One question that has speculators concluding that the Supreme Court will strike down Obamacare is seemingly the Democrates inability to answer the question: If the Congress and president can implement a mandate about health care, what kind of mandates can't they implement? But that seems to be a question that the Justices would have to decide at such time that other requests for mandates are litigated before the Supreme Court.
This particular instance of having a mandate should not imply that all legislative mandates would have equal merit. Requiring all Americans to eat broccoli or exercise because each is good for the health of the nation does not rise to the same level of importance as every American's having access to affordable health care and allowing the nation to control the fastest growing component of its debt liabilities.
No one can make a creditable estimate of the effects that requiring everyone to eat broccoli or exercise would have on the national debt. What cost would be incurred in trying to assure that every American ate broccoli and excise, while necessarily determining when and how often as they should? How would these activities be monitored? So the answer to conservative request for other mandates that the Congress and President would not be able to implement with constitutional justification should have been: mandates such as requiring Americans to exercise or eat broccoli.
The fact that the Solicitor General often appeared not to have adequate answers to the justices questions did not mean that the justices did not have their own individual answers to their own questions--and questions of other Justices. They presumably will not make decisions based either on the Solicitor Generals answers or on their own constitutional interpretations. The Solicitor General's role, therefore, is to persuade the justices who may have already formed opinions that their thinking on the matter is somehow flawed, or that their opinions are not the only reasonable interpretation of the Constitution's position on an issue--in this case, of the health-care individual mandate.
All Supreme Court Justices have been trained in the law, including Constitutional law. They are not like a jury which a prosecutor and defense attorney are attempting to persuade with evidence and interpretations of evidence to which juries have not been exposed. A jury also presumably has not made up its mind about a case for the very reason that they have not heard and studied the evidence in the context of opposing arguments.
The Supreme Court Justices have the results of attorney arguments and lower court rulings to augment and help shape their own deliberations and conclusions considering the pros and cons of the issue. Arguments before the Supreme Court only provides further options to consider in shaping their final decisions. Finally, there are the final ideas that the Justices will bounce off each other.
This may an occasion in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy will lead the Court to a 6 to 3 decision, upholding the health-care individual mandate. It is also possible that the Court can be deadlocked with one conservative Justice not, in good conscience, being able to make constitutional distinctions between the options. Obamacare could remain the law by default , because a neutral Justice votes to confirm its constitutionality. On the other hand, it is hard to believe that a Supreme Court that considers money to be speech and corporations to be people can have the frames of mind to find this health-care mandate Constitutional.
I don't understand, though, how this issue of a health-care mandate has anything to do with conservatism or liberalism. What's conservative or liberal about the individual mandate? At one time, it was supported by Republican and conservative organizations. How did the mandate become liberal simply because Democrats decided Republicans and conservatives had the right idea? Even Republican candidate
Even issues like "money being speech" and "corporations being people" should have been decided by a mixture of liberal and consecrative Justices. Because ideas are introduced by conservative or liberals politicians does not mean that the issue is ideological. Some ideas reside in what amounts to "common ground." Consequently, most issues should be decided by a mixture of liberal and conservative Justices
Some of the lines that politicians draw in the sand should be circles that bind Americans together in recognition of and commitments to common interests, rather than drawing lines of separation that either imply or impose significance to ideological differences where such distinctions are really not factors. The Constitution is America's "common ground." It is should never be considered an ideological instrument that must always elicit left-right divisions in its interpretation.
But I have not heard of any questions the conservative justices asked the attorneys challenging the individual mandate. Did their questions suggest reasons why these mandates should be constitutional, as they challenged attorneys supporting these mandates that they weren't? It appears that a politically neutral court would have asked such questions.
The Constitution is neither conservative nor liberal. No parts of its original intent can be classified as conservative or liberal such that ideological distinctions can be made between the components of the document. However, the content, instead of providing "common ground" for political collaboration, has suddenly acquired ideological labels, depending upon whether conservatives or liberals agree with the provisions or with laws which the provisions seem to support.
Initially, Supreme Court Justices were selected for life-time terms in order to take political or other kinds of influences from replacing the better judgment of each Supreme Court justice. Well, "other influences" have replaced that better judgment, as divided court decisions have come to be made, without exception, along ideological lines.
"Supreme" not longer mean the highest level of legal prudence but the highest level of ideological authority.
Email: rcspoon@earthlink.net
Blog: ronaldcspooner.blogspot.com
Twitter: Twitter.com/@ronaldspooner
Your view on mandates and the constitution is extremely thought provoking. It is unfortunate that many from my generation and beyond are not taking an active interest in the activities of our country and subsequently become the effect of change, rather than the cause of it. As I am a firm believer that the children are our future, I am also aware that to limit grooming to our own will never affect the change we need in our community or our country. I am charged, by the spirit, to bridge the gap between children from educated,functional, two parent households (such as your children) & those from more dysfunction single parent households like the one I grew up in. One might say this comment has nothing to do with the article; however, I beg to differ. For instance I have a gift for writing but I must push myself to watch world news or read about global & national issues. Even when I do I often times find myself oblivious to the direction many of the stories are going. I applaud all my brothers and sisters that have, and are making their mark in history; but the reality is that we need those numbers to increase in order to realize the change that is necessary for the benefit of all. My challenge to you sir is to begin to appeal to the intellectually challenged group by reiterating, on occasion, to the laymen and motivating the seemingly hopeless. Perhaps making me a mentee may be a good place to start.(just a thought)My passion & intuition defines my brilliance, while my knowledge & education leaves something to be desired. I know I can get there with the help of God and whom ever he chooses to use. Please help me if no more than to pray then you will have helped a multitude there after.
ReplyDelete