Deceiving RNC ad about "ObamaCare" Trivializes the Real Issues

The Republican National Committee never ceases to amaze. Two days ago, they released an ad entitled: "ObamaCare: It's a Tough Sell." Needless to say, the ad is so heavily edited that it changes Solicitor General Donald Verrilli's entire opening statement and makes it look like he was helplessly stumbling over his words.

True, Verrilli did stumble over his words in the beginning of his opening remarks and did take a short break to take a drink of water. Umm...give the guy a break. He was giving oral argument at the Supreme Court of the United States on one of the most important issues right now for heaven's sake! The health care law is also not the easiest thing in the world to explain; it is highly complex. Perhaps it took him a minute to get composed, but he eventually did. As a law student, I have quite a bit of sympathy for him.

The video compresses these moments that Verrilli stumbled over his words and puts them all together so it sounds like he had no idea what he was talking about. The video also labels Verrilli as "Obama's lawyer." This is entirely incorrect. He is the Solicitor General and represents the government, not Obama, in litigation before the Supreme Court. It seems nit-pickety but it is just another way that the RNC tries to characterize the health care law as being all about Obama.

Courtroom sketch by Art Lien: Solicitor General Donald Verrilli speaking to Justice Antonin Scalia on March 26, 2012 as he argues his case before the Supreme Court

Alright, forget the stupid ad. The main issue is whether it is constitutional to require Americans to buy insurance coverage.

What I think:

1. I think the individual mandate comes within Congress' right to regulate interstate commerce. Whether or not people have insurance inevitably affects interstate commerce. Like Verrilli said, 

"Uninsured Americans each year use $43 billion of health care they cannot pay for, effectively transferring those costs to other American families to the tune of about $1,000 per year."

2. On its face, the individual mandate may look like it is "forcing people into the stream of commerce" by requiring someone who might not have obtained health insurance to obtain it. However, virtually everyone will end up needing some kind of health care at some point in their lives. Somebody has to pay for it...

Cut the crap, Republicans. Stop making this debate about "freedom" when it's really about every citizen's right to secure affordable health care. This is a very unique issue and I highly doubt whether this interpretation of the Commerce Clause is going to set a precedent for unlimited power of the federal government to control everything we do.

Plus, wasn't this A REPUBLICAN idea in the first place? In the words of Sarah Palin, "You betcha!"

Before the Affordable Care Act, health care was a complete mess in this country.


Now...

• Insurance companies cannot deny coverage to people with "pre-existing conditions"

• Small businesses can sleep at night, without the extra burden of figuring out how they are going to afford health care for their employees

• Women will get the preventative care that they need

• Medicare is stronger for seniors

The Supreme Court is probably going to vote on the health care law on Friday, although the rest of us will not know the results of that decision until late June. Drafts of the opinions will be written and re-written in the meantime.

Stay tuned! 

Race-Based Affirmative Action: Does it Really Promote Equality?

From personal experience, I know that affirmative action has always been a hotly contested subject on college campuses.  Is it fair?  Should colleges take race into account when making admissions decisions?  Does it really promote true equality?  Is this policy unfair to qualified non-minority students?  Today, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case during its term that starts in October.  This will be the first time affirmative action has been revisited since the 2003 University of Michigan case.

First, of all, here is a little background on affirmative action.

1.  The Supreme Court first approved affirmative action in 1978 in the Regents of the University of California v. Bakke case.

2. In 2003, Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the court's decision in Grutter v. Bollinger reaffirming this practice (involving the admissions policy of the University of Michigan).  The reasoning behind this was that a diverse student body improves the education of all students.  O'Connor mentioned that if in 25 years, racial prejudice was no longer as prevalent, affirmative action would no longer be necessary.  Of course, not all the justices agreed with this statement.

3.  (Side note) Here in California, the state outlawed "preferential treatment" by race in 1996 with Proposition 209, so the ruling in Texas will not really affect us here.  A few other states have adopted similar laws.

4.  In 2005, Justice O'Connor (a well-known moderate) retired and George W. Bush replaced her with Justice Alito (pretty conservative and not a big fan of affirmative action).  Also, Elena Kagan, the newest justice, (pretty liberal) has announced that she will recuse herself since she worked on this case in a lower court when she was solicitor general.

5.  The Texas case that the Supreme Court has decided to deal with this October started in 2008 when Fisher, a white applicant, was denied admission to the University of Texas at Austin.  Her record was not good enough for admission, but she still felt as if she was turned down because she was white.

What has affirmative action in college admissions accomplished? 

Well, since the University of Texas has adopted this policy, the number of African-American students matriculating has nearly doubled!  


The number of Latino graduates has increased by almost 50 percent.


The University of Texas is ranked sixth nationwide in undergraduate degrees awarded to minors.

If the Supreme Court ultimately chooses to take race completely out of the equation in college admissions, this will affect students nationwide.  Will this help or will it hurt?

What does this mean for President Obama in the upcoming election?


The presidential election is in November.  Arguments for this case will be heard in October, just weeks before the election!  Indubitably, the President will be interrogated about his stance on this delicate issue.  If Obama's view is anything like what it was in 2008, I really like it.

He mentioned that an edge should be given to ALL low-income high school students, regardless of race.  I think that this is a good balance between completely abolishing affirmative action policies and keeping the current race-based policies.  I personally do not think it is fair for a student who is equally qualified for admission to get denied purely because they are not a "minority."  I can understand the effort to put students on an equal playing field, but I still cannot fully accept the fact that well-qualified individuals sometimes get denied admission because of their race.  With all that said, I am still very torn on this issue.

How do you think the Supreme Court will decide?  More importantly, how do you think they should decide?