Wednesday, July 04, 2012
Until last week, Chief Justice John Roberts was vilified
as the leader of a conservative judicial cabal poised to destroy the Obama
presidency by overturning the federal takeover of health care. But with his
unexpected affirmation, Roberts suddenly was lauded as the new Earl Warren — an
“evolving” conservative who at last saw the logic of liberal big government.
Among our elites — journalists, pundits, and academics —
liberal Supreme Court justices are always deemed “open-minded,” even as they
are expected to vote in absolute lockstep liberal fashion. In contrast, a
conservative justice is written off as reactionary or blatantly partisan when
he likewise predictably follows his own orthodoxy — pressures that may well
have affected Roberts if reports of an eleventh-hour switch in his vote are
true.
No surprise, then, that a surreal discussion followed the
recent ruling of the high court. Our legal establishment expected that the four
liberal judges would not deviate one iota in their affirmation of the health-care
law, even as it hoped that a conservative or two would show judicial character
by joining the liberals.
Democrats like activist federal courts to overturn — in
matters of gay marriage, abortion, affirmative action, and illegal immigration
— ballot propositions and majority votes of legislatures fostered by supposedly
illiberal and unsophisticated voters. But on health care, liberals — led by the
president — made the argument that a wrongly activist Supreme Court should not
dare to tamper with what an elected Congress had wrought.
President Obama was incoherent in his commentary on the
Supreme Court. Before the Roberts ruling, when most were betting that the
president’s health-care plan would be overturned — especially given the poor
performance of Solicitor General Donald Verrilli in arguing the government’s
case before the Court — Obama was angry at the thought of such judicial
activism. In a manner that did not reflect much knowledge of either the
Constitution or the history of the republic, he thundered, “Ultimately, I’m
confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented,
extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of
a democratically elected Congress.”
Of course, the Supreme Court’s overturning of a law is
not extraordinary or unprecedented. And the president’s bill did not pass by a
“strong majority,” but squeaked through the House by seven votes. What was
“unprecedented” was a presidential shot across the bow of the Supreme Court on
the eve of a critical decision — especially given the fact that Obama would
soon welcome the Court’s activism in overturning most of a duly-passed Arizona
immigration law that sought to enforce federal statutes.
To get the health-care bill passed in the first place,
the Obama administration swore that it was a mandate and not a tax raise, which
would have contradicted his campaign pledge not to hike taxes on the middle
class. Yet Verrilli worried that a mandate would be declared unconstitutional,
so he argued in the chambers of the Court that it was a tax — and a majority of
justices agreed.
But then the Obama administration flipped again at the
thought of raising taxes on the middle class and is now calling the mandate/tax
a “penalty” — thanking the Court for its wisdom while rebuking the means by
which it came to it.
Conservatives have come to distrust federal courts that
overturn legislative majorities. But this time, conservatives hoped that the
Roberts Supreme Court would overturn Obamacare rather than the less likely
scenario of a Republican president and a congressional majority in both houses
doing it sometime in the future. In short, there is no such thing as consistent
judicial activism or restraint — only court rulings that support a favored
political agenda and then are scorned as activist or lauded as enlightened by
the particular involved parties.
A big reason for all the hypocrisies and paradoxes is
that the 2,409-page health-care act is a mess. Even its creators cannot agree
whether it involves a mandate, tax, or penalty. The public doesn’t like or want
it — at least the parts it must soon pay for. It was passed only on a strictly
partisan vote and under shady means (remember the “Cornhusker Kickback”?).
Hundreds of friends of influential Democratic politicians have already had
their companies exempted from what was sold as a wonderful change. The country
is nearly insolvent and $16 trillion in debt, and yet poised to take on the
largest social-entitlement program in a half-century.
This mess is only the beginning, since we won’t even feel
the full effect (or cost) of the law for another two years. But we should
assume that what starts out this badly will end even worse.
No comments:
Post a Comment