On March 26, the U.S. Supreme Court started listening to arguments relative to the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, passed by Congress. Let us hope our lifetime-appointed judges will offer their unbiased consideration with their ruling in June.
Let us also hope they show more rationality and less partiality than they last did when deciding that corporations are people — our country’s practice of one person, one vote be damned.
But that was their recent 5-4 irrational rational. Prior to that was the ever popular 5-4 decision when one of the three equal branches of our government, the judicial, decided and was allowed to elect who would be the next president of the executive branch (Gore v. United States).
Two failed wars later and we have seen how well that turned out. If allowed to continue their illegal power play, they can next overrule the health care law. Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution did I find that the Supreme Court could overrule a law passed by Congress and signed by the president. I always thought it is Congress’ responsibility to pass legislation that affects the entire country, but that is for Constitutional scholars to ponder.
Justices Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas are certain to decide that the law is unconstitutional. Thirty courts below them have already upheld it. Justice Anthony Kennedy is the only possible swing vote and maybe Chief Justice John Roberts is a long shot, but unlikely.
He seems more interested in a proud legacy than the others. At least the separation of the mandate from the rest of the health care package is likely. Unfortunately, Thomas did not make any notable observations, therefore the dumbest statement came from Scalia, who compared forcing people to have health care insurance to forcing people to buy broccoli.
Having the majority of judges with leanings toward either party permanently enshrined in the Supreme Court is unhealthy, since bias will always surface. We should have term limits for the Supreme Court.