Liberal Judges Baffled by Anti-Obamacare Arguments
As Rob noted earlier, the Fourth Circuit's computers "randomly" selected a solid liberal panel to hear the challenge to the Obama health law.
At today's oral argument, ScotusBlog reports, the judges claimed to be "baffled" by the distinction between regulating "activity" vs. "inactivity." The idea of forcing citizens to enter into private contracts simply for the privilege of breathing doesn't faze them. Circuit Judge Diana Motz -- a Clinton appointee -- apparently pressed the plaintiffs on this issue, pointing out that the Constitution does not mention "activity." Now that's rich -- a Clinton-appointee concerned about fidelity to the text.
The only way forward is to use liberal precedents against Obamacare. Just this last January for example, the Supreme Court (the liberals + Alito and Roberts) issued a decision that assumed that the Constitution ("Living Edition") creates a right of "informational privacy," i.e., a constitutional right to avoid disclosure of private information. I defy even a randomly-generated panel of federal judges to deny that Obamacare -- with its requirment that you turn over intimate medical details to an insurance company -- doesn't violate that made-up right.
- Comment (14)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments :
Aug '10
Re: Liberal Judges Baffled by Anti-Obamacare Arguments
The ends justify the means for the statist, Action vs Inaction, Living Constitution and using precedent instead of original intent are all the means to the end of growing the power of the federal government.
These Justices have gone to school and associate with other legal minds who have indoctrinated them and reenforce the all powerfully vision of the federal government.
We need to understand leftism is a religion and fight accordingly. They believe the government can cure every will through Congress, the Executive or the Judiciary.
Re: Liberal Judges Baffled by Anti-Obamacare Arguments
Defy all you want, Adam, but my bet is that our baffled judges will reach the statist conclusion on Obamacare without breaking a sweat. Leftists enforce their right to privacy, as with other liberal legal constructs, only when doing so is likely to hobble traditional families and other manifestations of spontaneous civil society.
An abortion culture applies centrifugal force to traditional families, so absolute medical privacy is required in this area. However, an abstract principle like "privacy" will never be permitted to obstruct a necessary "social good" such as ObamaCare or any other late-breaking utopian scheme notionally for our own good.
Jan '11
Re: Liberal Judges Baffled by Anti-Obamacare Arguments
That just tells us that they're baffled by what "regulation" means. That's the shibboleth that separates the use and abuse of power.
When you go to a baseball game, does the umpire have absolute authority to foster a good game, or is he only there to make sure the teams follow the rules? For example, if one team is far ahead of the other, does the umpire have the right to force the winning coach to use bench players? Does the umpire have the right to force fans to play if one team uses all their players? No.
When you see government as a source of all and unlimited power, then regulation is just the day to day business of imposing that power.
However, if you want individuals to retain the right to make their own choices (and therefore limit government), then regulation isn't absolute power. The power is precisely defined.
To be baffled by the distinction between activity and inactivity is to confess utter ignorance of the right of individuals to make choices. It's no different than being baffled by consumers who refuse to buy bad products because their refusal "affects" the economy.
Edited on May 11, 2011 at 12:03amMay '10
Re: Liberal Judges Baffled by Anti-Obamacare Arguments
Adam, your flagrant negligence to purchase a digital tire gauge affects the economy in every state of the union in a manner deemed detrimental by the Congress. After all, the failure to properly inflate your tires is the cause of the problem: Americans are spending more on gasoline every year, increasing at a rate much higher than inflation.
It therefore, obviously, falls upon Congress to regulate this interstate commerce and require every citizen to buy a digital tire gauge and an air compressor from one of the national air compressor exchanges. These government-run exchanges, featuring compressors produced in the private sector, provide the needed competition in the air compressor market that was sorely lacking when it was just a bunch of private sector companies in an open market.
Does anyone doubt this will reduce the cost of operating an automobile for every American family?
Edited on May 10, 2011 at 11:50pmMay '10
Re: Liberal Judges Baffled by Anti-Obamacare Arguments
Not getting the distinction between "activity" and "inactivity" is similar to not getting the distinction between positive rights and negative rights, another concept liberals have trouble with. Must be because they're so good at nuance.
Sep '10
Re: Liberal Judges Baffled by Anti-Obamacare Arguments
Instead of bailing out GM, the government should have just made it mandatory that every American own a Cadillac.
Sep '10
Re: Liberal Judges Baffled by Anti-Obamacare Arguments
And does the Second Amendment then mean everyone has to own a gun?
Mar '11
Re: Liberal Judges Baffled by Anti-Obamacare Arguments
To a liberal judge, there is no limit to the government's power unless it involves the bedroom or the abortion clinic.
Apr '11
Re: Liberal Judges Baffled by Anti-Obamacare Arguments
It is unfortunate that the judiciary has merely become politics by other means. The result is that the determination whether Obamacare is constitutional will hinge on whether Anthony Kennedy has corn flakes or a ham and cheese omlette the morning of the Obamacare oral argument. This is a pathetic state of affairs.
Re: Liberal Judges Baffled by Anti-Obamacare Arguments
What appears to be a misfortune will turn out to be profound good luck. These three judges will display for all to see that we no longer live under a government of limited powers -- and their verdict will then contribute further to the great awakening that has been underway since March, 2009.
The worst thing that could happen would be for the courts to declare Obamacare unconstitutional before November, 2012. What we are about to see is a collision between doctrinaire progressivism -- in which "the public interest" as understood by putative experts trumps the rights of individuals in every sphere of human life -- and the common sense of the American people. "Bring it on!" say I. Let the great battle begin!
Nov '10
Re: Liberal Judges Baffled by Anti-Obamacare Arguments
Progressives only like freedom when it annoys religious people.
Also, the fact that we have a branch of government whose decisions cannot be overturned by anything less than a constitutional amendment and which, in practice, is limited only by its members' personal sense of restraint and/or lack of creativity should send chills down the spine of every small-d democrat in the country.
Feb '11
Re: Liberal Judges Baffled by Anti-Obamacare Arguments
Paul A. Rahe: What appears to be a misfortune will turn out to be profound good luck. These three judges will display for all to see that we no longer live under a government of limited powers -- and their verdict will then contribute further to the great awakening that has been underway since March, 2009.
The worst thing that could happen would be for the courts to declare Obamacare unconstitutional before November, 2012. · May 11 at 1:40pm
Paul, there may be a silver lining to liberal judges shutting down the constitutional challenge to Obamacare, but it most definitely is not good luck. Luck implies that something is breaking our way - the exact opposite could happen here.
And I can think of many things that are worse than Obamacare being declared unconstitutional. In fact, I can't think of much that would be better.
Dec '10
Re: Liberal Judges Baffled by Anti-Obamacare Arguments
My prediction is that the decision will be over 75 pages. Usually, when they have to twist themselves into knots to justify an unjustifiable position, they put the bloviator on hi.
Jan '11
Re: Liberal Judges Baffled by Anti-Obamacare Arguments
We have been fighting the great battle since 1901 and we have been losing. Since the 1960s, it's been a rout...