AppId is over the quota
There's new found excitement from the conservative ranks today. As the Supreme Court hears oral arguments there's close observation of each justice's response. We hang on their every word excruciatingly squinting to read between their descriptive lines. If we listen closely and if we analyze critically we believe we can accurately predict how each justice will vote.
We ask ourselves, do their responses give us legitimate insight into how they think? Absolutely! The words that spew from our mouths generally come from deep inside our heart. Generally, but not always! Can we assess their statements throughout the three or four days of oral arguments and then draw an accurate conclusion? By reading their actions and reactions can we accurately predict which side of the constitutional mandate they will fall?
I would state a resounding "no way!" Just because Justice Roberts chose to go toe to toe with government council does not enable us clear vision as to how he will vote. Just because Justice Kennedy has offered descriptive and compelling arguments explaining the unconstitutionality of the individual mandate is not truly indicative of his innermost thoughts regarding the Accountable Care Act (ACA) and certainly does not provide us high predictive value into how he will vote. Especially knowing that Justice Kennedy purportedly holds the decisive swing vote.
Even though the highest court in the land is responsible for legal interpretation rather than political legislation, the reality is at this time in American history, the court has positioned itself as a body of politicians or legislatures, rather than a group of jurists. Seemingly they would rather shape and influence politics.
And therefore, I believe that Justice Roberts and Kennedy's statements are more similar to posturing or politicking, rather than a window into their intellectual soul.
I won't be surprised in the least if after all arguments are made, and our initial excitement or sense of security in the initial reaction from our US Supreme Court Justices with regards to the lack of constitutional authority for an individual health insurance mandate and after the parliamentary dust settles, we hear a loud and clear, "however"!
I'm expecting a response something like this from The Court in the near future..."However, even though Congress cannot impose mandates on essentially all products and services, health care is unique and therefore not like any other American product or service. Therefore, the American people must not look at this as our US government telling each of us that we must purchase health insurance. Instead we must reshape our thinking from a required mandate to a desired participation. We should think of this as being prescribed that distasteful medicine that we need to cure whatever disease is ailing us. Like that bitter cough syrup our old General Practitioner (GP) prescribed 50 years ago. We should want to participate in this national health plan because it will be good for us." this is the response I personally am expecting from The Court. And I think their explanation will go something like this..."And the most important thing to remember is that patients (American citizens) don't always know or appreciate what is best for them. Like a parent nurtures their child, or like a doctor treats their patient, the government knows better than we do, and therefore, we should want to participate in, say healthy eating, whether we like, say broccoli, or not, because it is good for us."
Thus, when one looks at how the Supreme Court is posturing regarding individual mandates, it's imperative to remember things are not often as they appear. Or, what you see isn't always what you get. Therefore, I for one, will not be surprised after all the Supreme Court dust settles, if there's a big "but" standing in the doorway claiming the individual mandate in this particular situation is acceptable, constitutional, but most importantly what is best for each one of us.
Also, don't forget, even though we are examining this issue critically this week, for the past two years the PPACA has been the law and much of it has already been implemented. If I'm wrong and the Supreme Court does decide this health insurance requirement is unconstitutional, the court can't simply snap their fingers and have the PPACA magically go away. And if your waiting for their opinion to be given at the end of this week, don't hold your breath, because they won't officially make their ruling until mid summer, which gives the politicians plenty of time to persuade The Court to change their collective mind.
