The Decision

We're publishing today's edition early, just ahead of the Supreme Court's announcement of its monumental decision on the Affordable Care Act, also known as ObamaCare.

Like the individual decisions of the Justices themselves, some of our comments on this decision were written well in advance of today's publication. Like the other serious and weighty decisions the Court has made this week, today's announcement will not solve the health care insurance issue in this country. The Court's earlier decisions on labor union participation, or immigration or campaign finance issues did not solve those problems either.

Making effective, solid law has never been the proper role of the Supreme Court.

The job of making solid, well-thought, well-researched, effective, efficient law is the job of our legislative bodies - from village boards and city councils, all the way up to Congress. If we allow the wealthiest people and corporations to blanket our TVs, radios, newspapers and computers with sensationalism and half truths to convince us that sending our village idiots to DC to represent them (not us!) is a good idea, we have only ourselves to blame.

Making good law that works for all of us - not just the wealthiest or most extreme among us - is our collective responsibility.

Similarly, guiding our country is also not the role of the Court. It is the role of the President, who - among many, many responsibilities - carries the role of political leader. The role of the Executive Branch is also enforcement, as well as implementation.

It's easy for the millions of armchair dictators and media blowhards to scream and holler that the President should simply do whatever they say, as though the President were a king or a queen - or a dictator, as President Bush once lamented publicly.

Our President is not a dictator. He or she cannot simply send thousands of border agents to Mexico and Canada, and - POOF! All our immigration problems will be gone. The President can't simply send the Fifth Infantry to Wall Street, to forcibly penalize all those responsible for the economic disaster - or force insurance companies to put patient outcomes and efficient health care before the interests of their stockholders and profit motives.

The President may be the head of the Executive Branch - but fixing these iconic issues is not the sole responsibility of the current occupant of the White House.

No, the biggest decision and the most responsibility will still fall in the same place it has for over a century - squarely on the shoulders of the American people.

We're like a relay team at the Olympics that's still arguing about minor issues like who bought the shoelaces for today's race. Problem is, we're still in the starting blocks, where we've been for over a century, while every other first world nation has figured out how to provide basic, high-quality health care, as good or better than comparable care here in the U.S. And, for the most part, it's available to ALL of THEIR  citizens.

We still haven't even gotten out of the starting gates.

The most important decision that will face Americans this day - or this year - on how Americans will pay for decent basic health care, won't be coming from the Supreme Court.

We're not saying the decision the Supreme Court makes today is insignificant. Admittedly, it will definitely take far more than just a day or two to fully "unpack" the effects of their ruling, whatever it is. No matter what they decide, their ruling will not solve our health care insurance problems - even if their opinion is simply to allow the Affordable Care Act to stand as it is.

To make laws and implement solutions that will solve massive systemic problems like the cost of health care is our collective national responsibility. Our decision - the only decision that matters on health care insurance - is to act on the ruling the Court gives us today, so that we can fix this problem together.

It is long past time we, as a nation, decide to finish the task of taking care of the basic health needs of all Americans. That is the only decision that matters on this issue.

To make laws and implement solutions that will solve massive systemic problems like the cost of health care is our collective national responsibility. Our decision - the only decision that matters on health care insurance - is to act on the ruling the Court gives us today, so that we can fix this problem together.

It is long past time we, as a nation, decide to finish the task of taking care of the basic health needs of all Americans. That is the only decision that matters on this issue.

Castles In The Sand

Yesterday, we only briefly touched on the Supreme Court's decisions regarding campaign finance law and immigration. As we've often said, anything worth doing is worth doing well - which is why we took our time unraveling both decisions, which we will do for you today.

As a reminder for Thursday's Supreme Court decisions regarding both the Stolen Valor Act, and of course, the Affordable Care Act, we'll warn you in advance: These court decisions are not as easy to accurately decipher as many TV and radio pundits, and instant bloggers - from all political backgrounds - attempt to make it seem.

Regardless of the mental stability of its justices, there is a reason these difficult cases make their way to the Supreme Court. If these were easy legal decisions, the cases would never get this far.

The massive wave of problems related to immigration that was handled in the Court's decision on Monday was a perfect example of how even the best plans and previous Supreme Court rulings can be washed away like so much sand, in the face of a tsunami.

In short, the court did not - as many, many, many legitimate media outlets said - uphold any part of Arizona's SB1070. For all the bragadoccio by Arizona's Gov. Brewer on Monday the fact is, the "Papers, please" provision of the court's decision was not the heart of the law. That provision allows law enforcement officers who have "reasonable suspicion" of someone's immigration status to stop them and ask them to provide identification.

