Another conservative Reagan jurist critical of modern GOP

[Lloyd Bentsen's Ghost]

Richard Posner, the Reagan-appointed appeals court judge and godfather of the conservative law-and-economics movement, says "right-wingers" have made the Republican Party a very "goofy" place.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78182.html

Posner said “there’s been a real deterioration in conservative thinking” over the past 10 years and admitted that his own politics have changed in that time.

“I’ve become less conservative since the Republican Party started becoming goofy,” he said.

Interesting how many former members of Reagan's legal team have soured on the GOP - Douglas Kmiec (Office of Legal Counsel) endorsed Obama in '08, as did Charles Fried (Solicitor General), who has since taken to writing anti-Tea Party diatribes (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/06/obama-is-too-good-for-us-charles-fried-on-the-debt-fiasco.html) in that repository of alienated Republicans, The Daily Beast.

[anvi]

I listened to audio of the Posner interview this morning.  He seemed to be focusing on the GOP activist vitriol, as well as the alleged SCOTUS-internal consternation, trained at Roberts, and saying none of it was a good idea.  His most recent book about the financial crisis, though biting in both the government's role in facilitating it and sharply critical of Obama too, ended up, surprisingly, calling for a more Keynesian approach to lifting us out of it.  He is an interesting fellow.  He recently served as an outside reader on a dissertation committee in my department and we video-conferenced him into the discussion.  He dealt with one cantankerous member of our faculty with pretty good humor. 

[Torie]

The only thing Posner (I used to deliver his mail once back in college) refers to in his past decade thing is the Roberts bashing. What else does he have in mind?  He doesn't say. Pity.

As to the Roberts bashing, most folks have trouble separating out the judicial and legal function, from the policy making function, and that goes for both the Left and the Right. The masses are policy result oriented, not legally orientated. It takes discipline and self restraint to not conflate the two, and rule in favor of something you think is ludicrous from a policy perspective. Few have it.

I agree with the Roberts decision by the way, except for the truncation of the fed coercive use of the golden handcuffs bit. The feds should have the power to use their money to coerce any state that they want. That is what handing out money is all about. The guy with the money makes the rules. I would have upheld Obamacare in its entirety I think via the tax power theory even though I think the law is a Rube Goldberg contraption, where its various wheels don't mesh, which will fall apart in a hurry, if not fixed.

[anvi]

I must say I was duly impressed with the way Roberts handled the Minority Dissent in his opinion.  The end of Minority Dissent was a prolonged complaint about the ACA policies and the manner of its passage.  Roberts just curtly waved it off at the beginning of his opinion, saying it wasn't SCOTUS' job to adjudicate policy merits but only decide constitutional issues.  It's quite admirable to see a justice who believes in restraint practice it that well.  Good call, W.

[True Federalist]

I agree with the Roberts decision by the way, except for the truncation of the fed coercive use of the golden handcuffs bit. The feds should have the power to use their money to coerce any state that they want. That is what handing out money is all about. The guy with the money makes the rules.

I'd go the other way Torie, especially in the case of Medicaid.  If the Federal government wants a particular level of health care provided by Medicaid, then rather than a silly Federal/State program with an extra level of bureaucracy, it ought to be a purely Federal program, with the Feds spending and providing all the funds used.  The only purpose of this being a joint program is to hide the costs associated with it.

[Torie]

I agree with the Roberts decision by the way, except for the truncation of the fed coercive use of the golden handcuffs bit. The feds should have the power to use their money to coerce any state that they want. That is what handing out money is all about. The guy with the money makes the rules.

I'd go the other way Torie, especially in the case of Medicaid.  If the Federal government wants a particular level of health care provided by Medicaid, then rather than a silly Federal/State program with an extra level of bureaucracy, it ought to be a purely Federal program, with the Feds spending and providing all the funds used.  The only purpose of this being a joint program is to hide the costs associated with it.

Here is an example of the conflation to which I referred perhaps. You are making a policy observation True Federalist, rather than a legal one. Sure these "joint" state-federal efforts are often problematical, and do diffuse accountability.

[True Federalist]

I agree with the Roberts decision by the way, except for the truncation of the fed coercive use of the golden handcuffs bit. The feds should have the power to use their money to coerce any state that they want. That is what handing out money is all about. The guy with the money makes the rules.

I'd go the other way Torie, especially in the case of Medicaid.  If the Federal government wants a particular level of health care provided by Medicaid, then rather than a silly Federal/State program with an extra level of bureaucracy, it ought to be a purely Federal program, with the Feds spending and providing all the funds used.  The only purpose of this being a joint program is to hide the costs associated with it.

Here is an example of the conflation to which I referred perhaps. You are making a policy observation True Federalist, rather than a legal one. Sure these "joint" state-federal efforts are often problematical, and do diffuse accountability.

