If I Were your congressman, senator, or president, these things would have to be present for me to support a Health Care Bill: (1) No federal tax money used for funding for abortions . . .if a woman wants an abortion, she or her family should pay for it. (2) provisions as incentives for people to become healthier, ie, obesity control, smoking control, etc. (3…) tax breaks for health care entities which create permanent jobs
(4) tax breaks for medical schools which recruit underrepresented minorities to be trained as nurses, doctors, and other health care professions (5) strict provisions which forbid insurance companies from denying top level coverage to those with preexisting conditions
(6) provisions which spur keen competition (even across state lines) between insurance companies (7) tort reform so that doctors’ careers aren’t destroyed because of malpractice lawsuits (8) Student loan forgiveness and tax breaks for doctors and nurses who serve in underserved areas (9) Strict cost control measures (10) a strong public option, especially for children 0-5 and adults 60 and over . . . . www.shermancrockett.com
With the recent Supreme Court decision to grant corporations and unions pretty much the same rights as individuals when it comes to campaign contributions, I was recently thinking what a good idea it would be for the nation’s highest court to join the public discourse. I say this because for too long the High Court has been shrouded in a veil of mystery as though they were a group of detached gods dwelling on Mount Olympus, too far removed from the public consciousness to care one iota about the millions of people who are profoundly affected by their every decision.
Just imagine what it would add to the public discourse if the nine Supremes would join the discourse about health care, national defense, tax policy, gay rights, gun control, and of course, campaign finance. As Justice Clarence Thomas recently spoke at a public appearance in Florida and made comments about President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address, so the other Justices could travel at their leisure and make public comments about the issues which nowadays garner our attention. For example, Chief Justice Roberts could speak at universities about why he took the lead in the recent Citizens United v. FEC decision. I mean, doesn’t the citizenry have a right to know why the Justices rule the way they do? You might say that we should just read their decisions if we are truly interested in knowing what they were thinking when they arrived at their majority decisions or minority dissents, but to that I would say that the average person cannot fathom what the Justices were thinking by reading their decisions because those decisions are very difficult for the average interested person to understand. Why? Because they are so thick with legalese that it takes a well-trained legal mind to cut through the labyrinths of lawyer-talk and judge-speak which saturate every Court decision.
Wouldn’t it have been beneficial for democracy if Chief Justice Roger Taney had granted public appearances in order to explain his thinking in the infamous Dred Scott decision? As a co-equal branch of the U.S. government I feel that the Supreme Court has just as much a right and responsibility to be accountable to the public as do the legislative and executive branches. I don’t say this in the sense that I believe that the Justices should have term limits, although that thought has crossed the minds of some, but rather, what I’m asserting is that, as the final third of our constitutionally organized government, the High Court should involve itself more in the lives of those who are profoundly affected by their decisions.
To merely issue a game-changing decision such as Marbury v. Madison, Dred Scot v. Sanford, Plessy v. Ferguson, Brown v. Board of Education, Roe v. Wade, or Citizens United v. FEC, and then fade to black as though they had just completed a midnight raid on the public consciousness isn’t fair to our citizenry. Those Justices who voted in the majority for the previously mentioned landmark decisions as well as the hundreds not mentioned, have, in my opinion, a sacred obligation to speak to such diverse populations as town halls, interest groups, and others in order to give clarity to what are often difficult to understand legal decisions.
And not only should the Justices who voted in the majority become part of the public discourse, but so also should those Justices who dissented. For example, it would serve our democracy very well if those Justices who dissented in such landmark decisions as Roe v. Wade would speak to both pro-life and pro-choice constituencies. They could, without the political pressure too often visited upon politicians who make the majority of their decisions based on political expediency, freely discuss their legal motives which guided their decisions with the full assurance that their lifetime tenure would shield them from the wrath of the voting public.
The settings of these public discourses could be as varied as law schools and social networks such as Facebook and Twitter. Imagine the needed jolt that democracy would enjoy if Justice Antonin Scalia were to tweet or if Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg were to update her status on Facebook by briefly discussing her legal thinking. By doing this such gestures as that demonstrated by Justice Anthony Kennedy during President Barack Obama’s initial State of the Union address when the president mildly rebuked the High Court for their corporate campaign finance decision wouldn’t seem so aberrant.
That’s my opinion; what’s yours? (c) 2010, Sherman Crockett
Sources: USA Today, 3.2.2010, p. 9A
Categories:
Politics Tags:
anthony kennedy, antonin scalia, barack obama, brown v. board of education, citizens united v. fec, clarence thomas, constitutional law, dredd scott, facebook, john roberts, marbury v. madison, plessy v. ferguson, roe v. wade, roger taney, ruth bader ginsburg, supreme court, twitter
With the recent catastrophic earthquakes in Haiti and Chile, South America, a wakeup call has been issued to the inhabitants of this planet. I say this because when Jesus's disciples asked him what would be the signs of the last days, he emphatically stated that one of those signs would be "earthquakes in divers (many different) places."
