U.S. Supreme Court: Politicians in black robes

I wonder whether I could acquire a spot on the High Court
at some point. Legal expertise seems to not be a prerequisite —
just an intimate knowledge of ideological sound bites.

It's no secret to anyone who follows the news that Tuesday's hearing before the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the individual insurance mandate was a total shit show. I have even less confidence in the court than I did after the Citizens United ruling. I didn't know that was possible.

Many of their questions and assertions — particularly those made by Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito, and John Roberts — were based neither on legal precedent nor judicial restraint. In fact, some were downright sophomoric, bordering on hyperbole.

Sophomoric: "intellectually pretentious, overconfident, conceited, etc., but immature"

Hyperbole: "obvious and intentional exaggeration; an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally"

Do both aptly describe the tenor of Tuesday's stage performance? Methinks so.

Was it precisely what health care reform opponents were hoping for, solely for the sake of political gain, and without regard for the law's many other benefits? No doubt.

Republicans support the individual mandate — except when Democrats do, too

This doesn't surprise me, even though I'd be very hard-pressed to name a Republican senator on Capitol Hill whose ideology is more reactionary than that of South Carolina's Jim DeMint. (Note: If you're reading this from an email, you'll probably need to click into the actual post to see the video clip to which I'm referring.)

At the time, of course, DeMint would have defended the idea of an individual private insurance mandate as a means of preventing "big government." Today, it's tyranny.

As I mentioned in the preceding post, I don't like the idea of a mandate, either. I'd much prefer a single-payer system. But if this is the only feasible way by which to establish universal coverage in the United States — and it is — then I'm behind it 100 percent.

Let's be clear on one thing: Opponents of this law do not base their arguments on reason. They base them on political opportunism and manufactured outrage. If an idea has been supported by both Democrats and Republicans (at some point in time), then it must have at least some merit.

Nothing in life is free — not even your colonoscopy

Check out this interactive feature on Barack Obama's website
that outlines some of the benefits of the health care law. Then,
consider that none of them would be possible without the
individual insurance mandate.

As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to begin hearings on whether or not President Obama's landmark 2010 health care reform law is constitutional — specifically, the provision that requires all Americans to purchase health insurance or face a penalty — we can expect to hear the same old arguments from opponents about how Congress has no authority to force citizens to purchase a private product, or how the law is unconstitutional, or how it will spell the end of American democracy as we know it.

Those arguments may resonate with the public — but they're baseless and stupid.

Of course, the average Joe loves to hear about how Americans don't like to be told what to do or what to buy. "Damn right, we don't!" he might proclaim. But in so doing, he displays no regard for the purpose behind the law's signature requirement. The mandate is the very foundation of a sustainable health care system, which is exactly what we don't have right now.

The Kony 2012 phenomenon: A noble cause with serious challenges

Thursday's "unfortunate incident" involving Jason Russell, co-founder of Invisible Children and director of the Kony 2012 documentary, will possibly change the focus of conversations regarding the now-international social media campaign. I hope it doesn't, but as I'll discuss in a moment, the public's attention span is short enough that it easily could.

There's already been some great, thoughtful commentary on the campaign, including its smashing success as a viral film that spread like wildfire across social media networks, as well as its assets and liabilities as a tool of advocacy and public awareness. (The two preceding links direct to blog posts written by a couple of my friends and former colleagues, who did a terrific job analyzing the Kony 2012 phenomenon from two different angles.)

Any social movement of this sort whose documentary unexpectedly receives more than 81,000,000 views on YouTube (as of the time of this writing) will naturally be subject to intense levels of scrutiny. Regardless, it's worth noting the potential roadblocks that Invisible Children faces in its quest to bring warlord Joseph Kony to justice. From my perspective, there are two huge ones that need to be reckoned with before success can be realized in this campaign. Here they are. (If, by chance, you haven't watched the film yet, the following will make more sense if you do so first.)

Santorum saturates social media

I'd elaborate, but the song says it all.

Lesson from Iowa: Dirty money, lobbying not bound by political affiliation

Terry Branstad, Republican governor of Iowa, first took that
state's highest office in 1983. His mustache has been a
loyal companion ever since.

In November 2010, the Tea Party generation of Republicans swept through Congress and various statehouses. It's no coincidence that a laundry list of outrageous (and once politically untenable) laws have followed.

Of course, there were the highly-publicized union-busting measures that prompted a successful repeal effort in Ohio last fall, ongoing recall campaigns in Wisconsin, and massive protests across the country.

More recently, a spate of localized culture wars over abortion and contraception resulted in a new law in Texas that requires women to undergo a vaginal ultrasound probe before terminating a pregnancy. Virginia almost adopted an identical law, but public opposition forced GOP lawmakers there to eliminate the vaginal probe provision in favor of traditional abdominal ultrasounds.

Throughout it all, a robust blend of xenophobic immigration laws and voter disenfranchisement policies (directed against those who aren't likely to vote for the authors of said legislation) have kept headlines interesting.

There are at least a few commonalities among these laws. First, they were all passed in state legislatures controlled by Republicans. Second, they all garnered significant national media attention. Third, they all prompted public protests large enough to prevent voters from ignoring or forgetting about them.

But a brand-new law in Iowa, signed earlier this week by Republican Gov. Terry Branstad, seems to meet none of the aforementioned criteria, even though it's just as vile as these other pieces of legislation.