Category Archives: Miscellaneous

Will the Supreme Court invalidate Obamacare?

I don’t think so. As we approach three days of oral argument before the Supreme Court beginning tomorrow morning (Monday, March 26), I’m ready to record my fearless predictions:

1. The first question for the Court is whether the constitutional challenges to the Affordable Care Act are barred by the Tax Anti-Injunction Act (which generally precludes challenges to a tax law until someone actually pays the tax). Although both the challengers and the U.S. Government take the position that the Anti-Injunction Act is not a barrier to the litigation, the Court, at the suggestion of the Solicitor General, appointed a private lawyer to brief and argue the case as amicus curiae in support of the proposition that the challenges are premature. This is the issue on which the Court will hear oral argument on Monday. If the Court rules that the Anti-Injunction Act applies, the challenges to the so-called individual-mandate provision of the Act (which requires most individuals either to purchase health insurance or to pay a tax penalty if they fail to do so) will be dismissed, and the constitutionality of that provision will not be resolved until 2015.

This is a significant issue. The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that the Anti-Injunction Act barred the litigation, and a well-respected conservative judge on the D.C. Circuit, dissenting from that court’s decision upholding the statute’s validity, likewise took the position that the pre-enforcement constitutional challenges are premature.

Even so, I put the odds at about 60-40 that the Court will hold that the Anti-Injunction Act does not apply.

2. On the constitutional issue, I believe that the Court will uphold the statute by a lopsided vote, possibly 7-2 or even 8-1. The four Democratic appointees (Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan) will almost certainly conclude that the individual mandate is constitutionally valid. I think that Roberts, Kennedy, and Alito are also likely to vote that way. And, contrary to what most observers assume, I believe that Scalia is at least as likely to uphold the statute as to strike it down. Thomas is the only Justice who I think will definitely vote to invalidate the individual mandate. I further predict that Chief Justice Roberts will write the opinion for the Court and that several other Justices will write separate concurring opinions to emphasize the limits or implications of the ruling.

Predicting how the Supreme Court will rule is always a hazardous enterprise, and I may well turn out to be dead wrong. If so, I will promptly return to this blog to confess error. I may also revise and extend my remarks after I have had a chance to listen to the audio recordings of the coming week’s oral arguments. If you would like to listen to the recordings or read the argument transcripts yourself, you will be able to find links to them on the Supreme Court’s website by the afternoon of the day of the argument.

By the way, if you think that the term Obamacare is in some way pejorative, you should know that the Obama reelection campaign has itself proudly embraced the term.

Finally, for a simple but useful primer on the upcoming oral arguments — including the legal issues and why they matter — take a look at this Wonkblog guide.

Leave a comment

Filed under Miscellaneous

Lingering honorifics

I object to the convention of calling former public officeholders by their erstwhile titles. Governor Romney? Senator Santorum? Speaker Gingrich? Governor Palin? No, no, no, and no. That these characters once served in those positions does not mean that their former honorifics attach to them for life. What is wrong with Mr. Romney or Ms. Palin?

My view is entirely bipartisan. I object no less to President Clinton, Governor Dukakis, and Senator Bayh. Clinton is no longer president (to his everlasting regret); Dukakis hasn’t been governor in more than 20 years; neither Birch nor Evan Bayh is a sitting senator. It is not in the slightest disrespectful to call each of them Mr.

These lingering honorifics can get out of hand. Last week on the PBS Newshour, Judy Woodruff was interviewing David Boren, who spent four years as Governor of Oklahoma and 16 years as a Senator, and who now serves as president of the University of Oklahoma. Woodruff got all tangled up trying to figure out whether to call him Governor, Senator, or President, when a nice simple Mr. would have done just fine. She was also interviewing Christie Whitman, who followed her service as Governor of New Jersey with a term as Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. Woodruff felt the need to call her Governor, but why not Administrator?

At our nation’s founding, we rejected the British tradition of bestowing titles on the rich and powerful. We have no dukes or earls; we do not call anyone “your excellency” or “your lordship.” We dilute that salutary principle when we treat former public officeholders as if they have ascended permanently to a peerage.

Perhaps I’m overreacting in this season of politics, with so many former public officials parading around the political platform and performing in the media circus. But if I had my way, I would criminalize all this oozing obsequiousness toward those who once held but who no longer occupy high public office.

For a more extensive (and more nuanced) treatment of this burning issue, take a look at Emily Yoffe’s Slate article entitled You Are Not the Speaker — Politicians like Newt Gingrich who cling to their old titles are pretentious, incorrect, and un-American.

1 Comment

Filed under Grammar and Usage Errors, Hackneyed Phrases, Miscellaneous

Restaurants that make your clothing stink

Have you ever noticed, when you return from a dinner out, that cooking odors have become embedded in your clothing? Some of my favorite restaurants — mostly Asian, for some reason — seem to suffer from inadequate kitchen ventilation. I don’t mind inhaling the odors while I’m at the restaurant — they may even enhance the overall culinary experience. But I find them nauseating when I continue to smell them in my clothing after I leave the restaurant.

I’ve never felt comfortable complaining to a restaurant manager about this problem. It’s almost as awkward as telling a friend that he has body odor. But there is no denying that I think about the cooking-odor aftermath when I’m trying to decide where to go for a dinner out. Sometimes the decision turns on whether the next day is laundry day. Is it really possible that the offending restaurants are unaware of the problem? Or that they are incapable of upgrading their kitchen ventilation?

Leave a comment

Filed under Miscellaneous