First the Supreme Court handed the 2000 presidential election to George W. Bush. Then it gave corporations the green light to buy our elections with unlimited secret political spending (Citizens United). Now the Court is considering taking away the very ability of Congress to pass laws that address issues like our nation's health care crisis.
If the Supreme Court strikes down the Affordable Care Act, or key components of it, it will be saying that it's the new boss in lawmaking and that Congress should step aside.
Striking down Obamacare would be "an unprecedented, extraordinary step," as the president said Monday. It would be a turbo-charged act of partisan judicial activism by unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats.
When it comes to the "Commerce Clause," which gives Congress the authority to enact the individual responsibility requirement (the so-called mandate), the Supreme Court just needs to follow its own precedents. The Court has consistently ruled that Congress has the ability to develop national solutions to national economic problems via its ability to regulate interstate commerce. It would be reckless to take that power away now, especially in a sector that represents one-sixth of the economy.
Chief Justice Roberts famously described himself at his confirmation hearing as an "umpire" who just calls the balls and strikes. Umpires enforce the rules of the game; they don't get to make up new rules and they don't get to tell pitchers what to throw. Overturning this law would do both.
The fact that the Court even took up the Republicans' objection to the law's Medicaid expansion signaled the potential of a judicial power grab. The Republicans' argument is ridiculous. They say that Medicaid is such a good deal for states -- with the federal government picking up nearly all the costs -- that it's "coercive." But that's exactly how the federal-state partnership has worked for 47 years. Why is it suddenly coercive? It's not because of the Constitution. It's because of politics. It's because they want to defeat Obama in November.
If the Supreme Court wants to take over the role of Congress and overturn one of the most sweeping pieces of social legislation in the country's history, they'll actually have to read it. Justice Scalia made clear that he is not so inclined.
"You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages?" asked Scalia. Well, yes, we do. Is it too much to ask someone with a lifetime appointment to read a law that is already benefiting millions of people every day?
While Justice Scalia indicated that he did not read the bill, he was familiar enough with it to express a concern that striking the individual mandate alone was "going to bankrupt the insurance companies, if not the states."
Apparently he and Justice Alito had a chat by the proverbial water cooler: "What would happen to the insurance industry, which would now be in the hole for $350 billion over 10 years?" Justice Alito asked.
Neither justice said anything about how the law is helping people, or how striking it down would be devastating to the seniors, families and small businesses already benefiting from it, let alone the 31 million people who will get coverage in 2016 if the law stays in place.
Scalia or Alito also don't seem to care much about the integrity of the Court, which the public sees as driven by politics, according to public opinion surveys. That's up to Chief Justice Roberts, who reportedly cares about his legacy.
If the court fails to uphold the law, Roberts' legacy won't just be that he led the most political court in our country's history. It will also be that he led the court that struck down a solution to our health care crisis to pander to a Republican Party that's beholden to Wall Street and the insurance industry. Surely Justice Roberts can do better than that.
Lyle Denniston: Constitution Check: Is There a Constitutional Right to "Stand Your Ground"?
Constitution requires it !
Where did you learn your Civics ?
http://goo.gl/V5KiC
Anyone who cares to check my user comments history will see that this statement is EXACTLY the argument I've been making for the past week +. It's a critical argument, and it needs to be taking seriously, and dealt with immediately.
Nine UNELECTED government officials with possible political agendas should NEVER have the authority to strike down the laws passed by the People's representatives and signed by the duly elected President.
This concept is NOT NEW. It was argued from the beginning of the formation of the Republic. It was a consensus of many of the Founders that allowing the Supreme Court to strike down laws passed by Congress was giving them too much power.
I agree. If we want to strike down a law, do it the right way - through ELECTIONS.
The Supreme Court's job is to make sure that any laws that are passed are constitutional. You obviously don't care if laws pass that bar. If we didn't have SCOTUS to check the legislative and executive branches, we would have to live with the tyranny of the majority running roughshod over the rights of the minority, which is exactly what happened with the health care law. It (the unaffordable care act) won by a slim partisan vote, unlike how Obama tries to portray it. And they (the Dems) had to use a lot of unethical arm twisting and payoffs to get the final votes needed from people like Senator Nelson, and others.
If Obama is such an intelligent, constitutional lawyer professor, why would he even try to force such a radical mandate on us? Because he's not just a liberal, he's a socialist or a communist. His actions tell me he does not respect our laws, or the Constitution.
I think trying to force people to purchase goods or services is an absolute abuse and distortion of the commerce clause.
Like everyone one else, I want a better health care system or even 50 systems in this country. What I don't want is a huge inefficient centrally beuracry, a one size fits all health care system run by an oversized, overpaid, underworked, group of central planners, who have never done a good job at managing any federal government program, be it education, energy, or whatever.
Ask yourself, who pays for the emergency room visit when the patient can't pay for it themselves? Do we know let people just die on the streets because they can't afford healthcare?
The commerce clause of the constitution explicitly gives the federal government the power: "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."
Where does all the outrage about the individual mandate come from?? Because the Dems used a Repub idea?
The big question is what does to "regulate commerce" mean?
There is plenty of scholarship to read on this question, and to be honest I have not studied it, but to me, intuitively, it means that government shall not impinge upon the free trade or commerce between individuals or between states.
I think the federal government was concerned about states placing trade barriers, like tariffs, on goods from other states, and wanted to make sure that free trade was allowed between all states.
It does not mean that government should control the market in any way. Also as noted, the 10th A. states that it's the federal government's role to oversee trade with other nations, i.e. Indian Tribes, and foreign Nations, which seems to be a reasonable responsibility for the federal government representing all states with entities outside of the United States.
'Cause they invoked the commerce clause then, too.
Did the Founders intend that the members of the Supreme Court should have the power to strike down laws passed by the Congress and signed into law by the President?
No. This was debated in 1787 at the Constitutional Convention, and they explicitly decided NOT to give that kind of power to the Supreme Court.
Because "We The People" don't keep up on our history, it may come as quite a shock to learn that something we took as "the way things work" just because "that's the way it's always been since I've been born" wasn't actually intended to "work" that way.
The SCOTUS needs to be nipped in the bud before they end up as the Kings and Queens of the U.S.A.
Federalist 78
and there are several other parts that speak of the constitutional constraint the legislature must follow. So no the congress nor the senate can pass a law that is unconstitutional and say they have the final say no matter if the law is outside the confines of the constitution. The judiciary says if a law is constitutional.
how is the government forcing you to get health insurance? You have to pay a fine if you don't? Can I get out of a draft with a fine, but it's even free if you can't afford it? Is that your standard definition of "force"...WW2 could have been won by the Axis Powers if they just paid a fine? What is this "force" you speak of?
No, it will be saying that Pelosi/Reid/Obama don't have the constitutional authority to award themselves mandating power to force We, the People, to purchase a private-sector product.
OBVIOUSLY.
The proper way to overturn any law is through ELECTIONS.