By MARSHA MERCER
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney wrapped up a bus tour of rural America in Michigan, where he rolled out a crust for an Honest Abe cherry-apple pie. When it came to policy, though, the five-day trip offered only crumbs.
President Barack Obama flew to an international summit in Mexico that yielded moody photos of the president on the world stage along with reassuring words about progress – and little of substance.
To hear Romney talk, Obama is a job-killing big spender who wants to put America on the path to Europe. Obama contends that Romney wants to slash taxes for the wealthiest while cutting the jobs of teachers, firefighters and police. Fact checkers say both camps are stretching the truth.
For voters who are sick of the endless “trust me – not him” attacks -- and that’s most of us, right? -- there’s good news. The stars may be aligning to force Obama and Romney to show their policy hands.
The Supreme Court likely will issue blockbuster decisions this week on health care and immigration. If, as many analysts expect, the court strikes at least part of the Affordable Care Act, Obama will be called on to explain the next phase of his health reform strategy.
Publicly, the president says he believes the law will be upheld and has made no contingency plans. At fundraisers behind closed doors, however, he reportedly has said he won’t give up on reform. He needs to tell the rest of us his plans.
Romney promises to repeal “Obamacare” his first day in office, but he also promises to save the most popular parts of the law, such as parents’ insurance coverage for children up to age 26. Romney has been vague about whether he’ll ensure that people with pre-existing conditions are covered under his plan. He will be pressed on how his plan would work, absent the linchpin of the individual mandate, which requires everyone to purchase insurance, spreading the cost.
On immigration, Obama showed the power of the incumbency last week when he announced that his administration would stop deporting young people who were brought to this country illegally as children, if they meet certain conditions. Up to 1.4 million children and adults who are in the country illegally could benefit from the change, according to an analysis by the Pew Hispanic Center. Nearly two-thirds of likely voters support the change, a Bloomberg poll found.
Romney, who took a hard line during the primaries against illegal immigration, is heading for a kinder, more bipartisan stance. The immigration plan he sketched Thursday included more favorable treatment for “the best and brightest” immigrants and a path to citizenship for military veterans. Romney needs to say whether he would repeal Obama’s non-deportation rule.
Raising the stakes on immigration will be the Supreme Court’s decision on Arizona’s strict immigration law. The Obama administration challenged the 2010 law that requires police officers to ask for immigration papers if the officers believe individuals they’ve stopped are illegal immigrants. Other provisions make not carrying immigration papers and unauthorized work crimes.
Although Nov. 6 is nearly five months away, the calendar also prods Romney and Obama to focus on issues. Thirty-two states allow early voting, and the start dates vary. Voting begins in Iowa Sept. 27. That’s fewer than 100 days away.
Iowa is one of the swing states Obama won last time that Romney visited on his “Every Town Counts” bus tour. The Obama administration released a 32-page report touting its help for rural areas, and the Obama campaign promises an unprecedented ground game in the battleground state.
In a close election, analysts say, rural voters in a few swing states could determine who wins the White House, or Hispanic voters could, or African American or gay voters.
One thing does unite voters as we choose the next president, and that’s the need to look past clever slogans and symbols. Policy may not be as easy as pie, but it matters a lot more.
© 2012 Marsha Mercer. All rights reserved.
30
Showing posts with label health care lawsuits. Show all posts
Showing posts with label health care lawsuits. Show all posts
Thursday, June 21, 2012
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Inside scoop on Supreme Court arguments -- March 22, 2012 column
By MARSHA MERCER
Here’s an insider’s tip on how to read the oral arguments at the Supreme Court next week:
To predict the likely winner of the epic battle over the health care law, keep track of the questions. The side that gets the most questions likely will lose.
That’s not just my guess. A few years ago, an up-and-coming federal appellate court judge studied 28 Supreme Court cases and found the most-questions-asked “rule” predicted the loser in 24 of the 28 cases, an 86 percent prediction rate.
“The secret to successful advocacy,” the judge observed dryly, “is simply to get the court to ask your opponent more questions.”
Judge John G. Roberts Jr. became chief justice of the United States in 2005. His comments in a June 2004 lecture to the Supreme Court Historical Society, printed in the Journal of Supreme Court History, provide a rare glimpse of how the chief justice views oral arguments.
“Oral argument matters, but not just because of what the lawyers have to say. It is the organizing point for the entire judicial process,” he wrote.
Roberts will open three days of argument Monday on constitutional challenges to President Obama’s health care law. A ruling, which could define the Roberts Court in American history, is expected by late June.
The Supreme Court usually grants only an hour for oral argument. To devote six hours to the health care law reflects the significance of the issues. And yet most people will never see the argument. No cameras are allowed, and only a few seats are available to reporters, sketch artists and the public. The court will release audio and printed transcripts every afternoon.
If you were to get in, you might get a headache trying to follow the rapid-fire action – even if you had read the legal briefs. That’s no mean feat as more than 170 briefs have been filed, reportedly more than for any case in history.