When you are arguing that the Feds should have a power rather than that the Feds do have a power, I would say that you are the one who made this about policy rather than legality.  From a constitutional standpoint, I'd agree that there are few limits on the golden handcuffs, which is why I'd like to see some added to the Constitution.

[Torie]

I agree with the Roberts decision by the way, except for the truncation of the fed coercive use of the golden handcuffs bit. The feds should have the power to use their money to coerce any state that they want. That is what handing out money is all about. The guy with the money makes the rules.

I'd go the other way Torie, especially in the case of Medicaid.  If the Federal government wants a particular level of health care provided by Medicaid, then rather than a silly Federal/State program with an extra level of bureaucracy, it ought to be a purely Federal program, with the Feds spending and providing all the funds used.  The only purpose of this being a joint program is to hide the costs associated with it.

Here is an example of the conflation to which I referred perhaps. You are making a policy observation True Federalist, rather than a legal one. Sure these "joint" state-federal efforts are often problematical, and do diffuse accountability.

When you are arguing that the Feds should have a power rather than that the Feds do have a power, I would say that you are the one who made this about policy rather than legality.  From a constitutional standpoint, I'd agree that there are few limits on the golden handcuffs, which is why I'd like to see some added to the Constitution.

OK, fair enough. Just because the Feds do have the power, does not mean in any given instance, I think it should be used however. Whether this way of expanding medicaid is the best way to deliver health care to the impecunious is an open question. I would prefer simply subsidizing insurance premiums myself. It seems not cost effective for the government to get involved beyond premium subsidies, but I am open to more information on this.

[muon2]

I agree with the Roberts decision by the way, except for the truncation of the fed coercive use of the golden handcuffs bit. The feds should have the power to use their money to coerce any state that they want. That is what handing out money is all about. The guy with the money makes the rules.

I'd go the other way Torie, especially in the case of Medicaid.  If the Federal government wants a particular level of health care provided by Medicaid, then rather than a silly Federal/State program with an extra level of bureaucracy, it ought to be a purely Federal program, with the Feds spending and providing all the funds used.  The only purpose of this being a joint program is to hide the costs associated with it.

I'm with Ernest, but for a different reason. Generally the public thinks it's wrong to set up one deal and then later renege on it unless a second deal is agreed. States voluntarily entered into the pre-2010 Medicaid program, based on the funding for a certain group of participants. Other groups were later added and states could choose to serve them without impact on the original group. Now the Feds come up with an entirely new group of people to serve and invite the states to participate. The kicker is that if you don't serve this new group, the feds will cut off funding for service to all the old groups. That's a type of bait and switch that gets private companies a visit from regulators. To me that's enough reason to agree with Roberts' opinion on that issue.

[Torie]

I agree with the Roberts decision by the way, except for the truncation of the fed coercive use of the golden handcuffs bit. The feds should have the power to use their money to coerce any state that they want. That is what handing out money is all about. The guy with the money makes the rules.

I'd go the other way Torie, especially in the case of Medicaid.  If the Federal government wants a particular level of health care provided by Medicaid, then rather than a silly Federal/State program with an extra level of bureaucracy, it ought to be a purely Federal program, with the Feds spending and providing all the funds used.  The only purpose of this being a joint program is to hide the costs associated with it.

I'm with Ernest, but for a different reason. Generally the public thinks it's wrong to set up one deal and then later renege on it unless a second deal is agreed. States voluntarily entered into the pre-2010 Medicaid program, based on the funding for a certain group of participants. Other groups were later added and states could choose to serve them without impact on the original group. Now the Feds come up with an entirely new group of people to serve and invite the states to participate. The kicker is that if you don't serve this new group, the feds will cut off funding for service to all the old groups. That's a type of bait and switch that gets private companies a visit from regulators. To me that's enough reason to agree with Roberts' opinion on that issue.

So once the Feds cut checks to the states they can't back out eh?  It is a contract in perpetuity?  Do you think that was the intent muon2?  My view is that states should understand that the money might not be there forever. Anyway, to tell the Feds they can't change policy as to how they spend their money because its unconstitutional, I think exacerbates the problems surrounding federalism, which is a problematical notion in any event as the nation's, and the world's, economy, goes ever more interconnected. So I disagree with both the legal and the policy argument here.

[muon2]

I agree with the Roberts decision by the way, except for the truncation of the fed coercive use of the golden handcuffs bit. The feds should have the power to use their money to coerce any state that they want. That is what handing out money is all about. The guy with the money makes the rules.

I'd go the other way Torie, especially in the case of Medicaid.  If the Federal government wants a particular level of health care provided by Medicaid, then rather than a silly Federal/State program with an extra level of bureaucracy, it ought to be a purely Federal program, with the Feds spending and providing all the funds used.  The only purpose of this being a joint program is to hide the costs associated with it.

