George Washington is frequently referred to as the father of our country having served as the Commander of the Continental Army in the War of Independence and as the First US President. It was George Washington's wisdom that shaped the form of government in the US and arguably ensured that the new nation survived the birth. He was instrumental in establishing the balance of power between Congress and the Executive branch refusing to making significant decisions without the participation of Congress. He refused to accept a 3rd term as president and assiduously avoided imbuing the presidency with the trappings of a monarchy most famously instructing those he came in contact with to refer to him as Mr. President rather than as 'Your Highness' as many were inclined to do so. He set the tone and the rest is, as we say history.
Benjamin Franklin was instrumental in forging a consensus in the drafting of the US Constitution and without him, if less wise and hotter heads had prevailed, it is unlikely that the Constitution would ever have been finished at least in the form that has proven so robust over the centuries. In addition to guiding the development of the US Constitution, we have Franklin to thank for establishing much of the infrastructure that would serve is so well of the centuries. Franklin established the first public lending library, the first fire department and what would become the US Post Office.
However, there are perhaps more important accomplishments to credit to Franklin. Arguably, Benjamin Franklin deserves as much if not more credit than George Washington for the military success against the British without which the US would never have been born. I am comfortable in saying that without Franklin's contribution, the US would have lost the War of Independence with the British and remained a colony.
Benjamin Franklin is almost solely responsible for arranging the support of France for the War of Independence. Without the support of France, the US would almost have certainly lost the war. Over a period of about 2 years, Franklin used his considerable skills of planning, communication, argument and leveraging his rock star like status in France to win French support. In the 18th century, scientists were accorded the fame that rock stars and performers are now accorded. Franklin was known as the "man who tamed lightening" for his experiments with electricity and kites with which every schoolchild is familiar with and the development of lightening rods which saved many buildings from lightening damage.
The support of France was essential to the winning of the war. The Battle of Yorktown was the decisive and last major battle of the War of Independence after which the British withdrew from America. It was a French General who persuaded Washington not to attack the heavily fortified New York City but rather to attack the British in Yorktown. During the battle, there were almost as many professional French soldiers attacking Yorktown as there were militia under Washington. 90% of the gunpowder and many of the weapons used in the Battle of Yorktown were supplied by the French as the US did not have a military manufacturing capability at the time. It was the French Fleet that prevented the British fleet which was en route to Yorktown to relieve the British with supplies, additional troops and to provide naval artillery support. The consequence of the French support was that the US won and defeated Cornwallis taking about 8,000 British prisoners as well as significant quantities of British military equipment and supplies.
Without Franklin and the support of France that he had arranged, the US could not have won the war. We repaid our debt to the French people with the liberation of France from Germany during World War II but we still owe a dept of gratitude to Franklin that is generally not recognized much less expressed.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Medical Insurance - $14 Million for 1 Salaried Doctor
I have medical insurance through Blue Cross and I have read my policy and I always review the benefit statements for medical services processed on my insurance. A few months ago I had a routine screening colonoscopy because of my age and everything was fine until I received the bills.
Since I have a private policy, i.e. not a group policy, I have a fairly high calendar year deductible. However, I was aware that my policy pays 100% of the allowed charges for a screening colonocsopy every 10 years which is to say that Blue Cross waives the calendar year deductible and should pay everything. The allowed charge is the price that Blue Cross negotiates as payment in full with a service provider.