That provision may also be on thin ice. As the Court itself made clear, and as legal scholars and others have confirmed, the Court is deferring to the earlier judgement of a lower court. Since SB1070 never really took effect, there was no way for the Justices to honestly judge whether it would work in practice. For now, that provision remains - but if Arizona law enforcement officers abuse it, which is entirely possible - that provision may also end up before the Court, and is likely to be struck down as well.

All the other provisions of Arizona's attempt at making its own, separate immigration law were smacked down very hard. Arizona - or any state or U.S. territory - is not allowed to have its own immigration policy. They cannot create new criminal charges that target immigrants. They cannot detain people indefinitely, because a person might be undocumented. Finally, certain Executive Branch actions regarding the application of Federal law - like President Obama's recent actions on immigration - are completely lawful.

In short, anti-immigrant forces got their race-based political excuse for legislation washed out in a wave of previous legal rulings.

Truthfully, the Court's other major decision on Monday - regarding campaign finance reform - while handled poorly, has a similar background.

In short, the high court  decided on Monday that whether or not states like Montana have had campaign finance restriction laws on the books for a single year or a century, states cannot set their own campaign finance laws, any more than they can set their own immigration policies.

We still firmly believe a less ideologically driven court would never have made its initial decision to allow corporations and wealthy individuals to effectively outright buy our elections.

That said, the consistency between the Court's decisions on immigration and campaign finance gives the Court back another small grain of credibility and legitimacy.

Depending on the decision the Court makes on health care Thursday morning, those grains of credibility may yet yet be washed away before the week is out.

Empty, Vague - And Hoping You Don't Notice.

As we mentioned Monday morning, this week will be filled with news and decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court, that will prove more than a few things to the American people.

One of those things already proven on Monday afternoon was the complete lack of professionalism and infantile anger of several of the justices on the conservative wing of the Court, especially that of Antonin Scalia. Justice Scalia's nakedly political ranting in dissent of the Court's 5-3 decision to strike down most of Arizona's SB1070 was passionate, if nothing else. The decision on immigration, released Monday afternoon, along with the Court's larger decision on the Montana campaign finance law, both served to lay bare the true positions of the extremists on the Court.

Justice Clarence Thomas, however, continued what has become a legendary habit of silence. Even at his most animated, Thomas seems to only display an occasional vague and dispassionate opinion. In short, Justice Thomas usually displays the kind of purposeful anonymity that most political media observers equate with GOP candidate Mitt Romney's "Mittness Protection" program.

Frankly, if only those two choices of judicial temperament are offered, we'd rather someone display the obvious partisanship of Scalia, to the nearly empty chair attitude of Thomas. At least we know where Scalia stands - even if he stands neck-deep in incompetence.

Thomas' attitude reminds us strongly of the current U.S. Senate race in Nebraska, between former Senator Bob Kerrey, and Nebraska state senator, Deb Fischer.

For quite some time now, Kerrey has been openly and publicly looking to interact, debate, and compare his ideas for helping Nebraskans to those of Fischer. The biggest problem Kerrey has run into with doing that is Fischer just hasn't seemed to want to debate anything - and it doesn't appear she's looking to do so at any time down the road, either.

We warned about Fischer's approach to campaigning back in mid-May, when she won the GOP nomination. Even then, we noted Fischer only won by remaining quiet - and then at the last minute, accepting the massive cash avalanche from the corporate right.

What even we didn't mention is that even as Fischer split the Republican Party, and quietly walked away with the nomination, she still failed to strongly let Republican voters - or really, any Nebraska voter - know what her positions are.

That Fischer's camp recently released a ridiculously biased poll, put together by a wholly unreliable Republican polling firm, that appears to have only polled by landline phone - an almost completely discredited method of accurate polling - hasn't kept multiple hack media outlets from bleating about a Fischer landslide.

What they've also missed, is the same thing we missed in May.

Fischer has yet to truly make any of her positions well-known - and as some in the Nebraska media have noted, she and her campaign have pretty much gone quiet.

Meanwhile, Bob Kerrey hasn't just been sitting around, waiting for Fischer. He's continued doing what Bob Kerrey has always done - plodding forward, meeting with other Nebraskans, listening to everything they have to say, even the ones that don't agree with him. He also continues to call out waste and abuse - like the corporate ag welfare Fischer's family readily collects.

In our collective experience, most Americans, whether they agree with a politician or not, at least want to know where those politicians stand.

Kerrey may not be as animated as Supreme Court Justice Scalia, but it's also quite obvious where Kerry stands. Fischer continues to display the same lack of passion as Justice Thomas, or even Mr. Romney.

To us, empty chairs, vague positions, and disinterested politicians have no business being part of a vibrant, effective government.