Chief Justice Roberts Exposed The Four Liberal Justices As Unelected Partisans

When Ends Justify The Means

If there is anything favorable to be found in the Obamacare decision by Chief Justice Roberts, then it is his sole achievement to expose the so called liberal Justices on the court to be mediocre judges ready to accept any bogus and contorted reasoning to further their ideological pursuits.

Four Liberal Justices Disagreed With And Mocked Chief Justice Roberts

In what is captioned “Opinion of GINSBURG, J.”, the four liberal Justices of the court formulated a 60 page long dissent to the Chief Justice Robert’s opinion. Thus 60 out of a total of 193 pages are mischaracterized as an opinion what in fact is a serious dissent.

Justice Ginsburg joined by Justices Kagan, Breyer, and Sotomayor dispute that the Commerce Clause does not apply to the individual mandate saying in their dissent that (Emphasis added):

·         “According to THE CHIEF JUSTICE, the Commerce Clause does not permit that preservation. This rigid reading of the Clause makes scant sense and is stunningly retrogressive.”

·         “THE CHIEF JUSTICE’s crabbed reading of the Commerce Clause harks back to the era in which the Court routinely thwarted Congress’ efforts to regulate the national economy in the interest of those who labor to sustain it.”

·         “Straightforward application of these principles would require the Court to hold that the minimum coverage provision is proper Commerce Clause legislation.”

·         “THE CHIEF JUSTICE relies on a newly minted constitutional doctrine.”

What the heck do these four liberal Justices mean by “... to regulate the national economy in the interest of those who labor to sustain it.”? What kind of ideological narrow-mindedness is behind this reasoning? This kind of prejudiced reasoning is totally unfit for a Justice of the US Supreme Court. Period!

The Liberal Dissent Is Heavily Based On New Deal

It is stunning to read the four liberal Justices’ dissent opinion, because it relies on numerous New Deal decisions of the US Supreme Court to support their argument. Their frame of reference appears to be Social Security as a model for health care in the US or in their own words (Emphasis added):

“Aware that a national solution was required, Congress could have taken over the health-insurance market by establishing a tax-and-spend federal program like Social Security. Such a program, commonly referred to as a single-payer system (where the sole payer is the Federal Government), would have left little, if any, room for private enterprise or the States. Instead of going this route, Congress enacted the ACA, a solution that retains a robust role for private insurers and state governments.”

These liberal Justices also included a lengthy discussion of socio-economic factors like the uninsured, cost shifting, free riders, the costs to individual states which introduced universal care due to out of state uninsured patients etc. supposedly supporting the Affordable Care Act’s intentions.

Reaffirmed Rational Basis Doctrine

The four liberal Justices were not remiss to point once more the bogus “rational basis” doctrine as they wrote (Emphasis added):

“When appraising such legislation, we ask only (1) whether Congress had a “rational basis” for concluding that the regulated activity substantially affects interstate commerce, and (2) whether there is a “reasonable connection between the regulatory means selected and the asserted ends”.

I don’t think the US Constitution directly or indirectly contains such an elastic doctrine, which Justices can apply freely and arbitrarily. This so called “rational basis” is rather a whimsical basis. It is antithetical to liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Therefore, it is no surprise that these liberal Justices adopt such fanciful conclusions like (Emphasis added):

·         “… The minimum coverage provision, furthermore, bears a “reasonable connection” to Congress’ goal of protecting the health-care market from the disruption caused by individuals who fail to obtain insurance. …”

·         “… Moreover, an insurance-purchase requirement limited to those in need of immediate care simply could not work. Insurance companies would either charge these individuals prohibitively expensive premiums, or, if community rating regulations were in place, close up shop. …”

·         ”… Everyone will, at some point, consume health-care products and services. …

·         ”… This criticism ignores the reality that a healthy young person may be a day away from needing health care. …”

·         ”… Rather, Congress is merely defining the terms on which individuals pay for an interstate good they consume: Persons subject to the mandate must now pay for medical care in advance (instead of at the point of service) and through insurance (instead of out of pocket) …”

Clearly, political preferences and prejudices have overtaken sound and legitimate judgment based on the US Constitution. These four liberal Justices should be commended for the Nobel Prize in Economics. What is wrong with individuals paying for medical services out of pocket at the point of service? Where in the US Constitution does it say how you pay for what you consume?

Liberal Justices Acted Like Politicians

I am afraid, the dissent written by four liberal Justices leaves no other conclusion, but that these Justices used their position of power to act like politicians in gross violation of their oath of office to uphold the Constitution of the United States. The Statue of Liberty is inconsolably weeping.