I'm not the only one, by far, who was shocked at Antonin Scalia's remark that he couldn't be expected to actually read the legislation he plans to strike down. Ignorance, allied with politics, is now apparently endemic in the country's court of last appeal, not just the country's most rightwing political group.
And then there was Scalia's "broccoli" remark, showing that his ignorance is as broad (not to say silly) as it is deep.
... The second day of hearings suggested that the justices most hostile to the law don’t understand, or choose not to understand, how insurance works. And the third day was, in a way, even worse, as antireform justices appeared to embrace any argument, no matter how flimsy, that they could use to kill reform.
Let’s start with the already famous exchange in which Justice Antonin Scalia compared the purchase of health insurance to the purchase of broccoli, with the implication that if the government can compel you to do the former, it can also compel you to do the latter. That comparison horrified health care experts all across America because health insurance is nothing like broccoli.
Why? When people choose not to buy broccoli, they don’t make broccoli unavailable to those who want it. But when people don’t buy health insurance until they get sick — which is what happens in the absence of a mandate — the resulting worsening of the risk pool makes insurance more expensive, and often unaffordable, for those who remain. As a result, unregulated health insurance basically doesn’t work, and never has. ...Paul Krugman
Krugman also reminds us of Charles Fried's remark in a recent interview. Fried was Reagan's SG.
I’ve never understood why regulating by making people go buy something is somehow more intrusive than regulating by making them pay taxes and then giving it to them. ...WaPo
The Supreme Court is in trouble no less than our political system thanks to a relatively small group of radical know-nothings, some of whom really do believe that knowledge (and actually taking time to read the legislation you're responsible for making a final judgment on) is dangerous and "elitist." Paul Krugman is only one of many Americans worried "that the nation’s already badly damaged faith in the Supreme Court’s ability to stand above politics is about to take another severe hit."
___
Charles Fried ended the interview Krugman cites by saying (and you can almost hear Fried's sigh):
Politics, politics, politics. You look at the wonderful decision by Jeff Sutton, who is as much of a 24-karat gold conservative as anyone could be. He is a godfather to the Federalist Society. Look at his opinion. Or look at Larry Silberman’s opinion. I don’t understand what’s gotten into people. Well, I do I’m afraid, but it’s politics, not anything else. ...WaPo
___
Can judges be bought? You betcha. The Washington Post reports on the campaigning done by the justices of the Florida Supreme Court.
The invitation to the event had asked for a “suggested contribution” of $500 to each of three candidates, who were now mingling sheepishly among the crowd. They were no ordinary politicians. In fact, they weren’t politicians at all, but rather Florida Supreme Court justices. Each has been in office since the 1990s, each retained by voters overwhelmingly in previous elections, and each now reluctantly campaigning — for the first time.
While deep-pocketed super PACs and ultra-wealthy donors have attracted plenty of attention in the presidential contest this year, they are also making waves further down the political food chain. The mere possibility that a rich benefactor or interest group with endless amounts of money could swoop in, write massive checks and remake an entire court for ideological reasons has prompted judges here in Florida and elsewhere to prepare for battles they never expected to fight. ...WaPo
And Florida's judiciary are hardly alone in the battles for bucks. One law professor remarked that judicial elections have turned into "floating auctions."
