Tuesday, March 27, 2012

Supreme Court Fallacy

Is there any doubt after watching the clearly political decision in Bush Vs. Gore that the Supreme Court is "blind and impartial" when it comes to decisions???

I lost a lot of faith when Bush vs Gore was decided by who appointed them.

No way 9 justices can read the same thing and vote clearly their party choice and believe that was a coincidence.

. But it happened, who among us thinks this health care isn't going to go the same way.

In the end tho it might be a good thing a bill over two thousand pages can't be good, and am I to understand it doesn't apply to Nebraska?

Politics STINK

1 comment:

Baxter said...

If today's SCOTUS oral arguments are any indicator, the Court may just agree with the Good Doc on the mandate issue.

If so, Congress will have a year or so to clean up the issue so that insurance companies are not required to enroll free-loaders when they get sick. In such a circumstance, I'd suggest "open enrollment" for everyone in 2013 and those that opt out would be subject to today's rules with respect to pricing and exclusion of coverage of pre-existing conditions.

Try not to view the Court cynically. At times it is hard - especially Bush v Gore, where they had to do backflips to write their opinion. Today, the Court had some very good questions and the attorney for the 26 states had the best answers.

We will see.