I started writing a “woe-is-me” post but I took a break from it. I’m feeling bad enough as it is to add any unnecessary anxiety to an already stressful situation. So instead, I thought I’d exercise some righteous indignation in the face of some annoying political news.
Two things that have me foaming at the mouth lately are the SCOTUS hearings for Ms. Sotomayor and the healthcare debate.
First of all, there seem to be a couple of points that the Republicans are trying to make hay out of regarding the confirmation hearing for the Supreme Court. And these two things are getting what I consider to be a ridiculous amount attention. But they’re all the Republicans have, so they’re milking them for all they’re worth. One of them is this business of a “…wise Latina woman…” which has gotten wrapped up with the President’s description of a strong judicial candidate as someone with empathy. Empathy is the ability to understand and share the feelings of another person. Not to be confused with sympathy which is actually feeling pity or sorrow for another person’s predicament. People often use sympathy when they mean empathy and vice versa. Particularly when they say something like “I know how you feel.” They think they’re being empathetic when they’re really being sympathetic. But semantics aside, for some reason, certain members of Congress got their panties in a bunch when they heard this coming from the President. Then, of course, we all heard the speech that Sonia Sotomayor gave in which she said that she hopes that a wise Latina woman would come to a better decision [in a case] than a white man. I don’t know if she’s right. I’m neither wise nor a Latina woman. But I certainly think its fair to hear her out and understand where she’s coming from (see what I did there with “understand?”). Is she exhibiting some of her judicial philosophy with this statement? Maybe. If it is a part of her judicial philosophy, then I think I can find something here that I can relate to. I think, in my very humble and much less intelligent opinion, that she’s saying that the richness of one’s life experience is inexorably bound to the approach one takes toward answering a particular question, solving a particular problem, or adjudicating a particular case. I happen to think that’s almost necessary. But then again, I’m a bleeding-heart liberal. A chorus of conservative commentators and legislators are falling all over each other to point out that this is the very definition of a liberal, activist judge and that they would never, not in a million years, vote for someone who believes in anything other than a dispassionate (read; conservative) application of constitutional law.
It almost goes without saying that I listen to a lot of NPR throughout the day. If you were listening, as I was, to All Things Considered yesterday, you would have heard Robert Siegel interview Sen. Charles Grassley about empathy and impartiality. Most of it was the usual Republican claptrap until Robert Siegel read the following quote from Samuel Alito during his confirmation hearings:
“When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account.”
For $10, guess what Sen. Grassley’s vote was on the nomination of Samuel Alito. If you said “yes,” I’ll be sure to have the state of California issue you an official I.O.U. for $10 plus 3.75% interest.
The rest of the interview went rather predictably. Sen. Grassley never really addressed the point that Robert Siegel was trying to make, nor did he acknowledge that the circumstances are no different except for the party of the Executive Office. And, oh yeah, the gender and race of the person in front of the commission. But, “NO!” say the Republicans. “This is not about Justice Sotomayor’s gender or her race!” Methinks they doth protest too much. We’ve also got these same Republicans and many of the fear-mongering, hate-spewing, neo-conservative talking heads pointing to the recent Supreme Court decision over-turning the 2nd Circuit Court’s ruling in favor of the black firefighters in the Ricci v. DeStefano (otherwise known as the New Haven firefighters) case as proof-positive that Sonia Sotomayor legislates from the bench and is a racist in doing so! To which I say, horse feathers! The whole case is complicated and nuanced. I don’t get it entirely. Which is among the many reasons why I’ll never be a Supreme Court Justice (that and the fact that I probably wouldn’t even make it through law school if I tried). But what I think it boils down to is that the Supreme Court doesn’t issue rulings to chastise another judge. Their rulings reflect on previous rulings only insofar as they clarify the law and lay down an interpretation that, in our sports-minded culture, seems to superficially suggest a winner and a loser. But that’s not really the purpose of the Supreme Court, is it? Oh, wait…except when they decide who gets to be the President of the US. Yeah, I went there. And I’m not sorry I did.
The ruling by the 2nd Circuit Court was strictly an application of the law as it was written. The Supreme Court, as it is supposed to do, ruled by suggesting a reinterpretation of that law. And only by the slimmest of margins, I might add. And none of this takes into account that part of the responsibility of the Circuit Court of Appeals is to see to it that certain cases, which challenge existing laws, find their way to the Supreme Court either purposely or indirectly through a ruling. That’s our judicial system working as it was intended, whatever your opinion of our judicial system may be. Had Judge Sotomayor ruled otherwise, you can bet that the argument today would be about her re-writing laws from the bench.
Then again, what do I know, I’m just some guy behind a computer.
Now, on to the healthcare issue. And this comes with another pat on my own back. Some 6 years ago, give or take, I was having a pseudo-debate with someone who was a libertarian, about healthcare reform which I characterized at the time as the “holy grail” of anti-abortion arguments. And I was laughed at. My point was that the stickiest issue with healthcare reform isn’t really going to be about cost, or the so-called “horrors” of a government-run system; it’s going to be about abortion. Or, to put a finer point on it, how abortion will be addressed by any legislation attempting to reform our health care system. Anti-abortion advocates know that the fight over the constitutionality of abortion is a battle that they will probably never win. But its a public battle that keeps their issue at the fore-front of most American’s minds. And even if they can’t win it, they’re happy that it’s out there. Winning the battle against abortion requires a sneaky and much more insidious approach. The playbook looks something like this: public sentiment, congressional make-up and executive power all coalesce one day to put real and positive support behind health care reform. When that happens, the anti-abortion lobbyists and lawyers go into action, attaching all sorts of riders to bills limiting an individual’s right to use tax-payer funded monies to seek an abortion. And the next thing you know, the whole package of reform hits a brick wall and can go no further. And its happening right now. For the first time since who knows when (the experts are divided about this but typically point to as far back as 80 years ago. Reading the whole history of capitalist health care is actually fascinating and head-ache inducing but I’d recommend it if you have some extra time.) we have the real chance of passing actual, tangible health care reform in our country. For real! And all of it could be stymied by anti-abortion groups who think nothing of the fact that roughly 45 million Americans have no health coverage at all. They just want to foist their particular brand of religious zealotry on you. But it is entirely possible that, for the lack of affordable healthcare, approximately 7 million children, already born and already living, might succumb to treatable illnesses, injuries and disease. My numbers are all approximate and based on studies ranging from 2008 to today and you can look them all up yourself if you want to. But I’m not just picking numbers out of thin air. Lucky for America’s uninsured children, Congress was able to pass the SCHIP legislation, setting in motion some of the wheels of universal health coverage. But not without lots of blustering and gloom-and-doom from Congressional Republicans, of course.
It should be no surprise where I come down on the health care issue. But I will also unashamedly admit that I don’t understand all of the complexities of the current healthcare system much less where we’re going. But I have to believe that fixing our nation’s health care system is not only necessary but doable.
One last thing, I’m running the risk of rubbing someone the wrong way who might read this post whilst stopping by my website on their way to look at either my portfolio or my resume. But last I checked, I’m still allowed to have an opinion, right?
