Friday, April 06, 2012

"I'm Laughing at the Superior Intellect"

Hey, guess what? The rest of the world thinks we're a bunch of backward-ass hicks.

"Europe is scratching its head over the possibility that the U.S. Supreme Court will strike down President Obama's signature legislative achievement. As the judiciary and the Obama administration trade legal barbs over the high court's authority, the idea that health care coverage, largely considered a universal right in Europe, could be deemed an affront to liberty is baffling."

American exceptionalism. As in, we're the exception to the civilized world's standard of decency and sanity.


namron said...

Churchill on France:
"How can a nation with 386 kinds of cheese possibly govern itself?"

Anonymous said...

Captain Kirk quote FTW

marija said...

Coming from Europe I can honestly say that I cannot understand a modern society, one of the richest in the world, which would willfully subject a big part of their population to dying from conditions treatable 100 years ago. You may have been to the moon, but your people have access to healthcare parallel to some third world countries. Amazing.
And the most absurd part is that the party pushing for this is mostly supported by people who would stand to profit the most from universal healthcare. The mind boggles..

Steven D Skelton said...

It doesn't matter at all whether or not the health care mandate is a good idea. I happen to think it is, but that is irrelevant to the question before the court.

Is it constitutional? Does the constitution grant congress the authority to force citizens to engage in commerce?

Those are the questions that matter, and I find it amazing how many pundits just don't seem to get it.

Anonymous said...

Actually, that's not the question at all. The court can uphold the mandate without answering that question in the affirmative.

When it comes to medical risk, every person "engages in commerce." Everyone is entitled to receive emergency medical services whether they can or do pay for it or not. Therefore there is no "forcing" going on. The court can rule that Congress has the power (which it clearly does under all existing Constitutional doctrine) to require one to cover the cost of the risk that one already owns, without that ruling meaning that Congress can require the purchase of any other product or service that one does not already own and/or is not entitled to receive.

Yatz said...

Whenever I think my own country couldn't get any more batshit crazy, I think "hey, at least we're not USA crazy, yet!" and feel much, much better.
But then I remember that my country is Israel, and that the USA is our best - our ONLY - friend, the one enabling our own insanity (not to mention being the economic model beloved by our own leadership); and then it's fetal-position time again.

Anonymous said...

The timing of the ruling seems a bit suspect, even if you can generally accept the argument that the law should be struck down. The actual, final decision is likely to be handed down in June, during the height of the Presidential campaign.

Don't be fooled that this isn't every bit as much a political ruling as it is a constitutional ruling.

Anonymous said...

Well yes there is this insane healthcare issue, but in my view the real reason europe sees us as a bunch of bellicose jingoistic hicks, and the one j'accuse that will persistently be at our necks, are the aggressive wars we've continuously waged, for decades. I don't know if it's just a function of empires in general, but the bizarre idea that americans are exceptional is only an exception in that perhaps we are prone to much more violence at a local level (Trayvon, the NRA, "Stand your ground" laws, concealed gun laws, #of arms per capita, homicide rates, etc...) than most modern industrialized societies. This is no doubt a contributing factor to our insane foreign policy, which has escalated to the point of continuosly targeted assassinations of ANY perceived threat; to the point of accepting a constant level of civilian deaths, in a struggle (a jihad if you will) to eliminate not solely clearly identifiable existential threats (aside from rogue nukes, we have none presently) but also including perceived future threats of the free speech kind, not the soldiers on your borders, or missiles in the air, bombers bombing cities kind of existential threat, just words. This is the equivalent of a thought crime. Now that is exceptional.
And I would argue that that same level of indifference towards them furner civilians being slaughtered in our wars is the same sick indifference we show to our neighbors when we deny them universal healthcare. It's an illness, I just don't know if it's an American sickness or that of an empire. The end result doesn't matter either, lots of dead people.

Eric said...

exceptionalism: n, possessing the quality of having stumbled upon an isolated piece of real estate protected by a vast moat and which has lots of really useful and valuable crap in the ground and is only inhabited by people with no resistance to any of the germs you're swarming with not even to mention the half-century of technological superiority you have over the poor bastards or the fact you have horses (and the best domesticated carriage beast any of them have is, what, llamas?! Seriously? Jesus wept). synonyms: luck, fortune, Providence. Not to be confused with history, culture, wisdom or intelligence.

Anonymous said...

@Anonymous#2 you are obviously not an attorney nor do you understand how principals of law operate nor why checks on Government power are afforded under the Constitution. Your statement, "which it clearly does under all existing Constitutional doctrine" overlooks the fact that a doctrine by its very nature is an interpretation based upon certain facts. The Supreme Court has overturned thousands of laws as unconstitutional in its history. The facts surrounding the mandate are distinguishable from any earlier legal decisions. Its ironic how left-leaning ideologues like yourself are always against "strict interpretation" of the Constitution and believe that it should constantly be reinterpreted according to the times EXCEPT when it goes against one of your progressive ideals or policies. You want a strict adherence to stare decisis even though the facts are clearly distinguishable only because you agree ideologically? The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of all Constitutional issues. If the Congress writes a law that is unconstitutionally flawed then it is the Supreme Courts job to tell us so, not the legislative or executive branches, the media or a barking ideologue. And although the timing may be at an inopportune time for the sitting president's re-election campaign, it has nothing to do with politics. When would you like them to review it, after the election? Go to law school, learn then facts then give an educated response.

Anonymous said...

@Anonymous #4: The fact that you responded to Anonymous #2 with a wild, unhinged, nasty, angry screed instead of, e.g., any citations to caselaw, any attempt at a lucid discussion of any particular doctrine in Constitutional Law, let alone one that bears on the issue, or any attempt to refute his/her basic point [viz., that the mandate can be upheld without the Court ruling that Congress can "force" other purchases], demonstrates if nothing else that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

JohnF said...

Could all of the Anonymouses PLEASE come up with distinct screen names?

Anonymous said...

"Hey, guess what? The rest of the world thinks we're a bunch of backward-ass hicks."

It never ceases to amaze me how amazed Americans are when informed that the rest of the world doesn't like them.

They're loud, ignorant, obsessed with a 250 year old document that has no relevance to modern society, obsessed with the 2000 year old superstitions of sheep-herders, loud (yes, I said it twice; they're really loud!), self-absorbed, flag-waving, gun-toting, burger-eating ... agghghhghghg ... I have to stop, I can't stand it.

They think the rest of world aspire to be like them, or want live there, and that we will do anything to achieve either of those.

Exceptionalism indeed.

I saw a video on this very site that made me fearful of ever having anything to do with America in any way: a young man took a $10 bill from his pocket and waved it angrily in the face of another man sitting on the ground holding a sign which said "I have disease; health care coverage would help me", and screaming "I'LL decide who gets my money for health care!! ME!! HERE!! TAKE MY MONEY BECAUSE I DECIDE I'M GIVING IT TO YOU NOW!!".

It was abominable.

This site fascinates me; it's the first site I ever found from an American that actually talked reason. It's disappointing that your reason can not be extended to understand how others are baffled by the notion of health care being "an affront to liberty".