The Supreme Court is the supreme decider on matters of constitutional legality.
When justices come to ideological conclusions after careful deliberation, that is what they are expected to do. But when they reach conclusion on political basis, the Supreme Court decisions no longer reflect the wisdom but merely the prerogatives of the court.
How does the "commerce clause" of the Constitution would impact the mandate within the Obamacare legislation? The various interpretations by former Supreme Court justices and legal experts who have offered opinions ever since the Constitution was ratified seem to preclude any certainty about what is permitted by the "commerce clause" other than it can mean whatever some "expert" in Constitutional law perceives it to mean, or what opponents of some legislation affirmed to be constitutional contend it does not mean. Justice Roberts, realizing that there is no legal consensus nor any substantial precedence about what can or cannot be regulated by the "commerce clause," resolved the dilemma by calling the mandate a tax, which Congress can regulate.
Justice Roberts also was right in pointing out that the job of the Supreme court was not to determine whether the Affordable Care Act was good policy--or even the moral thing to do--but to determine whether the legislation was legal based on the Constitution. He substituted the word "tax" for "penalty" in order to remove any controversy about "commerce clause" implications. By fixing the legislation rather than voting against it suggest that Roberts believed Obamacare was both good policy and good for the American people.
Conservatives are falsely claiming that Obamacare taxes will be the largest amount in history. But William Shakespeare, speaking through Juliet, asks and answers the question: "What's in a name? that which we call a rose by any other name would smell the same." A penalty by any other name is still a penalty. Calling the penalty a tax does not change what it is, which is defined by its purpose. And the purpose is not to raise revenues. Furthermore, if everybody who can afford insurance buys it, "penalaxes" will be zero.
You'll remember, Republicans objected to Obamacare as part of their strategy to make President Obama a "one-term president." Making him look like a person who doesn't know what he is doing is part of the plan. It didn't matter that his ideas were good for the American people--even rich people and those aspiring to become rich. Most conservatives just want to believe that Barack Obama is the wrong person.
Republicans challenged Obamacare, at first, because of claims that their ideas were excluded. Consequently, individual Republicans were afraid to acknowledge their contributions to Obamacare. They refused to acknowledge secret compromises they offered in the formation of this still imperfect product. They refused to acknowledge that the "mandate" was a Republican idea, that Mitt Romney implemented it as governor of Massachusetts. Even Romney won't take credit for instituting the successful health-care program. Republicans also refused to accept the President's invitation to present malpractice options, choosing, instead, to criticize Obamacare later for not addressing their malpractice concerns.
So they decided to challenge the constitutionality of Obamacare. Presumably it was not only bad policy, it is illegal legislation. Chief Justice Roberts and the Supreme Court majority conceded that bad policy would not make it is not unconstitutional. Now Republicans are back to their bad legislation argument. But a health-care plan was not bad legislation in Massachusetts when Republican governor Romney presented it and and a bipartisan legislature passed it.
Despite objections by most Republicans, the Affordable Card Act that passed Congress was a legislative compromise that disappointed both liberals and conservatives. Conservative claimed it was a bad plan, but they never submitted their own workable plan. And if they couldn't come up with a plan during the time when health care was being debated, how can they come up with one now. The fact is they didn't want a plan, certainly not before the November elections.
Would there be a health-care plan developed under a Mitt Romney presidency. It's possible. The problem is not that Obama has been a poor president with a lot of bad ideas. He has been a good president. And if Mitt Romney is elected president, he likely would attempt many of the things Obama is being criticized for either having done or wanting to do.
But that was more likely before the Supreme Court made its decision. The question still remains: Will most Americans trust effective health-care legislation, job creation, a quality education focus and chances for a robust economic recovery to the leadership of President Obama or a President Romney? I have often referred to the words of former New York governor, Mario Cuomo, who when asked, after the 1988 election of George H. W. Bush, if he would seek the presidency in1992, responded, "I'm not sure. I'll be pulling for President Bush to succeed." This was Cuomo, hoping that the American people has made the right choice. But Republicans don't want Obama for America even if he is the better choice.
But Republicans are a poor choice for other reasons including their constant disparagement of Europe with words like not wanting "European-style health care" and "European-style Socialism" (and almost anything European). These suggest that a Republican-led government would be increasingly anti-European, even if it means bringing the European economy down and the U.S. economy down with it. They're now even trying to make one of their own champions, Chief Justice Roberts, down by trying to make him look like a flip-flopper.
I have seen deranged individuals before but never a deranged political party.
Republicans are saying that the Supreme Court decision was a blessing in disguise. Why, then, didn't they realize that before legally challenging Obamacare. The logic of the Republican position suggests that, contrary to the impression they gave, they really were pulling for the Supreme Court to rule against them. They are saying effectively that Roberts has given them reason to do what they have said they would do anyway. "Repeal and replace"? When have Washington Republicans ever attempted to pass health-care legislation to cover all Americans? They wouldn't this time, either.
They are becoming confused by their own nonsense, and are hoping confusion helps them with the American voters in November.
No comments:
Post a Comment