I was gob-smacked when I read that Chief Justice (whatever
is wrong with him anyway) Roberts had provided the swing vote and written the plurality
onion UPHOLDING the ACA. (I refuse to call it Obamacare” as that is meant to be
a sneer and a smear.)
So I downloaded the decision--all 193 pages of it. Now I have
read Supreme Court decisions before. My law school had us do that. Not hornbook excerpts—entire
decisions. So I should have been able to manage it.
Ha!
It is byzantine. Some of it MIGHT have made sense but for a few minor details....like the fact that it gave a whole new meaning to the phrase “tortured reasoning.” A distinction between being in commerce by an action and supposedly NOT being “in commerce” by not having health care "insurance".(A rant for another day.) Now, that is specious on so many grounds.
Ground 1: NO one stays out of the “health care (really “illness care”) market by choice. They are out of the market because they—we --DON’T HAVE A JOB!!! We are unemployed, underemployed or self employed.
It is byzantine. Some of it MIGHT have made sense but for a few minor details....like the fact that it gave a whole new meaning to the phrase “tortured reasoning.” A distinction between being in commerce by an action and supposedly NOT being “in commerce” by not having health care "insurance".(A rant for another day.) Now, that is specious on so many grounds.
Ground 1: NO one stays out of the “health care (really “illness care”) market by choice. They are out of the market because they—we --DON’T HAVE A JOB!!! We are unemployed, underemployed or self employed.
Ground 2. Most folks have to get some form of heath care, even if only by going to an ER or a nearby clinic—as I used
to do. Like when my cat got attacked and I (in rescuing her) got badly scratched--and badly infected. I paid out of
my pocket—but I was “in commerce” as to health care. ALTHOUGH I DID NOT HAVE “INSURANCE”. This man--Justice Roberts--edited Harvard Law Review. Am I to believe he does not see this distinction? Did he glue his eyes shut? I kind of of of hope so, because looking at himslef in the mirror may be dicey.
Anyone with kids knows they get sick. They need vaccinations. Women need annual exams, pregnant women need health care. Menopausal women need HRT, mammograms, bone scans, the whole megillah. All this is part of everyday life—not some discretionary “shopping” activity. So we are "in commerce"in health care insurance or no. How-someone tell he HOW-- is this a legal decision we are supposed to respect? From the HEAD HONCHO??? [I]individuals not engaged in commerce to purchase an unwanted product” indeed. UNWANTED. What planet does this eedjit live on???
Then there are facts he made up. “ And for most of those targeted by the mandate, significant health care needs will be years, or even decades, away.” Roberts opinion page 33. (No amicus brief cited—no research no data—just “fiat facts”. Boggled yet? I am.)
Anyone with kids knows they get sick. They need vaccinations. Women need annual exams, pregnant women need health care. Menopausal women need HRT, mammograms, bone scans, the whole megillah. All this is part of everyday life—not some discretionary “shopping” activity. So we are "in commerce"in health care insurance or no. How-someone tell he HOW-- is this a legal decision we are supposed to respect? From the HEAD HONCHO??? [I]individuals not engaged in commerce to purchase an unwanted product” indeed. UNWANTED. What planet does this eedjit live on???
Then there are facts he made up. “ And for most of those targeted by the mandate, significant health care needs will be years, or even decades, away.” Roberts opinion page 33. (No amicus brief cited—no research no data—just “fiat facts”. Boggled yet? I am.)
Let’s parse that, shall we? Who are these great unwashed---er, uninsured--that will be "mandated" but not need any “health care”. Would that be seniors like me without full time jobs? (I suspect we are legion--but he cited NO sources, no data.) Blue collar workers with kids who have crappy-ass hourly wage jobs without “benefits”? I am pretty sure THEY re legion. (Again, no source...)
The currently unemployed....? MILLIONS. Tens of millions.
All us self employed folks? Or veterans (thank God for the
VA) with no service connected disability who can't get eye care or dental care? (but pay for it?) US
folks who don't need the access to health facilities or services?US
who don't "want" this "product?” Are not "in commmerce?"
So none of us needs any health care??? Not for decades? (To be fair he is correct that people who are younger and healthier are necessary to subsidize those who are not. But let's say that, for the love of God.)
This opinion is a travesty. And I have not waded though the maze of concurring and dissenting opinions yet, although I have made it part way through the Ginsberg dissent, which DOES cite actual facts.
So none of us needs any health care??? Not for decades? (To be fair he is correct that people who are younger and healthier are necessary to subsidize those who are not. But let's say that, for the love of God.)
This opinion is a travesty. And I have not waded though the maze of concurring and dissenting opinions yet, although I have made it part way through the Ginsberg dissent, which DOES cite actual facts.
God help us all.
Feast your eyes on a small sample…
"The individual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activity.
It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a
product, on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce.
Construing the Commerce Clause
ROBERTS, C. J., announced the judgment of the Court and
delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, and III–C, in
which GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined; an opinion with
respect to Part IV, in which BREYER and KAGAN, JJ., joined; and an opinion with
respect to Parts III–A, III–B, and III–D. GINSBURG, J., filed an opinion
concurring in part, concurring in the judgment in part, and dissenting in part,
in which SOTOMAYOR, J., joined, and in which BREYER and KAGAN, JJ., joined as
to Parts I, II, III, and IV. SCALIA, KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., filed a
dissenting opinion. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion. [Confused yet?]
Our permissive reading of these powers is explained in part
by a general reticence to invalidate the acts of the Nation’s elected leaders.
“Proper respect for a co-ordinate branch of the government” requires that we
strike down an Act of Congress only if “the lack of constitutional authority to
pass [the] act in question is clearly demonstrated.” United States v. Harris, 106 U. S. 629, 635 (1883). [Yay. End of bearable part. Be warned.]
Given its expansive scope, it is no surprise that Congress
has employed the commerce power in a wide variety of ways to address the
pressing needs of the time. But Congress has never attempted to rely on that
power to compel individuals not engaged in commerce to purchase an unwanted
product. Page 24. “ FAIL! see above.]
I give up.
I give up.
