printAs freedom lovers know, the case pitting the DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES against FLORIDA, ET AL is simply one more stage on the road to socializing the means of health-care production. Americans already labor under, as one wag put it, “a seeming patchwork of indemnity insurance arrangements, managed care, private payment, and charity.”
Increasing interventionism is always accompanied by the use of brute force, the legitimacy of which the nation’s Supreme Politburo Of Proctologists (the SCOTUS) is currently debating.
Not surprisingly, “the four jurists appointed by Democratic presidents — Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan — seemed sympathetic to the government’s defense of the [ObamaCare], at times offering Solicitor General Donald Verrilli helpful answers to their colleagues’ questions,” reports the National Journal’s Margot Sanger-Katz. “Justices Samuel Alito and Antonin Scalia — who had been considered by some Court watchers to be in play — seemed to stand firmly with the challengers.”
Equally predictable: “Chief Justice John Roberts, whose questions suggested a discomfort with the health care law, … also defended the government’s argument at times.”
Both Kennedy and Roberts will probably find a way to make ObamaCare palatable by papering over arguments against it. While they “seemed particularly concerned about the question of whether upholding this law would mean that Congress’s authority to pass regulation would be virtually unbounded, [t]hey repeatedly asked Verrilli to identify a limiting principle that would allow this mandate to go forward without opening the door to requirements to purchase other products.” [NJ]
The gist of the case being argued:
The 26 states challenging the mandate say it is an unprecedented demand, one that regulates economic “inactivity” and forces people into purchasing a product they do not want. If the government can compel the purchase of health insurance, they argue, then nearly any sort of purchase mandate could also be permitted. The administration counters that there’s basically no avoiding the health care market: Everyone needs health care at some time, often with little warning or financial preparation. Health insurance is not a standalone product, but merely a means of regulating the financing of that activity, it says
[NJ]
The elaborate public works sprung from the General Welfare and Interstate Commerce Clauses are unconstitutional. However, despite the fact that there is no warrant in the Constitution for most of what the Federal Frankenstein does, the Proctologists will find a way around what is already a dead-letter document.
Listening to the oral (anal!) arguments of SCOTUS was making my head spin. Inane “technicalities” on a clearly worded document (Constitution) like arguing whether the “a” in Arbeit Macht Frei sign at Aushwitz had the right font! Or as Orwell put it: “No animal shall sleep in a bed WITH SHEETS” …. Ilana, as expected, got it right – the Constitution is a dead letter and if the SCOTUS finds some technical nit pro or anti out of 2500 pages, it will have no major impact.
The “Interstate Commerce” and “Taxing” clauses already allow the Government to place soldiers at Harvard, arrest old ladies for growing and smoking pot in their basement, force us to “contribute” to Socialist Insecurity – Medicare – Medicaid – BushyPrescriptions, regulate our toilets and light bulbs, and thousands of other violations never authorized in the 1787 document. Justice Anthony Kennedy might give the Romneycare Republicans some “victory” so they can put in their “Health Savings Accounts” or “HMO Managed Care” or “Medicaid Advantage” in place – e.g. my fascist healthcare beats your socialist health care! (Whoooopppeeee – doooo)
To stand with the concept of personal liberty and limited government is as revolutionary in 2011 (RonPaulRevolution) as it was in 1776.
[Oral, Anal Argument. LOL.]
No, I wouldn’t be surprised to see a 5-4 ruling against the Mandate. Nor would I be surprised to see Zero simply defy the court and go ahead and implement. He’s already violated the Constitution and other Fundamental Law many times, with no negative response (cut the funding, begin impeachment) from Congress. In Sodom on the Potomac, with a very few individual exceptions, they are all invested in the same Ponzi.
As far as it goes, I’m glad to hear the government position had a hard time yesterday, but I’m with y’all, the Constitution has long since ceased being the law of this land. It doesn’t take a lawyer or “Constitutional scholar” to understand that this proposed law is unconstitutional, in fact being either of those is an impediment these days! Spouting legal jargon while dressed in black robes doesn’t make Law out of lawlessness!