The Roberts Court Returns

The New York Times' lead editorial today (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/30/opinion/30sun1.html?_r=1&oref=slogin) looks at the current U. S. Supreme Court. The picture is not pretty and the Court is acting just as I feared would be the case with the addition of Chimperator Bush's nominees. As the Times concludes, "The best predictor of how they will vote is to ask: What outcome would a conservative Republican favor as a matter of policy?" To Hell with privacy, civil rights and the Constitution. Welcome to Bush's Amerika. Here are the most telling comments:

It is striking how conservative the court is now. On race, it was for decades a proud force for racial integration. Last term, it ordered Seattle and Louisville, Ky., to stop their voluntary efforts to have children of different races attend school together. The court, once an important force for fairness in American society, now routinely finds dubious legal excuses to deny relief to criminal defendants, consumers and workers who have been mistreated.

The Roberts bloc has not adhered to any principled theory of judging. Its members are not reluctant to strike down laws passed by Congress, as critics of “judicial activism” are supposed to be, or reluctant to overturn the court’s precedents. The best predictor of how they will vote is to ask: What outcome would a conservative Republican favor as a matter of policy?

The case that will most test the court’s ability to rise above partisanship is a challenge to Indiana’s voter ID law. Indiana is one of a growing number of states that require voters to present a government-issued photo ID. Such laws have been billed as anti-vote-fraud measures, but there is little evidence of vote fraud at the polls. The Republicans who have pushed these laws are trying to make it hard for poor and minority voters, who are less likely than other groups to have drivers’ licenses — and more likely to vote Democratic — to cast ballots. The court has traditionally championed voting rights, but a conservative majority may boost Republican chances in 2008 by endorsing this disturbing barrier to voting.

Bush threatens to veto health care coverage for kids and seniors, but think Bush, Cheney or Roberts had any problems with their health insurance?

I could not help but reference this post on America Blog (,http://www.americablog.com/2007/07/bush-threatens-to-veto-health-care.html) since it gets to the growing crisis in this country for so many people: the cost of health care coverage. At the moment, my premium is $1337.00 per month. My office has a group plan and all employees can have coverage through it if the so elect. But if you are and individual, there are people with pre-existing conditions who cannot get coverage: The insurance carriers want your premium dollars, but want as little chance of actually having to pay anything out as possible. I believe it is a travesty that the supposedly most advanced nation in the world has millions and millions of citizens who do not have and cannot obtain health coverage. Here's some of America Blog's commentary:

Over the past two weeks, three of the top officials in our government have undergone major medical experiences. Bush had a colonoscopy and polyps removed; Cheney got some kind of new cardiac device; and John Roberts had a seizure that landed him in the E.R. If those experiences had happened to most Americans, we'd be sorting through our health care plans to figure out what was covered and how much we owed. That is, if there was health insurance coverage.

Meanwhile, I don't think Roberts is fretting that he had a pre-existing condition or whether E.R. visits are in his plan. The rest of us are tortured over things like that.You know that none of those guys have any such worries. You're paying for them to have the best health care around.

Yet, George Bush is vowing to veto the SCHIP reauthorization. This week, the House will pass its version of SCHIP reauthorization, the Children’s Health and Medicare Protection Act (CHAMP), H.R. 3162. That bill will provide health care to 11 million kids while protecting senior citizens from the Bush effort to privatize Medicare. Yep, health care for kids and seniors. But, Bush can't have that.