Under another thread somewhere someone asked “shouldn’t we be focusing on why the decision violates our constitutionally limited system of government”.
My response is a resounding NO.
I’ve been on this site for quite a while now and it seems a great many of us to varying degrees understand the why of the situation pretty well. I love history and political theory but there is a time to put learning to use.
Concerning this ruling I will be watching for and focusing on what we’re going to do when the SCOTUS rules Obamacare constitutional or more accurately declines to rule it unconstitutional. Some of the dissent included in the current ruling hints at the outcome.
“The wisdom and the discretion of Congress, their identity with the people, and the influence which their constituents possess at elections are, in this, as in many other instances… [are] the sole restraints on which they have relied, to secure them from its [the commerce clause] abuse. They are the restraints on which the people must often they solely, in all representative governments.”
“Today’s debate about the individual mandate is… no less essential to the appropriate role of the National Government and no less capable of political resolution. Time assuredly will bring to light the policy strengths and weaknesses of using the individual mandate as part of this national legislation, allowing the peoples’ political representatives, rather than their judges, to have the primary say over its utility.”
Again I say, we should be planning what we will do when the court refuses to do the “hard work” this case calls for and throws the ball back to into our court, the election process.
“To the fatalistic view that Congress will always prevail and courts should step back and let the people, if offended, speak through their political representatives, I say that “courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority.”
“[W]here the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former.”
“This is the “hard work” Justice O’Connor referred to in her dissent in Raich. It is hard work in part because it can place a federal court in the position of choosing between powerful competing political ideologies with the risk that the court’s judgment may be branded as political.” We must not lose sight of the fact however that the Constitution we interpret and apply itself embodies a resolution of powerful competing political ideologies, including the extent of the power of the federal government”
My bet is the SCOTUS will “lose sight” just as the so called judges rendering this decision have. Of all the “issues” we will fight and perhaps lose, we simply cannot IMO afford to lose this fight. I imagine the progressive vultures are just quietly circling overhead. Patiently waiting for us to finally quit staggering toward our final resting place, anticipating their next great feast.