When I received my benefit statement, I noticed that there were two charges for anesthesia - one with a list price of $602 and an allowed charge of $133 and the the second with a list price of $595 and an allowed charge of $133. Thinking this was a billing error and a duplicate charge, I called the doctor's office who explained that the $602 charge was for an anesthesiologist who prescribed the anesthesia and was available in case there was a problem, the second charge was for the anesthesia nurse who actually administered the anesthesia and monitored my vitals and that I was only charged for the actual time that they spent with me which was 22 minutes. First, I spent about 3 minutes with the anesthesiologist who asked my weight, whether I had any allergies and then presumably wrote the prescription for the anesthesia. Based on the number of procedure rooms, I would estimate that this anesthesiologist supervises 6 anesthesia nurses. One of my 1st thoughts was how could the anesthesiologist accept such a significant discount for Blue Cross patients? But then I did the numbers. Assuming that the anesthesiologist works 50 weeks per year, 8 hours per day, supervises 6 anesthesia nurses who each perform 2 colonoscopies per hour, then the total annual billing for her services at $602 per procedure would be $14.4 million! Even at the lower negotiated rate of $133 per procedure, the total annual billing would be $3.2 million. Note that there was also a facility charge at $1,295 and the doctor who performed the procedure billed separately. $14.4 million per year in charges for 1 doctor's time is outrageous. For the anesthesia nurse, using the same assumptions, the total annual billing would be at least $2.4 million at the list price or $532K at the Blue Cross price. I know that nurses are paid well but again this is ridiculous.
Getting back to the benefit of knowing what is in your policy, as I explained above, per my policy I was only responsible for the allowed charges (not the list price) and Blue Cross waived the deductible for this procedure so I was surprised that I received a $250 bill for the Outpatient Surgery Center where the procedure was performed and another bill for $200 for the doctor who performed the procedure. After a number of questions, it turned out that the doctor coded the Blue Cross claim incorrectly, he corrected the claim and Blue Cross paid him the additional amount that he had billed me for. The 1st Blue Cross claims representative said that the Outpatient Surgery Center charges were not part of the Colonoscopy and that I was responsible for the $250 co-pay. I called back again, spoke to another rep who agreed with me and setup the paperwork to refund the $250 co-pay that I had already paid. If I hadn't read my policy I would have paid $450 more so reading the policy was time well spent.
Since I have a private policy, i.e. not a group policy, I have a fairly high calendar year deductible. However, I was aware that my policy pays 100% of the allowed charges for a screening colonocsopy every 10 years which is to say that Blue Cross waives the calendar year deductible and should pay everything. The allowed charge is the price that Blue Cross negotiates as payment in full with a service provider.
When I received my benefit statement, I noticed that there were two charges for anesthesia - one with a list price of $602 and an allowed charge of $133 and the the second with a list price of $595 and an allowed charge of $133. Thinking this was a billing error and a duplicate charge, I called the doctor's office who explained that the $602 charge was for an anesthesiologist who prescribed the anesthesia and was available in case there was a problem, the second charge was for the anesthesia nurse who actually administered the anesthesia and monitored my vitals and that I was only charged for the actual time that they spent with me which was 22 minutes. First, I spent about 3 minutes with the anesthesiologist who asked my weight, whether I had any allergies and then presumably wrote the prescription for the anesthesia. Based on the number of procedure rooms, I would estimate that this anesthesiologist supervises 6 anesthesia nurses. One of my 1st thoughts was how could the anesthesiologist accept such a significant discount for Blue Cross patients? But then I did the numbers. Assuming that the anesthesiologist works 50 weeks per year, 8 hours per day, supervises 6 anesthesia nurses who each perform 2 colonoscopies per hour, then the total annual billing for her services at $602 per procedure would be $14.4 million! Even at the lower negotiated rate of $133 per procedure, the total annual billing would be $3.2 million. Note that there was also a facility charge at $1,295 and the doctor who performed the procedure billed separately. $14.4 million per year in charges for 1 doctor's time is outrageous. For the anesthesia nurse, using the same assumptions, the total annual billing would be at least $2.4 million at the list price or $532K at the Blue Cross price. I know that nurses are paid well but again this is ridiculous.
