Some background on the Wisconsin attack on unions

As described yesterday, Wisconsin governor Walker is essentially put into the governor's office by the Koch brothers. Much of the funding came from Koch Industries. Immediately upon taking office in January of this year Walker and the Wisconsin Republicans passed tax breaks for the corporations and for the wealthy that converted a projected government surplus into a fiscal deficit. Next Walker declared a fiscal emergency and demanded that the government employee unions accept decertification and effective emasculation through a proposed law that prevents them from negotiating with the state on pay or benefits. It's perfectly clear that the actions aimed at the public worker unions are nothing more than a union-busting tactics.

Walker is representing Koch Industries which provided the money that got him elected governor. Koch Industries is famously anti-union, having gone so far as the declare that they will shut down any business they operate that is unionized.

The Koch brothers own the second largest privately owned company in the United States. What we do not yet know is how much of the money that swept into Wisconsin politics last year was unleashed by the Supreme Court's recent made up law, the Citizen's United decision. What we do know is that at least two of the US Supreme Court Justices who enacted the Citizen's United decision have been meeting with the Koch brothers at their recent meeting of millionaires in Palm Springs. The likelihood that the Justices were colluding with the Koch brothers in fund-raising for a conservative anti-union program is very strong.

The attacks on unions by the conservatives have been building in recent years. It's not just the unions themselves, though. It's the fact that unions are one of the pillars of the Democratic Party. The conservatives have been able to destroy ACORN because it was so successful at getting minority voters to register and get out the vote was an earlier success of the conservatives in removing the institutional support behind the Democratic Party. The Koch Brothers - Governor Walker attack on unions in Wisconsin is one more effort in the same direction to make the conservatives politically dominant in American politics. It is very likely that the five Catholic US Supreme Court Justices are complicit in the political attack.

Politically this is an attack on the American people by the big money families and by the heads of large corporations.

America could learn a lot from the French health care system

Even when (or if) the Affordable Healthcare Act is implemented, it will not solve all of America's problems of providing health care to the population in an affordable way. But Bloomberg Businessweek writes approvingly of the French health care financing system.

In Sicko, [Michael] Moore lumps France in with the socialized systems of Britain, Canada, and Cuba. In fact, the French system is similar enough to the U.S. model that reforms based on France's experience might work in America. The French can choose their doctors and see any specialist they want. Doctors in France, many of whom are self- employed, are free to prescribe any care they deem medically necessary. "The French approach suggests it is possible to solve the problem of financing universal coverage...[without] reorganizing the entire system," says Victor G. Rodwin, professor of health policy and management at New York University.

France also demonstrates that you can deliver stellar results with this mix of public and private financing. In a recent World Health Organization health-care ranking, France came in first, while the U.S. scored 37th, slightly better than Cuba and one notch above Slovenia. France's infant death rate is 3.9 per 1,000 live births, compared with 7 in the U.S., and average life expectancy is 79.4 years, two years more than in the U.S. The country has far more hospital beds and doctors per capita than America, and far lower rates of death from diabetes and heart disease. The difference in deaths from respiratory disease, an often preventable form of mortality, is particularly striking: 31.2 per 100,000 people in France, vs. 61.5 per 100,000 in the U.S.

That's not to say the French have solved all health-care riddles. Like every other nation, France is wrestling with runaway health-care inflation. That has led to some hefty tax hikes, and France is now considering U.S.-style health-maintenance organization tactics to rein in costs. Still, some 65% of French citizens express satisfaction with their system, compared with 40% of U.S. residents. And France spends just 10.7% of its gross domestic product on health care, while the U.S. lays out 16%, more than any other nation.

To grasp how the French system works, think about Medicare for the elderly in the U.S., then expand that to encompass the entire population. French medicine is based on a widely held value that the healthy should pay for care of the sick. Everyone has access to the same basic coverage through national insurance funds, to which every employer and employee contributes. The government picks up the tab for the unemployed who cannot gain coverage through a family member.

