Favorite

Politics then and now: The court's grand gulf 

Do you have the patience for another postscript on the weird but momentous U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, or "Obamacare"?

The big question, left unanswered by all the court's opinions in the case and the millions of words of commentary, is the extent to which politics, not the law, determined how five of the nine justices came down on the healthcare law.

It turns out that the people of Arkansas are in a better position to answer that question than anyone in America. More about that in a minute.

First, as everyone knows, Chief Justice John Roberts shocked the Republican Party and his Republican colleagues on the court by straying from the fold on one of the three big issues in the case, which resulted in the court upholding the law by a vote of 5 to 4. As expected, Roberts had joined the four other conservatives in holding that the Constitution's commerce clause did not allow the federal government to regulate health insurance by requiring the uninsured to buy insurance if they could afford it. But then, to the others' dismay, Roberts said the law was constitutional on a separate ground — that the mandate for people to pay a small tax if they refused to insure themselves was a permissible thing for Congress to do — so the mandate was constitutional after all.

Since then, the conjecture has been that George W. Bush's chief justice switched on the weird little tax question because he was concerned about the image of his court — that it decided things based on which political party favored them and not upon an impartial reading of the law. Surveys show that most people already believed it — the evidence, after all, was overwhelming — but that most people were OK with a political decision if they liked the result. And more people were hoping Obamacare would be thrown out than hoped it would be upheld.

Now, to the question of whether this was, indeed, a political decision: All you really need to do is ask whether the five Republican justices would have held that the commerce clause forbade the insurance mandate if Congress had passed essentially the same law when Presidents Nixon and Ford proposed it in the 1970s or when, in the 1990s, the Republican leadership of Congress proposed it. To ask the question is to answer it.

But we in Arkansas have a definitive answer to the question without resorting to speculation. In a quite similar case, with far-reaching consequences for people and business in Arkansas, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld even more drastic federal power over what people were compelled to buy under the commerce clause. The justices who led the way: Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy, the only current justices who were on the court back in 1987 when the case was decided. Scalia wrote the stinging opinion for the court last month attacking Obamacare and claiming that the commerce clause prohibited such use of federal power. Regulating "inactivity" by consumers was going too far for the federal government, Scalia, Kennedy, Roberts, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas said.

Unheard of, they said.

I'm sorry. We're going to have to talk again about Grand Gulf, the big electricity dispute that baffled the people of Arkansas for 30 years and cost them at last count $4.5 billion — $6,500 on average for each homeowner and business in Arkansas.

The Supreme Court — Scalia, Kennedy, Chief Justice William Rehnquist (Justice Roberts' old boss and mentor) and others — ruled in 1987 that the Federal Energy Regulation Commission (FERC) was perfectly within its power under the commerce clause to make utilities in Arkansas and Mississippi and their customers pay for power they did not need and could not use so that utility investors could reap a profit on their investment. FERC — this was Ronald Reagan's agency and not Obama's — sided with Middle South Utilities, which wanted to make people in Arkansas, Mississippi and Louisiana pay for a giant nuclear power plant in Mississippi that the utilities built as a result of a monumental misjudgment on the need for it and its cost.

The liberals on that court, all gone now, thought the commerce clause restricted FERC's power in such matters and that states could decide on their own if the utilities were imprudent in building the plant and if people in Arkansas and Mississippi could be forced to pay for electricity they didn't need. It seemed manifestly unfair since Arkansas had built two nuclear units and giant coal-burning units at White Bluff and Newark, and Arkansas customers already were paying high rates for them.

Arkansas, you may remember, was forced to pay for more than 32 percent of the Grand Gulf capacity and to subsidize Louisiana ratepayers to boot. Arkansas hopes to extricate itself from the FERC and Supreme Court orders next year by leaving the old Middle South (now Entergy) power pool and joining another.

It is still nightmarish to read, but you can follow Scalia's and Kennedy's views on the commerce clause back then and compare them to their ideas on the same issue last month. Scalia wrote in '87 that Reagan's agency "plainly" had the power under the commerce clause to find jurisdiction for itself in congressional statutes on energy regulation.

The old liberals — Thurgood Marshall, William Brennan and Harry Blackmun — scolded Scalia. The energy statute itself restrained FERC's power without resorting to the commerce clause, they said.

