President G. W. Bush’s appointee in 2003. [ Recall if you will this was the same year the President signed $400 bn for pensioners pharmaceuticals package into Medicare so as to secure his second term from their otherwise sizeable democratic constituency. ] Firmly conservative, strong on states rights and legislation, he also came with worthies backing an astute mind ( having time served in SC Justice Scalia’s office ) for future Supremes nomination.
As if speaking directly to Judge Graham’s powers of federal force he argued:—
In most respects, a mandate to purchase health insurance does not parallel these other settings or markets... Regulating how citizens pay for what they already receive (health care), never quite know when they will need, and in the case of severe illnesses or emergencies generally will not be able to afford, has few (if any) parallels in modern life. Not every intrusive law is an unconstitutionally intrusive law.
So.. in the order of things person-2-patient acceptable rule would be: find, treat(remedy), set upon upon recovery and process payment for service rendered
This compassionate conservative then appeared join Judge Martin on the economic component with — "Call this mandate what you will -- an affront to individual autonomy or an imperative of national health care -- it meets the requirement of regulating activities that substantially affect interstate commerce”.
Enough said. For a majority 2-1 decision at anyrate.
But Judge Graham had flashed a beacon to followers. Most of whom were stunned by a majority going against them. Appalled, as they saw things, that one of their own should back the President. Politics, politics, their wherewithal, when law and its relevance was at issue.
Spotting the light from among them, however, the libertarian Cato’s constitutional studies fellow, Ilya Shapiro blogged: “... it is shocking that an avowed constitutionalist like Judge Sutton requires Congress to show only a rational basis behind what it does.. to survive constitutional scrutiny. Under such logic, Congress can do anything it wants so far as it is essential to a larger regulatory scheme. That cannot be the law.”
Which of course overstates Judge Graham’s point. Besides, who would seriously abide “cannot”s pertinent the law in this case. And with these people.
Elsewhere though highly relevant—never mind the law—those Republican legislators went yesterday, there’s a debt problem and regardless Americans polled willingness to take cuts or afford more(premia or taxes) so as to sustain Medicare, we say cut $600bn from that government expense! What Congress gives(2003 qv) Congress can take away!
High-handed Big GovT ( from hypocritical republicans ) wouldn’t you say.?
As for Shapiro et al I think the unmentionable is due.
Larsson is a fine Swedish writer and knows well enough the libertarian mind. Yes, even the American libertarian mind. As readers of The Girl Who Played With Fire realise. Heroine Salander has been severely abused by her father and a second male state-appointed lawyer guardian, Bjurman. Knowing this her first-appointed guardian(stroke-sufferer recovering with her able assistance) discusses with his doctor her decision to ‘go after’ the two men still scourging her existence. The doctor declares himself surprised at Palmgren’s “libertarian aspect” insofar as his endorsement of her depravity, not to mention that she could kill herself in the endeavor. The lawyer then admits: “Yes, so am I.”
The only conclusion a reader can draw for his support is that emotion is/was the driver. Libertarians thus, and most certainly between themselves, are no less irrational than the remainder of human beings when push comes to shove.
Shapiro’s “rational” accusation upon Judge Jackson’s logic is both mistaken. And misplaced.
To wrap, Law Prof. Jost(Washington & Lee) said the Appeal Court had undertaken “a much more sophisticated opinion than we’ve seen before; a more thorough examination of the precedents”.
Not putting words into mouths, but lifting their game is where it is at for Affordable Care Act opponents
Already heard, two further appeals awaited. Will they result in a Supreme Court decider.? Who knows. Yet politics, politics, so messy, might not money + mouthiness meet more minds.!
If so, then sadly, the wrong expense.
No comments:
Post a Comment