Category Archives: Courts

The Supreme Court and the Constitution

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s another implication of Chief Justice John Roberts’ ruling on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, courtesy of The Wall Street Journal.

According to Chief Justice Roberts, the penalty is merely a tax on not owning health insurance, no different from “buying gasoline or earning income,” and it thus complies with the Constitution. This a large loophole. The result is that Washington has unlimited power to impose new purchase mandates and the courts will find them constitutional if Congress calls them taxes, or even if it calls them something else and judges call them taxes.

Except that not buying a thing or a service is radically different from buying that thing or service.  This isn’t merely a matter of opposites: opposites are related to each other.  There is no relation between buying or not buying—the thing/service being bought is known; the thing/service not being bought cannot be known, and so the bought/not bought functions can have no relation to each other whatsoever.

Chief Justice Roberts writes that construing the Commerce Clause as the Obama Administration argued “would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority…. The Framers gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it, and for over 200 years both our decisions and Congress’s actions have reflected this understanding.” [emphasis in the original]

But then

Supreme Court precedents going back to the 1920s and 1930s define penalties and taxes as mutually exclusive and critically different.

With this stroke, Roberts has cancelled the effect of his understanding on the limit of the Commerce Clause’s ability to compel commerce; he has simply transferred the ability to compel commerce to the Taxing Clause.  Which also had no prior compulsion power.

Whether the Federal government may compel our behavior via Commerce or via Taxing, our government now can compel our behavior.

This is judicial activism at its worst.

President Obama’s Obamacare Tax Increase on the Middle Class

Posted on by
Reply

Straight from the horse’s mouth.  Chief Justice John Robert’s Majority Opinion includes this [emphasis added]:

The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause.  That Clause authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to engage in it.  In this case, however, it is reasonable to con­strue what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance.  Such legislation is within Con­gress’s power to tax.

The whole opinion, and the two dissents, can be read here.

Progressives and Freedom

Posted on by
Reply

From The Wall Street Journal:  Progressives are now actively lying about the National Federation of Independent Business because that organization is the formal lead plaintiff in the Obamacare lawsuit, which ruling the Supreme Court is scheduled to announce today.

Here’s what’s going on.

The chairmen of the House Progressive Caucus, Democrats Raul Grijalva [D, AZ] and Keith Ellison [D, MN], [wrote] a letter accusing the NFIB of acting against “the best interest of small business owners” and “the popular opinion of the American small business community.”

Because, of course, all those 300,000 small business NFIB members adore Obamacare.  These guys say so.

Then the WSJ notes:

…among the four million small businesses eligible for new tax credits if they provide health insurance for their workers, a mere 170,300 have signed up.

Hmm….

And they ask:

…if the NFIB is as unrepresentative as liberals claim, then why have its ranks grown by 5% since it became a plaintiff in the ObamaCare suit?

And they add:

Some 65% [of NFIB members, in an NFIB poll of its membership] believe ObamaCare will do the opposite [i.e., will increase health care costs] and 77% believe it will result in a higher tax burden, which are among the reasons the group joined the suit. One in five small businesses believes it’ll be forced to alter the benefits it offers employees.

Yeah.  That’s broad-based support for Obamacare, all right.  It’s their story, and they’re sticking to it.

A Grievous Supreme Court Error

Posted on by
Reply

The Supreme Court has ruled unfavorably on Arizona’s SB1070, with which it attempted to secure its border with Mexico and the safety of Arizona citizens (the ruling, with the dissents, can be read here).  Sort of letting stand a provision that required Arizona police to check the immigration status of those they suspect may be in the country illegally (the Court sent this back to the lower court for further argument), they struck the rest of the law making it a crime for immigrants to look for work without work permits (never mind that Federal law requires the permits), to not carry their immigration papers (never mind that Federal law requires legal aliens to carry these papers), and let police arrest those whom they suspect committed crimes for which they could be deported.

Justice Scalia, in his dissent (to, apparently, a 5-3 decision, with Justice Kagan having recused herself), had the right of it:

Arizona has moved to protect its sovereignty — not in contradiction of federal law, but in complete compliance with it. The laws under challenge here do not extend or revise federal immigration restrictions, but merely enforce those restrictions more effectively. If securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign State.

As did Justice Thomas, for a different, narrower, reason:

I agree with Justice Scalia that federal immigration law does not preempt any of the challenged provisions of SB 1070. I reach that conclusion, however, for the simple reason that there is no conflict between the ‘ordinary meaning’ of the relevant federal laws and that of the four provisions of Arizona law at issue here.

And Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority has revealed an appalling mindset for an American judge:

Some discretionary decisions involve policy choices that bear on this Nation’s international relations.

This is a domestic law, and a domestic concern. Foreign opinion has no bearing. But this Progressive administration gave their view of American sovereignty when it encouraged 11 foreign nations to join the suit at the Appellate level.

We badly need an election, so this error can be corrected legislatively.  Oh, wait….

Lobbying with a Red Herring

Posted on by
Reply

The Associated Press is joining the lobbying of the Supreme Court over the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and its effort is either cynical or ignorant, depending on their motive for their chosen focus:

During the recent oral arguments some of the justices and the lawyers appearing before them seemed to be under the impression that the law does not allow most consumers to buy low-cost, stripped-down insurance to satisfy its controversial coverage requirement.

The AP presents this as a “possible misunderstanding” the “could cloud” the Court’s deliberations.

Of course, cost is only a peripheral issue, arising primarily from Justice Antonin Scalia’s discussion of the subsidy a young, healthy American (who does not need health insurance—and who used to be able to make that decision for himself) must pay, through forced purchase of unneeded/undesired health insurance, so that others, claiming the need, can afford to get health insurance.

The question before the Court—as all the players understood, making their arguments concerning the constitutionality of PPACA’s Individual Mandate, and by extension of the PPACA itself, as they did—is the question of individual liberties and the degree to which Government can, under our Constitution, limit our liberty for our own good.

Cost isn’t the issue—freedom and government control over an individual’s decisions is.