Dissecting the court decision on Obamacare

In order to move forward with the implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, known as “Obamacare,” we have to go with the 5 to 4 majority opinion in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012). This is so even if we realize that the U.S. Supreme Court reached the right result for the wrong reason (see The Lakeville Journal, July 5). The majority held in effect that an act of Congress is necessarily constitutional if it includes a “tax” provision. Questionable, but at least Obamacare was held constitutional.The dissenting joint opinion, however, was truly egregious, not so much because of its subjective bias against a national approach to “Health for All” (on which reasonable persons might reasonably differ) but also because of its near total lack of coherent rational jurisprudence. This has implications for the future of judicial review in this country, and is therefore worth a further critical look now.The minority summed up its dissenting position this way: The majority opinion amounts to “a vast judicial overreaching. It creates a debilitated, inoperable version of health care regulation that Congress did not enact and the public does not expect.” These are strong words. Yet every element of this dissenting summary statement is either false or irrelevant, or both.Since when does a court’s upholding an act of Congress constitute “judicial overreach”? Never. Throughout U.S. legal history it has been universally recognized by legal scholars that judicial review overturning an existing legislative act is an extraordinary, exceptional undertaking — possibly qualifying as “overreach.” However, upholding an act of Congress is simply par for the course. It almost qualifies as “under reach.”What evidence was presented to and considered by the Supreme Court to the effect that Obamacare would be “debilitated” or “inoperable”? Absolutely none. Furthermore, if there had been such evidence, it would not be for a court of law to decide what is “operable.” That is a legislative question, not a legal one. The dissenters’ assertion of fact is in any event irrelevant to the constitutional question of law.How can it be said with a straight face that Obamacare represents “a health care regulation that Congress did not enact”? Isn’t it the whole point that Congress did enact the Affordable Care Act, and now the Supreme Court was being asked to rule on its constitutionality? If Congress hadn’t enacted it, there wouldn’t be a case before the court. To say that Congress didn’t enact the act is patently false. It’s an absurd statement, designed for the gullible.How can the dissenters claim that the public did not “expect” the implementation of Obamacare? They have been “expecting” it for years. Polls show that the majority of Americans want affordable health care. So, they must “expect” it now. What evidence did the court have to the contrary? Absolutely none. And what relevance would it have anyway to the question of constitutionality? None.In a word, the dissent in National Federation is incoherent. It is chilling to realize that in the future the mere switch of one justice will be enough to change a dissenting minority of four into a ruling majority of five, almost irrespective of the merits of the case. This is the kind of arithmetic that led to the disastrous outcome in the case of Citizens United (2010).The foregoing does not lend credibility to or confidence in the competence and reliability of at least four of the “conservative” members of the divided Roberts Court. We can only say once again that Chief Justice Roberts’ last-minute decision to switch was the “switch on time that saved nine.” Did he believe in what he wrote, or did he rather fear the judgment of posterity? In the eyes of U.S. history and jurisprudence, can anything really save this divided Supreme Court?Are we doomed to having our legal and constitutional fate held hostage to a bullet-voting claque of four who espouse extremist ideology, which is bad enough, but who equally appear unable to express their views in terms of rational jurisprudence? Must the eventual outcome of every significant constitutional case depend on the fortuitous swing vote of a single justice to break a 4-to-4 deadlock? Can we not do better than this? Yes, we can. At least, we hope we can. Sharon resident Anthony Piel is a former director and general legal counsel of the World Health Organization.

Latest News

Sharon voters reject controversial school budget, 114-99

The May 8 town meeting and budget vote were moved from Sharon Town Hall to Sharon Center School to accommodate what officials said was the largest turnout for a Sharon budget meeting in recent years.

Alec Linden

SHARON – More than 200 residents packed the Sharon Center School gymnasium Friday, May 8, where voters narrowly rejected the Sharon Board of Education's proposed 2026-2027 spending plan by a vote of 114-99, sending the budget back to the Board of Finance after weeks of heated debate over school funding.

The rejected proposal – the ninth version of the budget since deliberations began months ago – carried a bottom line of $4,165,513 for the elementary school, unchanged from last year. The flat budget came after the BOF ordered the BOE in early April to remove nearly $70,000 from its spending plan.

Keep ReadingShow less

Liane McGhee

Liane McGhee
Liane McGhee
Liane McGhee

Liane McGhee, a woman defined by her strength of will, generosity, and unwavering devotion to her family, passed away leaving a legacy of love and cherished memories.

Born Liane Victoria Conklin on May 27, 1957, in Sharon, CT, she grew up on Fish Street in Millerton, a place that remained close to her heart throughout her life. A proud graduate of the Webutuck High School Class of 1975, Liane soon began the most significant chapter of her life when she married Bill McGhee on August 7, 1976. Together, they built a life centered on family and shared values.

Keep ReadingShow less
‘Women Laughing’ celebrates New Yorker cartoonists

Ten New Yorker cartoonists gather around a table in a scene from “Women Laughing.”

Eric Korenman

There is something deceptively simple about a New Yorker cartoon. A few lines, a handful of words — usually fewer than a dozen — and suddenly an entire worldview has been distilled into a single panel.

There is also something delightfully subversive about watching a room full of women sit around a table drawing them. Not necessarily because it seems unusual now — thankfully — but because “Women Laughing,” screening May 9 at The Moviehouse in Millerton, reminds us that for much of The New Yorker’s history, such a gathering would have been nearly impossible to imagine.

Keep ReadingShow less
google preferred source

Want more of our stories on Google? Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

By any other name: becoming Lena Hall

By any other name: becoming Lena Hall

In “Your Friends and Neighbors,” Lena Hall’s character is also a musician.

Courtesy Apple TV
At a certain point you stop asking who people want you to be and start figuring out who you already are.
Lena Hall

There is a moment in conversation with actress and musician Lena Hall when the question of identity lands with unusual force.

“Well,” she said, pausing to consider it, “who am I really?”

Keep ReadingShow less
Remembering Todd Snider at The Colonial Theatre

“A Love Letter to Handsome John” screens at The Colonial Theatre on May 8.

Provided

Fans of the late singer-songwriter Todd Snider will have a rare opportunity to gather in celebration of his life and music when “A Love Letter to Handsome John,” a documentary by Otis Gibbs, screens for one night only at The Colonial Theatre in North Canaan on Friday, May 8.

Presented by Wilder House Berkshires and The Colonial Theatre, the 54-minute film began as a tribute to Snider’s friend and mentor, folk legend John Prine. Instead, following Snider’s death last November at age 59, it became something more intimate: a portrait of the alt-country pioneer during the final year of his life.

Keep ReadingShow less
Sharon Playhouse debuts new logoahead of 2026 season

New Sharon Playhouse logo designed by Christina D’Angelo.

Provided

The Sharon Playhouse has unveiled a new brand identity for its 2026 season, reimagining its logo around the silhouette of the historic barn that has long defined the theater.

Sharon Playhouse leadership — Carl Andress, Megan Flanagan and Michael Baldwin — revealed the new logo and website ahead of the 2026 season. The change reflects leadership’s desire to embrace both the Playhouse’s history and future, capturing its nostalgia while reinventing its image.

Keep ReadingShow less
google preferred source

Want more of our stories on Google? Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

google preferred source

Want more of our stories on Google? Click here to make us a Preferred Source.