Health Care Debate: Civil Discourse At The Highest Level

March 30, 2012

How refreshing. For two hours, until the radio signal faded as I drove west to the Berkshires Thursday morning, I listened to lawyers argue their case for or against the Affordable Health Care Act passed by Congress and signed by President Obama on March 23, 2010. No shouting, no fabricating, no demonizing, no put downs, no flag waving - just solid argumentation based on legal precedents and references to the powers of the United States Constitution.

The judges probed the lawyers' arguments, asked thoughtful or philosophical or practical questions, even cracked a joke from time to time. It was like listening to a chess match and it was fascinating.

Airing the proceedings was a brilliant idea, a fabulous teaching moment that reintroduced me to the mechanics of how our government works, the checks and balance system between legislative, judicial, and executive branches.

Conservative and liberal philosophies of jurisprudence are still in play but the contention is civil, serious, and based on reason. No matter which way the case is decided, it is a breath of fresh air into the ultra polarized rant climate in the country today.

 

 

Comments

[Jeff]

As a history major and a political wonk, loved all 3 days of it. On the matter, some thoughts from a few Founding Fathers.
http://global.nationalreview.com/images/cartoon_032812_A.jpg
http://global.nationalreview.com/images/cartoon_033012_A.jpg

[Paul A. Tamburello, Jr.]

Those "Founding Fathers" keep getting lots of ink and lots of politicians think they can divine what the "Fathers" would think or do in today's political climate. I know it's a fantasy, but I'd love to hear the "Founding Fathers" air their opinions in a celestial conference call.

[Dennis Geller]

Gosh, Paul, I wish I could agree with you. The Court has frequently operated at that level of discourse, but that isn't what I heard this time. These guys are all brilliant legal scholars, and know how to, as Professor Kingsfield put it in "The PAper Chase," think like lawyers. At the level of the Supreme Court that means both cutting through the facts to the underlying legal principles, and weighing the impact on society. THe former itself has two aspects, as I have been taught: the letter of the law (i.e. the Constitution) and the almost 1000 years of English Common Law. So, since these guys and their dozens of clerks have been immersed in this stuff for years. its no surprise that they can talk the talk.

But the limited amount I was able to hear did not sound like inquiry. There little doubt in anyone's mind how Scalia or Ginsburg will vote. So it was primarily about presenting predetermined arguments to the press and to the one possible swing vote, Kennedy. That is not how the Highest Court is supposed to act -- they are there to listen with open minds, and there's no possibility as I see it that most of them did that. Even under the Warren Court, which was equally ideological, although tilted in a different way, I believe that arguments and opinions showed a much greater degree of openness. There's much in the historical record showing Justices listening carefully, being persuaded by others during discussions, and even changing their views over time.

Of course I'm neither a historian nor a legal scholar, but I was saddened by these three days (even above that fact that I think the guys who oppose the position I would like to see win have a much stronger constitutional case).

[Paul A. Tamburello, Jr.]

Thanks for your thoughtful response, Dennis. I have no doubt that the justices have what are construed as conservative or liberal leanings/interpretations of the law. What struck me as I listened was that their questions probed the strength of the case before them and their predispositions didn't have to be accompanied by flame throwing.

[Ann Baker]

I agree. I only caught a few minutes of it. And wanted more.

[picbos]

Keep in mind that they had all the briefs beforehand. The short time alloted for oral arguments is simply a vehicle where by a justice can get clarification or by q & a, hear the strength of the arguments.

[picbos]

Paul, to address your concerns about present day issues, we are fortunate to have their thinking in the Federalist Papers. These papers were the running commentary of these men, pro and con arguments, printed daily in the press for the people to follow what was taking place in that great building.

[Paul A. Tamburello, Jr.]

Thanks, Jeff,
I just found a link to the Federalist Papers.

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpapers.html

[Jeff Piccoli]

They r great reading. We conservatives consider them part of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. In reading keep in mind that these great men were students of the Age of Enlightment, that liberty stems from Natural Law and governance from 4500 years of man's history of rule. They made a perfect argument that man can govern himself and set down in a short document the method, but always mindful that man possessed a negative trait which required constant vigilance to not corrupt the system.

[Carolyn Liesey]

Thanks, did not get to listen, but watched The News Hour coverage and I agree with you. But I liked you summarizing my thoughts.

[Suzanne Steele]

I totally agree! I was glued to the radio and had to tear myself away.
I certainly did not understand all they were saying, but the factual, reasonable debate and presentation of opinion was refreshing.
If the legislative branch could learn to do what they did, people would once again respect the process!

[Paul A. Tamburello, Jr.]

Suzanne,
It looks like we'll be in suspense for months, but that wont hold back everyone from weighing in on the subject.

http://www.latimes.com/health/la-na-court-activism-20120401,0,6035000.story

[Jeff]

Paul, looks like Obama isn't willing to wait. Just when you think President Obama can't do anything more contemptible, he is now threatening the Supreme Court Justices if they don't rule in his favor for Obamacare. Using liberal groups and other means, Obama is going to try and smear, attack and also influence the decision. The Chicago thug, community organizer, steps forward. He can't win on the merits of an argument, hasn't tried once in that effort on any subject he has championed; but uses his community organizer training to threaten should it not go his way. The Catholic Church is threatened, The US Senate is threatened, the Supreme Court is threatened, private business is threatened, and private citizens are threatened.

[Paul A. Tamburello, Jr.]

Jeff, what are the sources for your information?