It would be nice if the Supreme Court rendered decisions based on the Constitution, based soley on the law, and partisan politics had nothing to do with it.
It would also be nice if it rained lemonade.
The former and latter are both about as likely to happen.
That's why you should expectt the upcoming Supreme Court decision on ObamaCare to be almost totally influenced by political beliefs. The Constitution, I fear, is secondary.
Here's Justice Antonin Scalia excoriating one of the case precedents the pro-ObamaCare wing of the Court will almost certainly cite as a constitutional justification for the unconstitutional ObamaCare mandate. This comes from a book Scalia has written:
Justice Scalia writes...that he has little use for a central precedent the Obama administration has cited to justify the health care law under the Constitution’s commerce clause, Wickard v. Filburn.
In that 1942 decision, Justice Scalia writes, the Supreme Court “expanded the Commerce Clause beyond all reason” by ruling that “a farmer’s cultivation of wheat for his own consumption affected interstate commerce and thus could be regulated under the Commerce Clause.”
Scalia is 100% correct that Wickard v. Filburn was a travesty. There is no way a farmer growing wheat for his own consumption could be regarded as interstate commerce, thus there was nothing for the government TO regulate under the Commerce Clause. The decision was nothing more than an encroachment on liberty by an overreaching government. It should be overturned, but it is on the case books as precedent, and it's central to the ObamaNazis attempts at justification.
But there's also a problem with Scalia himself. He has cited the Wickard v. Filburn precedent when it suited his own political views. In the 2005 Raich case, where the Feds were allowed to regulate marijuana a farmer grew for his own personal consumption, one of the many precedents Scalia cited to uphold the Feds side of the case was, you guessed it, Wickard v. Filburn. In Scalia's opinion was the following note:
2. Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), presented such a case [for the Feds to regulate commerce]. Because the unregulated production of wheat for personal consumption diminished demand in the regulated wheat market, the Court said, it carried with it the potential to disrupt Congress’s price regulation by driving down prices in the market. Id., at 127—129. This potential disruption of Congress’s interstate regulation, and not only the effect that personal consumption of wheat had on interstate commerce, justified Congress’s regulation of that conduct. Id., at 128—129.
While there's a big legality difference between growing wheat and growing marijuana (i.e., the Controlled Substances Act), Scalia still cited in part the egregious Wickard v. Filburn Commerce Clause expansion when he should not have, according to his own beliefs. He directly contradicted himself. I have always admired Scalia's opinions because he sticks to the Constitution more than most Justices, but here…bad boy, Nino. I get the feeling Scalia saw the word "marijuana", and then just used any justification he could find to uphold the government's side of the case. He went too far in pursuit of his own political views, just like the liberal wing of the Court does time after time (and will do again in the ObamaCare case, if history serves as a guide).
The big problem with these kinds of cases is, once the Court rules to take away our liberties, the efforts of subsequent liberty snatchers are greatly emboldened, and they think there are no limits to their power (see: Obama administration, among many others). When the meanings of the words in the Constitution are repeatedly expanded, twisted, mutilated, and ignored, eventually the Constitution becomes meaningless, and the tyrants have won. The upcoming ObamaCare mandate case is one such attempt at usurping liberty. I don't know how the Court will rule, but for all our sakes, I hope they just say NO to this mandate. The government will be forcing us all to purchase a private market product just for living in the USA ? GImme a break already. That isn't regulating commerce, it's creating commerce through the use of force. If the government isn't stopped here, then when will it be stopped ? We're beginning to accept an authoritarian mindset that allows the government to control what we smoke, what we drink, what we eat, what we drive, what products we must buy, what we must do with our own hard-earned wages, and even how much we can donate to the political candidate of our choice. It's all politically driven,, not constitutionally driven. Now they want to eavesdrop on Americans with drones, as if we're all Al Qaeda. Many of the protections in the Bill Of Rights have already been shredded. What's next ? Will we only wake up once Big Brother is watching and controlling EVERYTHING we do ? When did that become the United States Of America, and how the hell are we letting in happen right in front of our eyes ?
About This Blog