This is, of course, a report from a business publication rather than a political publication. Most of what we political wonks on-line look at are political publications and they focus on the he-said - he-said of party politics. The business publications have a focus on the bottom line, so they can sometimes report that one side or the other in an argument is right and the other is wrong. Providing health care to the population and to the workforce may be one of those situations. Read the rest of this report for a very interesting view on health care.

One more point - will the five conservative Catholics on Supreme Court vote to declare the mandatory buy-in required by the Affordable healthcare Act (ACA) is unconstitutional if the business community objects? Especially the health care companies who expect to get an additional 45 to 50 million paying customers under the ACA?

A strange Supreme Court ruling written by Scalia

This ruling created some strange bedfellows. Anton Scalia, the court's most conservative member, switched over to join the court's four liberal members. In fact, Scalia wrote the opinion. The issue was whether the federal banking laws preempt similar state laws designed to protect consumers. From McClatchy News Service:

WASHINGTON — In a rebuke of the Bush administration, the Supreme Court ruled Monday that a federal bank regulator erred in quashing efforts by New York state to combat the kind of predatory mortgage lending that triggered the nation's financial crisis.

[...]

The five justices held that contrary to what the Bush administration had argued, states can enforce their own laws on matters such as discrimination and predatory lending, even if that crosses into areas under federal regulation.

Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the four dissenters, argued that laws dating back to the nation's founding prevent states from meddling in federal bank regulation. He was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts and justices Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito.

The ruling angered many in the financial sector, who fear it'll lead to a patchwork of state laws that'll make it harder for banks and other financial firms to take a national approach to the marketplace.

"We are worried about the effect that this ruling could have on the markets," said Rich Whiting, general counsel for the Financial Services Roundtable, a trade group representing the nation's 100 largest financial firms, in a statement. The decision "hinders the ability of financial services firms from conducting business in the United States. Even worse, it will cause confusion for consumers, especially those who move from state to state."
[Highlighting mine - Editor WTF=o]

The reported statement [Highlighted above] from the financial sector is very likely accurate.

This decision WILL hinder the national banks from providing uniform services across the nation. It will certainly make it less economically beneficial to consolidate many local banks and create the kinds of mega-banks who helped the massive Wall Street banks create the mortgage crisis.

In other words, it removes some of the economies of scale that caused the creation of banks like Bank of America. That means that regional banks will be able to compete on a more equitable basis, and banking services will be provided in a more competitive market across the nation.

So does that mean that the megabanks will have higher costs and pass them on to the consumers? Half right. The higher costs will mean that there is less opportunity to make mega profits for the top managers. Along with that, the much greater competition will mean that the consumers will get lower prices than is possible when dealing with a single monopoly national bank, or with one of three or four oligopoly banks. Along with lower costs, the bankers will have greater knowledge of the needs of local markets than the mega banks possibly can, meaning the regional banks will have a shift of some competitive power away from the mega banks. The customers will win.

Too bad, Wall Street. You will have less opportunity to cause boom and bust economic cycles. Instead the free market will have the best opportunity to function.

TPM interview Dahlia Lithwick about accountability for the Bush admin crimes next year

Dahlia Lithwick is the legal affairs writer for Slate, and she was on a panel at the Netroots Nation in Austin a couple of weeks ago. While there, David Kurz of TPM interviewed Dahlia and asked some interesting questions, to include how the new Congress in 2009 should deal with the increasing evidence of criminality that has characterized the Bush administration and the Department of Justice.

It's a very interesting discussion. She also makes the case very clearly that the Bush administration has been packing the Supreme Court and the judiciary with extremist Federalist members more to create a monarchical Presidency then to change Row vs. Wade -- and it has almost completely worked.



An irrelevant comment - I've read a lot of Dahlia's work over the years, but I had no idea that she "spoke with her hands" as extensively and as fluently as she does in this interview.

Bush administration and conservative tout arbitrary government, ignore rule of law

Want to see an example of arbitrary government command as oppose to Rule of Law? Digby presents the perfect example from the current hearings on prisoners and Guantanamo.

