Paul Krugman, "Death by Typo": Krugman Versus the United States Judicial System

What happens when an economist engages in legal reasoning? Answer: Nothing good.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Death by Typo," Paul Krugman decides to weigh in regarding the decision of the US Supreme Court to grant certiorari in the case of King v. Burwell. King v. Burwell, whose determination could bar health care subsidies to Americans acquiring insurance via federal government exchanges, might have a serious impact upon the future of Obamacare. Krugman writes:

"[I]t now appears possible that the Supreme Court may be willing to deprive millions of Americans of health care on the basis of an equally obvious typo.

. . . .

Once upon a time, this lawsuit would have been literally laughed out of court. Instead, however, it has actually been upheld in some lower courts, on straight party-line votes — and the willingness of the Supremes to hear it is a bad omen.

So let’s be clear about what’s happening here. Judges who support this cruel absurdity aren’t stupid; they know what they’re doing. What they are, instead, is corrupt, willing to pervert the law to serve political masters. And what we’ll find out in the months ahead is how deep the corruption goes."

Unfortunately for Paul, this is not all about a "typo." Rather, this is about a statute categorically and systematically saying what it perhaps did not intend to say. See the excellent Washington Post article entitled "What the district court got wrong (and right) in Halbig v. Sebelius" by Jonathan H. Adler. See also John Steele Gordon's article in Commentary entitled "Paul Krugman at It Again," which provides powerful evidence that the statute says exactly what it intended to say.

To what extent is the US judiciary entitled to correct shoddy Congressional drafting? Let's wait to see the US Supreme Court decision. However, there is nothing extraordinary about courts determining the limits of statutory interpretation.

If there was a mistake written into the law, why can't Congress amend the statute? In this instance, the answer is simple: Obama can no longer find a majority in either house of Congress for this unpopular legislation.

Is this a matter of the willingness of the US judiciary "to pervert the law to serve political masters"? Sorry, Paul, I disagree. The United States is not a banana republic.

Maureen Dowd, "Men in Black": The Pot Calls the Kettle Black

A short preface: I am pro-choice. I also believe in universal health care. At times, I vehemently disagree with, while respecting, the opinions of various Supreme Court justices. However, I acknowledge that Obamacare could be unconstitutional, and in that respect, my opinion is akin to that of a majority of Americans. In fact, according to a February 2012 Gallup poll, "Americans overwhelmingly believe the 'individual mandate,' as it is often called, is unconstitutional, by a margin of 72% to 20% (see: http://www.gallup.com/poll/152969/Americans-Divided-Repeal-2010-Healthcare-Law.aspx).

Having said all that, I would observe that Maureen Dowd has made me nauseous this morning.

In her New York Times op-ed entitled "Men in Black" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/04/opinion/dowd-men-in-black.html), Dowd declares:

"This court, cosseted behind white marble pillars, out of reach of TV, accountable to no one once they give the last word, is well on its way to becoming one of the most divisive in modern American history.

It has squandered even the semi-illusion that it is the unbiased, honest guardian of the Constitution. It is run by hacks dressed up in black robes."

Charming. Maureen Dowd, who has a B.A. in English literature from Catholic University, i.e. she is not an attorney, and who "inadvertently lifted" a paragraph from another writer's column (see: http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1899530,00.html), is calling the conservative justices of the Supreme Court "hacks."

This is the same Maureen Dowd who traveled to Saudi Arabia in 2010 and declared that the Desert Kingdom, which executes persons for "witchcraft" and imprisons and whips women who have been gang raped, is "chipping away at gender apartheid and cultural repression" (see: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/03/opinion/03dowd.html).

But let's return to today's op-ed in which Dowd goes on to say:

"The Supreme Court mirrors the setup on Fox News: There are liberals who make arguments, but they are weak foils, relegated to the background and trying to get in a few words before the commercials."

Peculiar how Maureen ignores the extreme cant of the op-ed staff of The New York Times. Sure, there are Brooks and Douthat; however, there is no mistaking the leanings of the overwhelming majority of the other writers.

More to the point, concerning the questions raised by the conservative justices, Dowd asks of Antonin Scalia:

"If he’s so brilliant, why is he drawing a risible parallel between buying health care and buying broccoli?"

Allow me to explain, Maureen. When people go to the supermarket and buy Cheetos, Twinkies, Bacon and Bud instead of broccoli, they are indeed worsening the risk pool and making insurance more expensive. Does this mean that the federal government should be allowed to demand the purchase of, or subsidize, broccoli, while banning or penalizing sales of Cheetos? Personally, if the government were to seek to deprive me of my ice cream habit, I would probably take up arms.

You see it's not all black and white.

But it is the strident tone of Dowd's opinion piece that makes me cringe. No matter how ardently I might oppose the opinion of any Supreme Court justice, I would never dream of labeling him or her a "hack." This lack of civility and basic respect for the opinions of others, threatens to tear apart the fabric of American society. If the conservative Supreme Court justices are "hacks," does this mean that each of us is free to take the law into his or her own hands? I shudder at where this leads.

[See also, "Ronald Dworkin, 'Why the Health Care Challenge Is Wrong': Really? Let's Talk Turkey (and Broccoli)!" (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2012/04/ronald-dworkin-why-health-care.html)]

Paul Krugman, "Pink Slime Economics": Sliming the Supreme Court

As Obama's chances of reelection grow increasingly uncertain, the leftist op-ed page of the New York Times grows increasingly uncivil. Today, in "Pink Slime Economics" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/02/opinion/krugman-pink-slime-economics.html?_r=2&smid=tw-NytimesKrugman&seid=auto), Paul Krugman begins by sliming the Supreme Court:

"The big bad event of last week was, of course, the Supreme Court hearing on health reform. In the course of that hearing it became clear that several of the justices, and possibly a majority, are political creatures pure and simple, willing to embrace any argument, no matter how absurd, that serves the interests of Team Republican."

Krugman's arrogance obviously knows no bounds. There are several Supreme Court justices with whose opinions I vehemently disagree, but I do not doubt their good faith. And yes, it is possible to engage in civil debate over matters being discussed by the Supreme Court without throwing a temper tantrum.

Krugman continues:

"But we should not allow events in the court to completely overshadow another, almost equally disturbing spectacle. For on Thursday Republicans in the House of Representatives passed what was surely the most fraudulent budget in American history.

And when I say fraudulent, I mean just that."

So, Krugman would also slime Congressman Paul Ryan and have us know that he is a charlatan.

However, there was no mention by Krugman of Obama's $3.6 trillion budget for next year, which was rejected last week 414-0 by the House (see: http://news.yahoo.com/gop-run-house-easily-rejects-obama-budget-013519895.html). How would Paul describe Obama's budget proposal, which was even opposed by the Democrats? Visionary or halucinatory?

Can the US government begin to slash the budget deficit? Although Krugman uses the words "fraud," "fraudulent" and "fraudulence" five times during the course of his short essay, he never once mentions Medicare fraud, which totals some $60 billion per year (see: http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18560_162-5414390.html). Yes, $60 billion would make a big dent in the deficit, and there are ways to go about putting an end to this crime, but any solution begins with rational discourse and not mud slinging.