Getting back to the benefit of knowing what is in your policy, as I explained above, per my policy I was only responsible for the allowed charges (not the list price) and Blue Cross waived the deductible for this procedure so I was surprised that I received a $250 bill for the Outpatient Surgery Center where the procedure was performed and another bill for $200 for the doctor who performed the procedure. After a number of questions, it turned out that the doctor coded the Blue Cross claim incorrectly, he corrected the claim and Blue Cross paid him the additional amount that he had billed me for. The 1st Blue Cross claims representative said that the Outpatient Surgery Center charges were not part of the Colonoscopy and that I was responsible for the $250 co-pay. I called back again, spoke to another rep who agreed with me and setup the paperwork to refund the $250 co-pay that I had already paid. If I hadn't read my policy I would have paid $450 more so reading the policy was time well spent.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Larry Kudlow - Soap Box Jockey
Although there many TV commentators that I disagree with, Larry Kudlow is one of the few that cause me to change the channel when I encounter him. I don’t know why he even bothers having guest specialists and commentators on his CNBC show that disagree with him because he usually treats the show as his personal soap box, interrupts constantly, talks over everyone else, and is generally rude and trite. Rather than educated economic analysis, he is prone to trite summary judgments and is constantly applying juvenile labels such as “bubble head” or “Bailout nation” and is constantly shouting warnings that the US is headed towards socialism. He has never encountered a tax or government regulation that he supported and constantly cites unbridled capitalism as the cure for every economic situation. Larry "buy more stock" Kudlow doesn't seem to realize that Capitalism is a system in which capital is only one of the input factors and requires other inputs such as an educated labor force, an efficient infrastructure, etc. to work well. He responds viscerally to any suggestion that the stock market is overbought or that investors should stop buying stocks calling anyone with a message of caution a 'doom monger".
His economic analysis, when he even bothers to refer to some economic principle, is almost always wrong. He doesn't seem to recognize that the economic landscape has changed over the last 200 years from an economy based on agriculture and trade primarily in commodities and low value added manufactured goods. In 2007, he belittled anyone who suggested that we were heading towards a recession and up to mid 2008 denied that the US was in a recession. In June 2002, he actively argued for the US to invade Iraq in order to help the stock market arguing that “a lack of decisive follow-through in the global war on terrorism is the single biggest problem facing the stock market”. There are a number of justifications for putting the life of soldiers on the line but keeping the DOW index high is not one of them. He has without exception supported every Bush era economic policy without reservation. Mr. Kudlow’s economic philosophy is essentially classical economics which has consistently proven to be too limited of a theory to be of any value to planning economic policy. One of his favorite economists is Friedrich von Hayek who he cites often to support his contention that current government policy will lead the US to socialism. Mr. Kudlow is a conservative while Hayek, using contemporary terminology, is a libertarian and would have argued equally strongly against Mr. Kudlow’s economic prescriptions as he would against current Democratic policies. Ironically, Hayek says that regulation by the state is required in areas where the payment of a price is inefficient such as with most roads or where the cost of harmful effects of competition can not be confined to the owner such as air pollution. Kudlow would use Hayek to argue against Cap and Trade legislation while Mr. Kudlow’s hero Hayek would have said that such legislation was indeed the responsibility of the state.
I really don’t understand how Mr. Kudlow has been able to acquire such high level positions including the head economist for Bear Stearns (from which he was fired for substance abuse) and numerous high level government positions with only a BA in Economics. If you want unbiased business and economic analysis based on sound economic reasoning then I would suggest that you look elsewhere.
His economic analysis, when he even bothers to refer to some economic principle, is almost always wrong. He doesn't seem to recognize that the economic landscape has changed over the last 200 years from an economy based on agriculture and trade primarily in commodities and low value added manufactured goods. In 2007, he belittled anyone who suggested that we were heading towards a recession and up to mid 2008 denied that the US was in a recession. In June 2002, he actively argued for the US to invade Iraq in order to help the stock market arguing that “a lack of decisive follow-through in the global war on terrorism is the single biggest problem facing the stock market”. There are a number of justifications for putting the life of soldiers on the line but keeping the DOW index high is not one of them. He has without exception supported every Bush era economic policy without reservation. Mr. Kudlow’s economic philosophy is essentially classical economics which has consistently proven to be too limited of a theory to be of any value to planning economic policy. One of his favorite economists is Friedrich von Hayek who he cites often to support his contention that current government policy will lead the US to socialism. Mr. Kudlow is a conservative while Hayek, using contemporary terminology, is a libertarian and would have argued equally strongly against Mr. Kudlow’s economic prescriptions as he would against current Democratic policies. Ironically, Hayek says that regulation by the state is required in areas where the payment of a price is inefficient such as with most roads or where the cost of harmful effects of competition can not be confined to the owner such as air pollution. Kudlow would use Hayek to argue against Cap and Trade legislation while Mr. Kudlow’s hero Hayek would have said that such legislation was indeed the responsibility of the state.