Read her article. Then go read my essay on Rule of Law vs. Arbitrary Command.

America is based on the Constitution as implemented through the Rule of Law. The movement conservatives are simply not Americans. They believe in neither the Constitution, nor the Rule of Law. Instead of Americans, they are plunderers and pirates, who deserve the penalties International Law prescribes for piracy.

How conservatives have made Black into White

Rick Perlstein explains how Chief Justice Roberts was able to justify his decision which causes continued segregation in schools by claiming that merely measuring the percentage of participation by race was itself "Racist." It wasn't something that just came out of the blue.

Sen. Shumer not to confirm more Bush Supreme Court Justices

It took long enough - too long, in fact.

From Politico:

New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a powerful member of the Democratic leadership, said Friday the Senate should not confirm another U.S. Supreme Court nominee under President Bush “except in extraordinary circumstances.”

“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer told the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.”

Schumer’s assertion comes as Democrats and liberal advocacy groups are increasingly complaining that the Supreme Court with Bush’s nominees – Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito – has moved quicker than expected to overturn legal precedents.

Senators were too quick to accept the nominees’ word that they would respect legal precedents, and “too easily impressed with the charm of Roberts and the erudition of Alito,” Schumer said.

“There is no doubt that we were hoodwinked,” said Schumer, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee and heads the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

The current situation is a disaster already. It may require something like impeachment of people like Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts.

Something like FDR's Judiciary Reorganization plan might also be considered. The problem now is not the age of the justices, however. The problem now is Justices who consider their ideology more important than the Constitution and precedent, and who lied to the Senate when they were confirmed.

Republicans want to return to segregation

Imagine Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy sitting at a discussion table in the Supreme Court building discussing and justifying their vote to each other. They realize that this is their chance to reverse Brown vs. Board of Education, the case every Republican knows was mistakenly decided case in 1954. These are five Justices who live in gated communities, after all. Money has already bought them their segregation, but their Party wants it everywhere. That is why they are on the Supreme Court, after all.

I can just hear the discussions going on in the Supreme Court with the five Catholic Justices as sitting there saying "We don't want those 'Nigras' sending their children to schools with ours. That's why we live in gated communities in the first place. (Thomas is nodding his head, remembering his White wife, and working very hard not to look at the color of his own skin. He is just like his rich friends, not like those low-class 'nigras.')

Someone speaks "Hey! We can resegregate as long as no one is allowed to measure the level of segregation! We can always claim that our schools aren't segregated if we have one or two 'Nigras' attending, and there are a few [sotto voice, so Thomas won't hear - 'Good house Nigras' ]we can depend on. And look! We don't even have to say "Separate but Equal." This way we have 'separate.' Who needs 'Equal?'

Then they all nod in agreement, finish their coffee, stand up and go to vote against desegregation.

Fantasy? Go look at Scotus Blog.

Now they can turn their energies to destroying Social Security, kicking the brown-skinned Mexican immigrants out of our White nation and finishing the overturning of Roe Vs. Wade.

Oh, and there may still be opportunities to make the President completely independent of the Congress using Executive Privilege. The Republicans may not need to keep stealing elections and suppressing the votes of African-American voters. A monarch is appointed by God to Rule the lesser beings, and is not to be interfered with by the peons and legislatures. Conservatives want to return to the proper order of things before all the pesky revolutionaries got loose. Remember the Divine Right of Kings? That's got a new name now. It's called "Executive Privilege."

Goes well with segregation, doesn't it? Divine Right of Republican Kings to stick with their own and exclude all others except as temporary servants 'guest' workers. The Germans have been trying to make this work since they invited Turkish guest workers in during the 60's and 70's. No citizenship, even for the children, and they were supposed to go home too. They're dark-skinned, too. Not at all hard to exclude from "better society." It hasn't worked for the Germans. Now our Confederate States-based Republican Party wants to try the same (failed) strategy since the option of slavery is clearly a non-starter. For now.

