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

Yellowjackets lose to Hawks in Falls Village

FALLS VILLAGE — The Gilbert/Northwestern/Housatonic Yellowjackets co-op football team lost 47-14 to the Woodland Regional High School Hawks Saturday, Oct. 5.

Woodland’s explosive speed created breakaway plays on the ground and in the air. Woodland QB Jack Brunetti Brunetti threw for 160 yards and the Hawks’ backfield combined for 298 rushing yards.

Keep ReadingShow less
Economic pressures jeopardize Connecticut's farming future

Marble Valley Farm in Kent leases land from the Kent Land Trust at below-market rates. The model enabled owner Megan Haney to grow her vegetable operation in an otherwise harsh economic climate for Connecticut farmers.

Photo by Sarah Lang

In August, the USDA’s 2024 Land Values Summary reported that Connecticut has the third most expensive farm real estate in the country (tied with Massachusetts) at two times the northeast average for dollars per acre.

To Chelsea Gazillo, the senior New England policy manager for American Farmland Trust, these numbers reflect a “farmland access and succession crisis” that has impacted the state for “the last 15 years at least.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Fashion and fun mark a century of service

Tom Barret shows off some Rummage Sale finds.

Natalia Zukerman

On Saturday, Sept. 28, the Cornwall Woman’s Society hosted its 100th anniversary celebration at Mohawk Mountain ski lodge.

“This celebration is to thank the people of Cornwall for their support and to celebrate the 100 years that the Woman’s Society has contributed to Cornwall and to needs near and far,” said Nancy Berry, co-chair of the Cornwall Woman’s Society (CWS).

Keep ReadingShow less
Haystack Festival returns to Norfolk

Now in its sixth year, the Haystack Book Festival brings together writers and thinkers in unmoderated conversation. Produced in conjunction with the Norfolk Foundation, whose mission is “to contribute to the vitality and sustainability of Norfolk, particularly in relation to the town’s natural setting and multiple artistic and cultural attractions,” the Haystack Book Festival takes place at the Norfolk Library. On Sunday, Oct. 6 at 1:30 p.m. the festival will have an event for middle grade readers at The HUB featuring Sarah Maslin Nir.

“We’re excited to be celebrating the sixth year of the festival. This year we have a great program discussing topics as wide ranging as ballet, interpreting the landscape, and looking at the horse as a treasured companion throughout history, along with other ideas that will be discussed on our stage,” says Michael Selleck co-director of the Haystack Book Festival.

Keep ReadingShow less