Impeach the Supreme Court Justices If They Overturn Health-Care Law
The Roberts Court’s rulings appear to be a concerted effort to send us back to the Gilded Age. If they dump the Affordable Care Act, writes David Dow, we should dump them.
You think the idea is laughable? Thomas Jefferson disagreed with you.
The problem with the current court is not merely that there is a good chance it will strike down a clearly constitutional law. The problem is that this decision would be the latest salvo in what seems to be a sustained effort on the part of the Roberts Court to return the country to the Gilded Age.
At the close of the Gilded Age, the U.S. infant mortality rate was around 10 percent—a number you find today in impoverished Central African nations. In some cities, it exceeded 30 percent. Women could not vote, and their lives were controlled by men. Blacks lived apart from whites and constituted an economic, social, and political underclass. Corporations exerted an unchecked and deleterious influence on the lives of workers.
What do you think this moron’s “dog whistle” is blaring?
“If the Supreme Court doesn’t go along with our leftist schemes it’s RACISM and CHAUVINISM.”
Listen, stupid, the SCOTUS is determining whether the law is constitutional or not. What you say is “clearly constitutional” is precisely what they deliberating. And they will write their opinion, one way or the other, despite hysterical bleating from nincompoops.
A Supreme Court justice could be impeached for, ummm, let’s say, taking away a citizen’s right to bear arms.
Or, hmmm, seizing my private property to give to another private entity. (See Kelo v. New London.)
Or, just for an example, forcing me to buy health insurance at the point of a gun.
I’m not sure they can be impeached for throwing out a specious commerce clause claim that is not “regulating the stream” but forcing someone into it.
Stop your shrill blathering. And why is your head crooked?
Dow also has this gem -
Liberty, like every other human and constitutional right, is not absolute. Under some circumstances, it can be regulated.
First, Congress’s authority in passing the law rests on an elementary syllogism: You don’t have to drive, but if you do, the government can make you buy insurance. The logical structure at work here is that if you are going to do something (drive, for example), the government can make you purchase a commercial product (insurance, for example), so long as it has a good reason for doing so (making sure you can pay for any damage you do). That logic is obviously satisfied in the health-care context. You are going to use medical care, so the government can make you buy insurance in order to make sure you can pay for it.
I have my eye on a 1999 Ford Fiesta that has some rust… INSIDE the glove compartment. I can see the highway I’m driving on very clearly, not through the windshield, which has more spider web cracks than Nancy Pelosi’s cheeks, but through the floorboard.
It has more dings than Michelle Obama’s ass, and it also pulls left. The tires rub on the wheel well like Debbie Wasserman Schultz wearing corduroy.
I can’t wait to buy it with these pre-existing conditions and have it all fixed up by the insurance company the day I buy it.
Of course, they’ll also pay for my oil changes, car washes, tune-ups and, oh, the condoms I’ll need after I take to the road with this chick magnet. I can also lend my one car to my 200 friends and it’s still insured no matter who is driving! So, you see, I can borrow my friend’s car and actually drive WITHOUT INSURANCE.
The auto-insurance analogy is stupid.
Which leads to the second point: critics of the health-care law say the only reason the rest of us have to pay for medical services used by people who have no money is that laws require hospitals to treat people who come in for emergencies regardless of their ability to pay. In other words, the critics say, the only reason there is a social cost—the only reason the syllogism works—is because of the underlying laws requiring hospitals to treat the poor.
Unlike silly examples involving broccoli and cell phones, that so-called “bootstrap” argument is sound. But here the critics drop their ideological mask as surely as the court dropped it in the Gonzales ruling. Their argument can be restated thusly: if you repeal laws requiring hospitals to treat the poor, you eliminate the constitutional basis for mandatory insurance coverage.
Ya, okay Grayson. How does the ACA stop illegal aliens from walking into hospitals and getting free care and bankrupting them?