I really don’t understand how Mr. Kudlow has been able to acquire such high level positions including the head economist for Bear Stearns (from which he was fired for substance abuse) and numerous high level government positions with only a BA in Economics. If you want unbiased business and economic analysis based on sound economic reasoning then I would suggest that you look elsewhere.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Health Care Reform - Myths and Disguises
It is difficult enough to evaluate such a complex issue as health care reform without the misinformation that is beginning to flood the media. Following are some of the most significant claims, myths and intentional misdirection that I have recently noticed.
- A number of US Senators and Representatives have been stating that if a public option is part of the health care reform, “About 88.1 million workers would see their current private, employer-sponsored health plan go away and would be shifted to the public plan”. They attribute this conclusion to a report from the Lewin Group which is characterized as a research firm. What they don't tell you is that the Lewin Group is owned by a company named Informix which is a wholly owned subsidiary of the United Health Group. United Health is a major health care insurer in the US with about 27 million policy holders which might be negatively impacted by a public option. I doubt that United Health can be relied upon for an unbiased opinion.
- You may have seen the TV commercial or web site from a group called Americans Against Food Taxes which claims to be a coalition of concerned citizens. The commercial and web site argue against imposing a tax on soda and juice drinks which has been discussed as one way to fund health care reform.The web site and commercials have been developed by Goddard Claussen which is a public relations firm that advocates for anyone who pays them. This ad campaign is being financed by the American Beverage Association rather than a coalition of concerned citizens. The group claims that “taxes never made anyone healthy”. Oh really? Wasn’t this the argument that was made to justify additional taxes on tobacco, i.e., that higher cigarette prices would cause people to stop smoking thereby making them healthier? Another argument made to justify higher tobacco taxes was that the taxes would help fund the additional health care costs attributable to smoking related diseases. Soda, fruit drinks, candy and similar foods have contributed significantly to the explosion in rates of obesity, type 2 diabetes, heart disease, etc. that are chronic life long diseases which cost significantly more in terms of health care than smoking related diseases which typically develop in old age.
- The claim has been made that a public option will pay medical providers the same low rates as Medicare does which will put them out of business. Yes, Medicare typically but not always does reimburse at a lower rate than private insurers. However, when you consider that Medicare is designed to only reimburse 80% with the remaining 20% coming from the patient’s secondary insurance or patient’s pocket, Medicare patients in total frequently reimburse more than private insurance.
- The claim has been made that if a public payer option is included in health care reform that administrators in Washington will determine what medical services you can get and limit your options. However, with a private insurer, an administrator with the carrier will determine what care you can get and private insurers who are motivated by profit margins are more restrictive than Medicare. Dr. David Scheiner, a Chicago-based doctor who was Obama’s primary care doctor before he became president, said that Medicare is not restrictive enough and permits almost anything while he constantly battles with private insurers to authorize medically necessary treatments.
Cash for Clunkers Program Benefits
Although most commentators have commended the Cash for Clunkers program, there have been a few notable exceptions such as John McCain who is threatening to filibuster the extension of the program in the US Senate. The acclaim for the program has been in general terms and, since I haven't seen the program benefits quantified, below is my estimate of what the program actually will deliver. You can download the spread sheet used to calculate the benefits and modify the assumptions if you like. The benefits below are based on the initial program funding of $1 billion and you should triple the benefits if the $2b extension is passed by the US Congress.
