The Supremes, Obmacare, and the Politics of Public Ignorance

I will be the first one to tell you that I really have no clue how well the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will work when the whole thing is is finally in place (if it ever actually gets there).  In fact, I'll admit, I don't understand much of it at all.  I'm pretty sure that the folks who wrote the damn thing don't have a complete understanding of how it's supposed to work.  That said, there are some things I want to say about the issue. First, I believe Chief Justice Roberts did the right thing, not because he saved Obamacare, but because he, for the time being at least, nipped the politicization of the Supreme Court in the bud. Second, based on what I've seen in the comments sections attached to various articles and op-ed pieces (not to mention the weirdness coming out of the columnists and reporters themselves), there is an appalling lack of critical thinking skills among the "interested" public.


THE SUPREMES


“Those decisions [creating and passing legislation] are entrusted to our nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them.  It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”  - Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.


In other words, the Supreme Court is not about the politics of a given piece of legislation, it is about the legality or constitutionality of said legislation and , therefore, should limit its commentary to the law. This, I believe, has been in part by recent forays into the politics of cases before the court by conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, who, from the bench, had this to say following the court's decision to strike down most of Arizona's anti-immigration law SB 1070:

“After this case was argued and while it was under consideration, the secretary of homeland security announced a program exempting from immigration enforcement some 1.4 million illegal immigrants. The president has said that the new program is ‘the right thing to do’ in light of Congress’s failure to pass the administration’s proposed revision of the immigration laws. Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so. But to say, as the court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of federal immigration law that the president declines to enforce boggles the mind.”


“Arizona bears the brunt of the country’s illegal immigration problem. Its citizens feel themselves under siege by large numbers of illegal immigrants who invade their property, strain their social services, and even place their lives in jeopardy. Federal officials have been unable to remedy the problem, and indeed have recently shown that they are simply unwilling to do so.  Arizona has moved to protect its sovereignty — not in contradiction of federal law, but in complete compliance with it.” 

If you ask me, this is taking a rather big leap off of the judicial reservation.  I'm not saying that Justice Scalia is the only "activist" judge on the court, but he is certainly the most obvious.  The Tea Partiers and other extreme conservatives are already out there calling Roberts a traitor, but I believe, by reaching a judicial middle ground in this case, he did what was right.

THE PUBLIC

First of all, the lack of command of basic English grammar by an appalling number of people who comment on news stories is simply astonishing.  I understand typos, but this is downright distressing.

Second, I will be generous when I say that people who comment on politics or other issues (Obamacare is one, along with immigration, that draws a particular brand of vitriol), fall in to three basic categories:

1. The 5% (again I'm being generous) who seem to have actually given some serious thought to the issue and regardless of their political view seem to value civilized discourse.

2. The 5% who read the comments section  primarily to make sarcastic or humorous comments and non-sequiturs (I admit to joining this particular group from time to time).

3. The 90% who are simply talking out of their ass.

In this modern world, where an absolute mountain of information is available at the click of a button, it constantly amazes me that people aren't more informed.  But the mob likes the rush of juicy oratory and bumper-sticker sloganeering. Yes, I am left of center politically, and it would be very easy for me to rail against the conservative demigogs, knee-jerk nazis and all of that.  The problem is that the left is just as bad. Trolls dominate the comment sections with not-so-clever nicknames for their political demons: Comrade Obama, Republinazis, Osama Bin Obama, etc. Those are, of course, accompanied by the printable insults like, socialists, whackos, scum, communists, LIBERAL, right wing-nuts, fascists. and so on (my favorite clever response is, "You're an idiot!" Nothing else).

I try to read the news reports and then read the op-eds from both sides of the issue. I try to be as informed about the issues as I can.  Sometimes it works, sometimes I just go to the sports section. That said, I never comment on a story unless I feel I have a decent grasp of the subject (my blog is for making an ass of myself).  The US, and I imagine every other country that has a free press, would be a much better place if its citizenry stopped reacting emotionally to an issue and started thinking critically about that issue.  But then that is probably like asking ice cream not to melt in July.

And so it goes...