Last week's marathon hearings at the Supreme Court in re: the Health Reform Act hurt my head (from slamming it against driving wheel while at stoplights)...and heart.
There's a lot to be said on this topic - just a few points:
(1) While I respect the importance of settling this matter (and thus the undesirability of leaving it floating around until 2014) I don't understand why the government didn't frame the penalty fee for failing to purchase insurance as a tax. Given the supposed concern that this 'novel' approach "fundamentally changes the relationship between the individual and the state" [six, Justice A. Kennedy] it would seem to be a more prudent approach to align it with an accepted exercise of power. I'm sure there is an excellent (and probably very simple) reason for this - I just don't know it. If you have any insights, please share!
(2) Yes, Justice Scalia, I do expect you to read all 2,700 pages of the act. It's your job.
(3) To return to Justice Kennedy's concern about how this positive obligation (requiring a specific action instead of mere prohibition) "fundamentally changes the relationship between the individual and the State" (can you tell that I am a little hung up on this assertion?) - I really don't think that is accurate. The State - or other historic governing authorities - is rooted in 'positive' (again not a judgment call but a classification!) coercion. Villiens were required to submit a certain number of days labor to their lords, vassals to provide military service. Etc. Etc. The objective for all of this being communal security. Sacking and pillaging by men in longboats or neighboring war-lords is (fortunately) no longer a foremost concern in our society. But that doesn't mean that the State cannot mobilize to address what are the security concerns of its citizens. And today those shared concerns include the assured access to quality health care.
So, it seems disingenous to me for certain Justices to take issue with the means employed - when their real beef surely must be with the stated (proper) legislative objective. And that is troubling, at least to me, because it seems to be a usurpation of Congress's legislative powers and a subversion of governing judicial precedent.
I've rambled on - but this post was really only intended to share a link to an interesting Washington Post Op-Ed piece by E.J.Dionne, Jr., examining the pervasive and subtle influence of radical tea-party dogma into the conservative intellectual dialogue.
Oy. It's pretty bad when the Washington Post Op-Ed section calls Shenanigans...
"The success or failure of any government in the final analysis must be measured by the well-being of its citizens. Nothing can be more important to a state than its public health; the state’s paramount concerns should be the health of its people." - Franklin D. Roosevelt, Address to the New York State Legislature