This truth is borne out by the fact that the earth is constantly shifting and changing in its topographic composition, even to the point that we have recently had earthquakes so powerful that they have caused powerful tsunamis (earthquake-driven tidal waves). Think of Bandeh Aceh, Indonesia in 2004, a quake which was so powerful, it affected the earth's rotation, and the tsunamis which are predicted and are occurring even as I write this blog, as a result of the Chilean earthquake.
Read more...
I know that some of you think that in my sight President Barack Obama can do no wrong, but such is not the case. I'll be the first to admit that I am a huge supporter of the President, even though I disagree with him on such issues as abortion rights.
But I must admit that he has done several things since being elected in November of 2008 that have both baffled and troubled me. The first thing that he did was have someone design a "Seal of the President-Elect of The United States," which was similar to the actual presidential seal. This troubled me because in my opinion it was both unecessary and invited ridicule from his newly defeated opponents who already believed the President-elect to be power hungry. To make matters worse the President-elect shortly afterward abandoned the largely faux-seal, which only made matters worse because it immediately gave both his supporters and critics the impression that the decision was made in a haphazard, rather than in a thoughtful, deliberate, manner.
Read more...
Categories:
Politics Tags:
barack obama, chicago tribune, david axelrod, david plouffe, democrats, harry reid, john boehner, lobbyists, mitch mcconnell, nancy pelosi, new york times, newt gingrich, republicans, rush limbaugh, sean hannity, timothy p. carney, washington examiner, washington post, white house
But they that strive to be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition. For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. . . Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who gives us richly all things to enjoy.- 1 Timothy 6.9,17
As I watched pro golfer extraordinaire Eldridge (Tiger) Woods give what appeared to be a truly heartfelt apology to the world today, I couldn't help but think of the apostle Paul's admonition to his young protege Timothy. By Tiger's own admission, he had allowed fame and fortune to deceive him into thinking that he was above the laws of nature and man which govern others. While his fall is even greater than that of all-pro quarterback and former dog fighter Michael Vick, both of them suffered from the same malady: PRIDE. At the nadir of their existence both men readily admitted that they thought that they were entitled to exist in a universe apart from the one which morally binds the rest of us.
Read more...
"If Democrats are worth anything as a party, they will rally around their president." - The New Republic, 2.18.2010, p.1
"The GOP's ability to ignore establishment nostrums in the face of defeat is its great electoral strength. Democrats, by contrast, have a congenital tendency to panic." - The New Republic, 2.18.2010, p.2
It was only a year ago when the Democratic Party was thumping its collective chest over its recent electoral victories in the Congress and the White House. Republicans were admittedly confined to the political wilderness and even such conservative stalwarts as Sean Hannity grudgingly admitted that they were in "conservative underground" mode.
Read more...
Categories:
Politics Tags:
ann coulter, barack obama, bill o'reilly, democrats, eric cantor, harry reid, herman cain, john boehner, keith olbermann, mark levin, michael steele, mitch mcconnell, rachel maddow, republicans, rush limbaugh, sarah palin, sean hannity, tea party
After reading recent news reports about how some African Americans are becoming disenchanted with President Barack Obama, I feel very compelled to address this very important issue.
As an African-American man I rejoiced with much of the nation as it elected its first African-American president. We were overjoyed as we saw the first rays of the rising sun of a new politics based on hope and change and not just on fear and anger. Now only a year later many are becoming discouraged because they don't feel that the President has done enough for them. To these people I address my blog.
Read more...
Categories:
Politics Tags:
african americans, ann coulter, barack obama, democrats, eric kantor, harry reid, john boehner, laura ingraham, michelle obama, mitch mcconnell, nancy pelosi, national security, presidential popularithy polls, republicans, rush limbaugh, sean hannity, white house
If I were President Barack Obama I would also be out on the political rally circuit strongly encouraging my fellow Democrats to be strong and courageous. After all, "we" still hold a 59 to 41 majority in the U.S. Senate and a very large majority in the House of Representatives, which therefore means we control every branch of government except the Supreme Court.
Read more...
Categories:
Politics Tags:
ann coulter, barack obama, blanche lincoln, brian dorman, chris dodd, democrats, rush limbaugh, scott brown, sean hannithy, u.s. congress, u.s. house of representatives, u.s. senate, wolf blitzer