Segregation is the next step to the future of American internal conflict, and the Republicans are happily embracing it.

Supreme Court deals loss to women's reproductive Rights.

The Supreme Court has effectively outlawed the surgical procedure called technically "intact dilation and extraction" or politically called "partial birth abortion" by the anti-abortionist's. See Kevin Drum for a short discussion and relevant links.

Ed Kilgore provides an interesting analysis of today's 5 to 4 decision upholding the federal law banning the so-called Partial Birth Abortions:

Ginsburg's opinion for the four dissenters is a model of comprehensive clarity, nailing the majority opinion (penned by that perennial abortion rights weathervane, Anthony Kennedy) for its stealth attacks on the Court's precedents, especially the health exception, the viability standard for scrutiny of abortion restrictions, and the treatment of evidence about the "medical necessity" of various abortion methods.

And the incredibly succinct Thomas-Scalia concurrence, which simply and directly attacks Roe, also challenges the majority to come out of the closet and reverse abortion rights.

There's no question that the majority opinion erodes some of the underpinnings of how the federal courts have applied Roe and Casey. And it opens the door to further abortion restrictions.

But on the basics, this decision may prove to be a pyrrhic victory for the anti-choice forces. Every time the Roberts Court validates a technical and largely marginal exception to abortion rights by claiming to respect abortion rights, it will become more difficult to overturn those rights altogether. If, however, a Republican replaces Bush in 2008, and gets another chance to reshape the Court, then I have no doubt future appointees will find a way to get the job done.

While this may open the way to other state laws that chip away at the forms and conditions for surgical abortions, the inability of the five Justices to agree on a joint rationale for approving it will not make the anti-abortion forces at all happy.

In the meantime, all the younger women who did not consider themselves feminists may suddenly realise that their control of their own bodies is under serious attack.

The result is that this decision offers two possible futures. It may be the breakthrough the anti-abortion forces were looking for and lead to doing away with legal abortions (Digby thinks this is the future,) or it may be the high-water mark for the anti-abortionists that activates the opposition into a force that relegates them back to the shadows where they belong.

I suspect the decision regarding which direction the future is going to take will, like many other things, be revealed in the 2008 elections.

"History doesn't repeat, but it sometimes echos."

Last time I heard about the "Dred Scott" case I was in high school and the poor American history teacher was trying to explain slavery and the Civil War to me. Now a conservative Appeals Judge in Washington, D.C. has resurrected it to use as a precedent in a gun-control case. The Wall Street Journal provides the story.

Briefly, the City of Washington, D.C. passed a law banning handguns and got sued by individuals who believe that they have a Constitutional Right to keep and bear firearms, which the ban on handguns violated. The original Federal Judge applied the Supreme Court Decision from United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)which established that the Right to bear arms in the second amendment to the Constitution is a group right, allowing teh states to operate an armed militia, and not a Right for each individual to own any firearm he or she wished to own.

Then, by a 2 to 1 decision, the Washington, D.C. Federal appeals Court overturned that lower court decision, using language from the Dred Scott case to establish that the ownership of firearms described in the Second Amendmebnt was realy an indivicual Right, thus making the ban of handguns inWashington D.C. Unconstitutional.

Since the Ninth Circuit Court in San Francisco ruled that the Right to bear arms was a group Right rather than an individual one when the Second Amendment was used to attempt to overturn a California Law banning the sale of assault weapons after an individual used assault weapons to randomly kill a bunch of people, there are now two circuit courts with conflicting decisions. This will (probably)* mean that the now conservative Supreme Court will again address the issue for the first time since 1939.

Among other things, this will mean that the Supreme Court will once again be looking at the Dred Scott decision to see what kind of precedent it established for the Second Amendment. The echo of history is there, if not a real repeat.

It ought to be interesting.

---

* [I try to never firmly predict what either Congress or the Supreme Court will do. I have been wrong way too frequently.]