Carefully Courting “Romney – O’Bama Care” Through The Courts (August 15, 2011)
. . .
Y “I don’t really like it either. But it is constitutional, isn’t it?”
X “Yup. No big deal, really. The Constitution does not create a likeability test. The Constitution establishes a constitutional test. Governments have been requiring individuals to acquire automobile and other insurance and to undertake duties for decades without whining. No one opts out of fire protection and thus we all pay for it. If each of us is left to obtain private fire insurance, all of us must be compelled to obtain and pay for fire insurance. At its core, health insurance policy clearly involves interstate commerce.”
Y “It really is about personal liberty and property. If you don’t have health coverage, I must pay for your health coverage because other laws not challenged as unconstitutional mandate that you receive health care. Making me pay restrains my liberty and deprives me of my property. And you know me, a proud taxpayer. Why all the fuss? And why all the rampant litigation?”
X “Someone observed that we are dealing with judges trained in American law schools who want to play legislator without running for the legislature. More judicial arrogance. More judicial activism.”
. . .
Bumper stickers of the week:
– 11 + 6 = 5: The Eleventh Circuit says NO*; the Sixth Circuit says YES; the Five Supremes will enact health care policy
A 207 page decision? Not even 207 words are required.
What are all the state attorneys general doing pursuing the legal challenge to Romney-O’Bama Care while capitulating to the Big Banks and surrendering the major legal issues?
There is no law, there is only ideology
I hope laughter is the best medicine – it is all I can afford