I'm with Ernest, but for a different reason. Generally the public thinks it's wrong to set up one deal and then later renege on it unless a second deal is agreed. States voluntarily entered into the pre-2010 Medicaid program, based on the funding for a certain group of participants. Other groups were later added and states could choose to serve them without impact on the original group. Now the Feds come up with an entirely new group of people to serve and invite the states to participate. The kicker is that if you don't serve this new group, the feds will cut off funding for service to all the old groups. That's a type of bait and switch that gets private companies a visit from regulators. To me that's enough reason to agree with Roberts' opinion on that issue.

So once the Feds cut checks to the states they can't back out eh?  It is a contract in perpetuity?  Do you think that was the intent muon2?  My view is that states should understand that the money might not be there forever. Anyway, to tell the Feds they can't change policy as to how they spend their money because its unconstitutional, I think exacerbates the problems surrounding federalism, which is a problematical notion in any event as the nation's, and the world's, economy, goes ever more interconnected. So I disagree with both the legal and the policy argument here.

I have no problem with the Feds saying that we are discontinuing funding for a program that was a voluntary entry by the states. I do have a problem with the Feds saying they are still funding a program, but only if the states will commit to adding a new program that will cost more later. The conventional term for that is an unfunded mandate. Municipalities despise them when issued by the states and states despise them when issued by the Feds. As a matter of policy are you saying you like unfunded mandates?

I don't like it when a private service provider says I can only keep my existing service if I add a bunch of new features I don't want and pay more for the new package. I'm prone to switch providers when that happens. If the service provider is a regulated utility, I can't switch so I expect the regulators to intervene. The Feds have a monopoly power on these programs over the states much like a utility does over my service. But who is the regulator in the case of the Feds vs the states? I think that as a legal matter only SCOTUS can act as a regulatory body.

[asexual trans victimologist]

I'm still not even sure what the legal argument is, except for a weird analogical use of business contract law that has nothing to do with the Constitution. I can't see what makes any of muon's arguments not simply policy arguments.

[Green State]

He is right,

The GOP of today shares more in common with some third world ultra-right Fascist party then a modern conservative opposition seen in other countries.

Of course I'm not surprised though since the United States is a backwards country compared to say Europe or even other parts of North America.

[hopper]

I am a moderate republican from NJ but this feeds into my complaints about the party today. I  was reading an article on the" American Thinker" blog and the posters I think were writing that the GOP wasn't conservative enough. How much more to the right can they go than they have already gone? I even saw a post where they call Rubio a RINO for his version of his "Dream Act" I would guess. See the GOP voters today they want their politicians to vote 100% of the time with their position in terms of party platform or party idelogy. Thats nearly impossible I mean even Ronald Reagan said back in the day if you vote 80% with our party you are a friend. I think if you agree with a politician 100% of the time that there is something wrong with you.

I saw a poster on a blog calling Justice Kennedy a leftist. Imagine that. Justice Kennedy is just a Moderate Republican in idealogy not a Hard-Core Liberal Dem. Besides, Justice Kennedy votes with the conservative justices most of the time anyway.

[hopper]

He is right,

The GOP of today shares more in common with some third world ultra-right Fascist party then a modern conservative opposition seen in other countries.

Of course I'm not surprised though since the United States is a backwards country compared to say Europe or even other parts of North America.

Europe is hardly a country I would want to model the US. Look at their debt crisis and the fall of the EURO as a currency. Well look at our debt crisis in the US we are hardly a model to follow either.

The GOP facist? Maybe on the issue of tax cuts in that they don't think they have to pay for them at all. The GOP is hard right on the topic of abortion though I will say right now that their parties base is hard right on the topic of immigration reform.

[Badger]

I am a moderate republican from NJ but this feeds into my complaints about the party today. I  was reading an article on the" American Thinker" blog and the posters I think were writing that the GOP wasn't conservative enough. How much more to the right can they go than they have already gone? I even saw a post where they call Rubio a RINO for his version of his "Dream Act" I would guess. See the GOP voters today they want their politicians to vote 100% of the time with their position in terms of party platform or party idelogy. Thats nearly impossible I mean even Ronald Reagan said back in the day if you vote 80% with our party you are a friend. I think if you agree with a politician 100% of the time that there is something wrong with you.

I saw a poster on a blog calling Justice Kennedy a leftist. Imagine that. Justice Kennedy is just a Moderate Republican in idealogy not a Hard-Core Liberal Dem. Besides, Justice Kennedy votes with the conservative justices most of the time anyway.

Kennedy is actually a bona fide conservative, albeit of the reagan stripe. After his appointment, he was long considered a part of the conservative wing. It's only by the standards of unabashed right wing ideologes that make up a third of the court that he could ever be considered a "moderate".

[ask_not]

american politics need radical change in today"s world,