Let's summarize. The conservative justices who thought it was fine under the commerce clause for the Reagan administration to require Arkansans to pay $4.5 billion to guarantee a profit for Middle South and subsidize the electric rates of people to their south claimed in 2012 that the same clause barred Congress and the Obama administration from requiring uninsured people to buy insurance or pay a small tax to help the government pay for their unreimbursed medical care.

What changed? No need to guess.

Favorite

From the ArkTimes store

Speaking of Grand Gulf

Comments

Subscribe to this thread:

Add a comment

Readers also liked…

  • Guns, God and gays

    Many more mass shootings like the one last week in Roseburg, Ore., will stain the future and no law will pass that might reduce the carnage. That is not a prediction but a fact of life that is immune even to Hillary Clinton.
    • Oct 8, 2015
  • AEC dumps ALEC

    No matter which side of the battle over global warming you're on, that was blockbuster news last week. No, not the signing of the climate-change treaty that commits all of Earth's 195 nations to lowering their greenhouse-gas emissions and slowing the heating of the planet, but American Electric Power's announcement that it would no longer underwrite efforts to block renewable energy or federal smokestack controls in the United States.
    • Dec 17, 2015
  • No tax help for Trump

    The big conundrum is supposed to be why Donald Trump does so well among white working-class people, particularly men, who do not have a college education.
    • Aug 11, 2016

Most Shared

  • Trump unfit

    Even as an oligarch, President Trump turns out to be breathtakingly incompetent. Is there any reason to suppose he's even loyal to the United States? Does he even understand the concept? Trump is loyal to Trump, and to his absurdly swollen ego. Nothing and nobody else.
  • You want tort reform? Try this.

    The nursing home industry and the chamber of commerce finally defeated the trial lawyers in the 2017 legislature. The Republican-dominated body approved a constitutional amendment for voters in 2018 that they'll depict as close to motherhood in goodness.
  • Goodbye, Mr. Trump

    It is hard to escape the feeling that the fortunes of President Trump and the country took a decisive, and for Trump a fatal, turn May 9-10, when the president fired the director of the FBI over its investigation of Russian efforts to swing the presidential election to him and the very next day shared top-secret intelligence with Russian officials in an Oval Office meeting closed except to a Kremlin press aide toting electronic gear to capture the intimate session for Russians but not Americans.
  • Raw feelings in the Arkansas Justice Building over workload, pay

    Strained relations between the Arkansas Supreme Court and the Arkansas Court of Appeals broke into public view this week. I expect more to come.

Latest in Ernest Dumas

  • Goodbye, Mr. Trump

    It is hard to escape the feeling that the fortunes of President Trump and the country took a decisive, and for Trump a fatal, turn May 9-10, when the president fired the director of the FBI over its investigation of Russian efforts to swing the presidential election to him and the very next day shared top-secret intelligence with Russian officials in an Oval Office meeting closed except to a Kremlin press aide toting electronic gear to capture the intimate session for Russians but not Americans.
    • May 18, 2017
  • McCain is right

    Who knew that the crusty old warmonger John McCain was both an earnest and eloquent defender of human rights, a cause that is in what we hope is only a momentary decline here and around the world?
    • May 11, 2017
  • Danger to health

    This is another perilous week for the 30 million Americans, including some 550,000 Arkansans, whose health and financial conditions form a nexus that torments their daily existence.
    • May 4, 2017
  • More »

Visit Arkansas

New Entrance and North Forest to debut with Chihuly exhibit opening at Crystal Bridges

New Entrance and North Forest to debut with Chihuly exhibit opening at Crystal Bridges

Dual Chihuly exhibit opening also brings culmination of year-plus forest project

Event Calendar

« »

May

S M T W T F S
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31  

Most Viewed

  • Trump unfit

    Even as an oligarch, President Trump turns out to be breathtakingly incompetent. Is there any reason to suppose he's even loyal to the United States? Does he even understand the concept? Trump is loyal to Trump, and to his absurdly swollen ego. Nothing and nobody else.

Most Recent Comments

  • Re: Trump unfit

    • And Al - of course you will not answer the above - but regarding Trump…

    • on May 22, 2017
  • Re: Trump unfit

    • Nice try, Judy, but Oaf is being more oafish than usual. We had another bolg…

    • on May 22, 2017
  • Re: Trump unfit

    • Mr. F., you sure like being nasty. Any lying. I never disputed the findings of…

    • on May 21, 2017
 

© 2017 Arkansas Times | 201 East Markham, Suite 200, Little Rock, AR 72201
Powered by Foundation