SUMMARY OF BENEFITS (Remember to triple #'s if program extension passes)
DETAILED BENEFIT ESTIMATES FROM PROGRAM
$250,000,000 Additional sales tax to states & counties
3,567,447 BBLS of oil saved per year @ 19.5 gallons gas per 42 gallon barrel. Remainder of 42 gallons other products and/or lost in process.
1,656,315 BBLS of oil saved per year @ 42 gallons gas per 42 gallon barrel. Actual conversion factor is 19.5 gallons per 42 gallon barrel.
$231,884,058 Annual reduction in payments for oil to foreign countries @ 19.5 gallons of gas per 42 gallon barrel.
$107,660,455 Annual reduction in payments for oil to foreign countries @ 42 gallons of gas per 42 gallon barrel.
$16 Billion Annual increase in GDP
341,450 Number of jobs created or saved as a result of program
$3,680,000,000 Annual increase in IRS income tax receipts
ASSUMPTIONS/VALUES USED TO DERIVE BENEFIT ESTIMATE
250,000 # of new cars purchased in initial Cash for Clunkers program.
8 Avg MPG improvement
15 Avg MPG of clunker
23 Avg MPG of new car
5.00% Avg sales tax rate
$20,000 Avg cost of new car purchased
12,000 Avg miles driven per year from Federal EPA estimates
4 Money Velocity
23.00% Avg Federal Marginal Tax rate from the National Bureau of Economic Research
80.00% Domestic content of new vehicles
$65 Cost of barrel of oil
$46,859 2008 US GDP per capita from IMF
- Sales tax receipts by state and local governments will not result in increased expenditures.
- All consumption resulting from new car purchases will be spent on domestically produced goods and services.
- All consumption resulting from new car purchases will be spent rather than saved.
SUMMARY OF BENEFITS (Remember to triple #'s if program extension passes)
- Since the US consumes 20 million barrels of oil per DAY, a savings of 1.6 to 3.6 million barrels of oil per YEAR will not significantly reduce dependence on foreign energy imports.
- The program will generate a one time benefit of about $250 million in increased tax revenues to financially strapped state and local governments.
- The program will save or add 341,000 jobs.
- The program will result in additional federal income tax receipts of $3.7 billion per year.
- The program will add 0.11% to US GDP.
DETAILED BENEFIT ESTIMATES FROM PROGRAM
$250,000,000 Additional sales tax to states & counties
3,567,447 BBLS of oil saved per year @ 19.5 gallons gas per 42 gallon barrel. Remainder of 42 gallons other products and/or lost in process.
1,656,315 BBLS of oil saved per year @ 42 gallons gas per 42 gallon barrel. Actual conversion factor is 19.5 gallons per 42 gallon barrel.
$231,884,058 Annual reduction in payments for oil to foreign countries @ 19.5 gallons of gas per 42 gallon barrel.
$107,660,455 Annual reduction in payments for oil to foreign countries @ 42 gallons of gas per 42 gallon barrel.
$16 Billion Annual increase in GDP
341,450 Number of jobs created or saved as a result of program
$3,680,000,000 Annual increase in IRS income tax receipts
ASSUMPTIONS/VALUES USED TO DERIVE BENEFIT ESTIMATE
250,000 # of new cars purchased in initial Cash for Clunkers program.
8 Avg MPG improvement
15 Avg MPG of clunker
23 Avg MPG of new car
5.00% Avg sales tax rate
$20,000 Avg cost of new car purchased
12,000 Avg miles driven per year from Federal EPA estimates
4 Money Velocity
23.00% Avg Federal Marginal Tax rate from the National Bureau of Economic Research
80.00% Domestic content of new vehicles
$65 Cost of barrel of oil
$46,859 2008 US GDP per capita from IMF
- Sales tax receipts by state and local governments will not result in increased expenditures.
- All consumption resulting from new car purchases will be spent on domestically produced goods and services.
- All consumption resulting from new car purchases will be spent rather than saved.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
A Personal Note
With this post, I am going to take a brief respite from the political commentary and post a recollection of a personal note.
Back in the early 1980's, I worked at the Cummins Engine Company in Indiana in various IT positions eventually advancing to the position of a CIM (Computer Integrated Manufacturing) specialist. CIM was the organization of computers, machine tools, robots, automated inspection stations, etc. to produce a product in a way that promised huge leaps in productivity and quality. CIM was intended to eventually lead to the near fully automated factory which, at the time, was frequently referred to as the "lights our factory". Most of the technology used by CIM was available off the shelf and the challenge was to integrate the technology so as to enable automated manufacturing. At that time, CIM was new and CIM specialists needed to be proficient with all major IT technologies as well as know manufacturing methods. I might install and configure a database such as Oracle one day, install an operating system on VAX computer another day or write some custom software another day. Consequently, we CIM specialists were very rare. I used to say frequently that I loved my job and would not want any job where I couldn't make a ton of metal dance with the press of an ENTER key.
In around 1985, I was the CIM specialist working on a project to implement an automated machining cell (computers, machine tools, robots, etc.) to produce replacement water pumps for diesel engines. Diesel engines can be rebuilt and consequently last for maybe 20 years. Consequently, with the different engine series and engineering changes to each engine series over the years, there were hundreds of water pumps that might be ordered. Long story short, the project was a huge success and, at the time, was ranked as being in the top 100 factory automation installations in the world. I was invited to speak at major trade conferences and participated in a project with Purdue University to assist the university in designing courses for manufacturing technology.
In 2000 while driving to Florida, I stopped in Indiana to see a friend with whom I had worked on the water pump manufacturing automation project. He explained to me that Cummins had decided to outsource as much manufacturing as possible to reduce costs and the water pump cell had been sold to a former manufacturing engineer at Cummins who was producing the replacement water pumps required by Cummins on a contract basis. My friend asked if I would like to see the equipment that I had worked on so we went to see it. As it happens, the manufacturing engineer who purchased the equipment had a side line business as a pig farmer. In the middle of his pig farm, he had erected a large metal building in which he had installed the machine tools shorn of all the computers and robots. What had been one of the most advanced manufacturing installations in the world was now sitting in a building next to piles of pig manure.
I suppose that there are several lessons in this story. Be proud of what you do and not what you have comes to mind as being at the top of the list. With some changes to the software perhaps I could have made pigs dance.
Back in the early 1980's, I worked at the Cummins Engine Company in Indiana in various IT positions eventually advancing to the position of a CIM (Computer Integrated Manufacturing) specialist. CIM was the organization of computers, machine tools, robots, automated inspection stations, etc. to produce a product in a way that promised huge leaps in productivity and quality. CIM was intended to eventually lead to the near fully automated factory which, at the time, was frequently referred to as the "lights our factory". Most of the technology used by CIM was available off the shelf and the challenge was to integrate the technology so as to enable automated manufacturing. At that time, CIM was new and CIM specialists needed to be proficient with all major IT technologies as well as know manufacturing methods. I might install and configure a database such as Oracle one day, install an operating system on VAX computer another day or write some custom software another day. Consequently, we CIM specialists were very rare. I used to say frequently that I loved my job and would not want any job where I couldn't make a ton of metal dance with the press of an ENTER key.
In around 1985, I was the CIM specialist working on a project to implement an automated machining cell (computers, machine tools, robots, etc.) to produce replacement water pumps for diesel engines. Diesel engines can be rebuilt and consequently last for maybe 20 years. Consequently, with the different engine series and engineering changes to each engine series over the years, there were hundreds of water pumps that might be ordered. Long story short, the project was a huge success and, at the time, was ranked as being in the top 100 factory automation installations in the world. I was invited to speak at major trade conferences and participated in a project with Purdue University to assist the university in designing courses for manufacturing technology.
