiri, an Egyptian surgeon who became the leader of al Qaeda after the death of bin Laden.

There is a fair amount of speculation that al-Zawahiri is likely to be too pre-occupied with his own survival to effectively plan, export, and execute significant terror strikes abroad.  The sheer recognition of the fate of a series of al Qaeda operatives, including bin Laden, will undoubtedly have some bearing on his actions, if not his plans; probably both.
One U.S. official described al-Libi as “one of al-Qaeda’s most experienced and versatile leaders.”  His death may hold particular gravitas because of his status as a spiritual leader, as well as due to his acumen as the organization’s operational manager.  White House spokesman Jay Carney framed al-Libi’s death as “damaging to the morale & cohesion of al Qaeda” in the post-bin Laden era.
Bergen, for his part, suggests that fearing al Qaeda in its present day form is more irrational than concern about lighting strikes.  He goes on to point out that for example, lone wolf Jihadists have killed 17 Americans since 9/11, while 54 Americans are reported to be killed each year by lightening strikes, according to the National Weather Service.  By that calculation, lightening strikes are about 30 times more deadly than Jihadist terrorism.

To be sure, there is still work to be done in reducing Homeland Security risks for Americans, and ultimately in making and keeping America safe.  But by all accounts, this President has initiated policies and taken measures that have led to significantly reducing the threat of terrorist attacks.  That fact is underscored by the latest data point in a continuing trend.  To wit, “And Then There Was One: Down Goes Abu Yahya al-Libi!”

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.blogspot.com. A new post is published each Wednesday. For more detailed information on a variety of aspects relating to this post, consult the links below: