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.