In 2000 while driving to Florida, I stopped in Indiana to see a friend with whom I had worked on the water pump manufacturing automation project. He explained to me that Cummins had decided to outsource as much manufacturing as possible to reduce costs and the water pump cell had been sold to a former manufacturing engineer at Cummins who was producing the replacement water pumps required by Cummins on a contract basis. My friend asked if I would like to see the equipment that I had worked on so we went to see it. As it happens, the manufacturing engineer who purchased the equipment had a side line business as a pig farmer. In the middle of his pig farm, he had erected a large metal building in which he had installed the machine tools shorn of all the computers and robots. What had been one of the most advanced manufacturing installations in the world was now sitting in a building next to piles of pig manure.
I suppose that there are several lessons in this story. Be proud of what you do and not what you have comes to mind as being at the top of the list. With some changes to the software perhaps I could have made pigs dance.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Selection of a Supreme Court Justice and Sotomayor
Regarding nominee Sotomayor's comment that she would bring empathy to the Supreme Court, empathy is subjective and objectivity, not subjectivity, is what is required in a judge. A Supreme Court justice is human and will have personal subjective views like anyone else but this empathy or subjectivity should be left at the door. This is no more than is expected of each of us when we serve on a jury.
As far as the selection of a Supreme Court Judge, nominees are confirmed by the US Senate by a simple majority vote. Since Supreme Court Justices are confirmed for life, I think that there is an argument to be made that the confirmation should require a super majority vote rather than a simple majority vote. Judges confirmed by a super majority would tend to be more middle of the road and the confirmation proceedings would be less divisive.
It is unfortunate that the confirmation proceedings are more about Senators appealing to their constituents and grand standing rather than a real job interview. It would be helpful to know how a judge goes about interpreting the Constitution and the law. For instance, using part of the 2nd Amendment as an example which reads "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" how would the nominee determine the definition of the word arms. Would it be appropriate to use available reference material written by the people who wrote the Bill of Rights such as the FEDERALIST PAPERS to reach a definition of the word arms? Assuming that the word arms was defined as any weapon that could be carried in a persons arms such as a rifle, would the word arms only include flint lock rifles such as existed at the time the 2nd Amendment was written or is it appropriate for a judge to 'update' the definition to include modern weapons that can be carried in the arms such as an assault rifle? How are limitations to rights justified and determined? For instance, using the above example, what is the constitutional justification for excluding the right to minors and convicted felons?
Also, how would a judge weigh competing constitutional rights? Take the rights of Freedom of Speech and Right to Privacy in the context of telephone marketing which are competing constitutional rights. How does a judge make a determination which by necessity limits the constitutional rights of one of the parties?
I'd rather know more about how a nominee goes about making a legal decision rather than hearing campaign speeches from the Senate.
As far as the selection of a Supreme Court Judge, nominees are confirmed by the US Senate by a simple majority vote. Since Supreme Court Justices are confirmed for life, I think that there is an argument to be made that the confirmation should require a super majority vote rather than a simple majority vote. Judges confirmed by a super majority would tend to be more middle of the road and the confirmation proceedings would be less divisive.
It is unfortunate that the confirmation proceedings are more about Senators appealing to their constituents and grand standing rather than a real job interview. It would be helpful to know how a judge goes about interpreting the Constitution and the law. For instance, using part of the 2nd Amendment as an example which reads "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" how would the nominee determine the definition of the word arms. Would it be appropriate to use available reference material written by the people who wrote the Bill of Rights such as the FEDERALIST PAPERS to reach a definition of the word arms? Assuming that the word arms was defined as any weapon that could be carried in a persons arms such as a rifle, would the word arms only include flint lock rifles such as existed at the time the 2nd Amendment was written or is it appropriate for a judge to 'update' the definition to include modern weapons that can be carried in the arms such as an assault rifle? How are limitations to rights justified and determined? For instance, using the above example, what is the constitutional justification for excluding the right to minors and convicted felons?
Also, how would a judge weigh competing constitutional rights? Take the rights of Freedom of Speech and Right to Privacy in the context of telephone marketing which are competing constitutional rights. How does a judge make a determination which by necessity limits the constitutional rights of one of the parties?
I'd rather know more about how a nominee goes about making a legal decision rather than hearing campaign speeches from the Senate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