Gone are the days when lawyers had the time to methodically lay out their well-reasoned arguments. Instead, the justices power spray attorneys with questions from the get-go.
In his lecture to the historical society, Roberts, who clerked for the late Justice William H. Rehnquist and argued 39 cases before the Supreme Court, recalled his preparations for oral arguments.
“I always worked very hard on the first sentence, trying to put in it my main point and any key facts, because I appreciated that the first sentence might well be the only complete one I got out,” he said.
Roberts did the math and found that in a typical argument in 2003, there were 91 questions.
So do the arguments matter?
“Oral argument is terribly, terribly important,” said Roberts. It’s a time “at least for me – when ideas that have been percolating for some time begin to crystallize.”
When he reads briefs, his reaction typically is not, “Well that’s a good argument” or “That’s persuasive.” Instead, he’s thinking, “Says you. Let’s see what the other side has to say.”
But, he said, the doors begin to close with oral argument. “After all, the voting is going to take place very soon after, and the luxury of skepticism will have to yield to the necessity of decision.”
It seems antiquated indeed not to allow cameras in the courtroom, but barring them could help preserve the dignity of lawyers in a sometimes overwhelming situation.
It’s not a myth that lawyers have collapsed during oral arguments; Roberts recounted several incidents.
Nearly 70 years ago, the justices were exercised about facts in a commercial fraud case, and Justice William O. Douglas demanded to know who had written one of the affidavits – “at which point the lawyer fainted dead away, hitting his head on the table on the way to the floor.”
Court was adjourned and a doctor summoned. When the argument resumed, the lawyer, bruised but unbowed, stood, looked Douglas in the eye and admitted he had written the affidavit.
Roberts ends the story there. It suggests to me, though, that in places outside the media glare, decorum prevails.
© 2012 Marsha Mercer. All rights reserved.
Here’s an insider’s tip on how to read the oral arguments at the Supreme Court next week:
To predict the likely winner of the epic battle over the health care law, keep track of the questions. The side that gets the most questions likely will lose.
That’s not just my guess. A few years ago, an up-and-coming federal appellate court judge studied 28 Supreme Court cases and found the most-questions-asked “rule” predicted the loser in 24 of the 28 cases, an 86 percent prediction rate.
“The secret to successful advocacy,” the judge observed dryly, “is simply to get the court to ask your opponent more questions.”
Judge John G. Roberts Jr. became chief justice of the United States in 2005. His comments in a June 2004 lecture to the Supreme Court Historical Society, printed in the Journal of Supreme Court History, provide a rare glimpse of how the chief justice views oral arguments.
“Oral argument matters, but not just because of what the lawyers have to say. It is the organizing point for the entire judicial process,” he wrote.
Roberts will open three days of argument Monday on constitutional challenges to President Obama’s health care law. A ruling, which could define the Roberts Court in American history, is expected by late June.
The Supreme Court usually grants only an hour for oral argument. To devote six hours to the health care law reflects the significance of the issues. And yet most people will never see the argument. No cameras are allowed, and only a few seats are available to reporters, sketch artists and the public. The court will release audio and printed transcripts every afternoon.
If you were to get in, you might get a headache trying to follow the rapid-fire action – even if you had read the legal briefs. That’s no mean feat as more than 170 briefs have been filed, reportedly more than for any case in history.
Gone are the days when lawyers had the time to methodically lay out their well-reasoned arguments. Instead, the justices power spray attorneys with questions from the get-go.
In his lecture to the historical society, Roberts, who clerked for the late Justice William H. Rehnquist and argued 39 cases before the Supreme Court, recalled his preparations for oral arguments.
“I always worked very hard on the first sentence, trying to put in it my main point and any key facts, because I appreciated that the first sentence might well be the only complete one I got out,” he said.
Roberts did the math and found that in a typical argument in 2003, there were 91 questions.
So do the arguments matter?
“Oral argument is terribly, terribly important,” said Roberts. It’s a time “at least for me – when ideas that have been percolating for some time begin to crystallize.”
When he reads briefs, his reaction typically is not, “Well that’s a good argument” or “That’s persuasive.” Instead, he’s thinking, “Says you. Let’s see what the other side has to say.”
But, he said, the doors begin to close with oral argument. “After all, the voting is going to take place very soon after, and the luxury of skepticism will have to yield to the necessity of decision.”
It seems antiquated indeed not to allow cameras in the courtroom, but barring them could help preserve the dignity of lawyers in a sometimes overwhelming situation.
It’s not a myth that lawyers have collapsed during oral arguments; Roberts recounted several incidents.
Nearly 70 years ago, the justices were exercised about facts in a commercial fraud case, and Justice William O. Douglas demanded to know who had written one of the affidavits – “at which point the lawyer fainted dead away, hitting his head on the table on the way to the floor.”
Court was adjourned and a doctor summoned. When the argument resumed, the lawyer, bruised but unbowed, stood, looked Douglas in the eye and admitted he had written the affidavit.
Roberts ends the story there. It suggests to me, though, that in places outside the media glare, decorum prevails.
© 2012 Marsha Mercer. All rights reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
