Obamacare

Can Liberals Only Conceive of the Supreme Court in Partisan Terms?

|

When the first legal challenges to ObamaCare and its individual mandate were filed, most of those backing the challenges thought the chances of the challenges succeeding were slim. They didn't think they were wrong. They just thought that they would have a hard time convincing the legal system, which they viewed as excessively deferential to congressional power under the Constitution's Commerce Clause, that they were right. But despite what they believed to be long odds, they nonetheless thought they had to try, in hopes that the legal system might place some limits on the federal regulation of commerce.

The challenge worked about as well as they could have hoped. We obviously don't yet know how the Supreme Court will rule on the health care law, but at this point most observers believe that it is entirely possible that the Supreme Court will rule against the law—perhaps even striking it down entirely.

Liberals have long insisted that ObamaCare's constitutionality is so obvious it barely needed to be defended. They are now arguing that if the Supreme Court does strike down the law, ObamaCare's defenders should react with anger and outrage, not just running against Republicans who opposed the law but against the high court itself. And more than that, they are suggesting that any ruling against the law or its mandate is necessarily illegitimate. After all, legions of liberal legal scholars agree that only a politicized, partisan court could reject such an obviously constitutional provision: Requiring the purchase of health insurance coverage simply as a matter of being alive and a resident of the United States falls well within the bounds of precedent, the argument goes.

Yet virtually all of these same liberals support the last century's worth of breaks from precedent when those breaks come down in favor of laws they like. Most subscribe to a basic theory of the Constitution that argues that the document's meaning evolves and changes over time, depending on particulars and circumstances as well as on the specific interpreters and arbiters themselves.

Perhaps now is the time for some evolution. If the Supreme Court sides against ObamaCare, it will be siding with a public that has consistently opposed the law as a whole and overwhelmingly opposes the mandate. If the Court rules against the mandate, it will not be upending swaths of existing law but instead ruling on a novel and unprecedented federal requirement that affects nearly all people simple because they are alive and legally residing in the United States. And it would be setting an outer limit on the power of Congress to regulation commerce. It will be settling a controversial legal and constitutional question that has yet to be decided, which is, after all, what the Supreme Court is supposed to do.

Liberals seem to believe that the only sentiment that could possibly support a ruling against the law is blatant partisanship. As The Examiner's Timothy Carney writes, "The liberal argument today, though, is not merely that Congress can regulate inactivity, but that any argument to the contrary is dishonest or idiotic. This allows the Left to portray an adverse ruling as nakedly political."  

It's a telling view. Liberals have for so long relied on novel interpretations of the Constitution designed almost exclusively to advance their own legislative ends that they simultaneously cannot believe that there is any alternative and yet are deeply offended by the idea that their political opponents might do the same. Their position is essentially that the Court's rulings are only legitimate when they advance favored liberal policies: Court packing? A mark of a historically great president. Reading new rights into the Constitution based on the high court's mysterious intuitive sense of what it all really means? A definitive ruling that must be protected at all costs.

But if the court should decide that a novel and unprecedented federal provision designed to compel commerce in order to regulate it is beyond the scope of the federal government's authority based on a clause that grants Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce, well then, the whole system must be illegitimate. The job of the Supreme Court is to enable Congress, not limit it, duh.

And yet that is obviously not the only alternative. When ObamaCare's opponents set out to challenge the law's constitutionality, they hoped to defeat the law by bringing others to their side. It has clearly worked with the public. And if the Court rules against ObamaCare, it may not be purely the result of partisan calculation, but of weighing the arguments against the law and its mandate and being genuinely convinced that the opponents had the better case. This is what so many of the law's defenders apparently cannot believe. 

Regardless of how the high court rules, what many liberals have revealed is a lack of legal imagination: They can only conceive of the courts and the Constitution in partisan terms, as a vehicle for the advancement of a political agenda. Ultimately, it is not the Supreme Court's legitimacy that is threatened by this ruling, but the legitimacy of the liberal legal establishment. 

Advertisement

NEXT: Brickbat: By the Book

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Liberals seem to believe that the only sentiment that could possibly support a ruling against the law is blatant partisanship.

    Consistent 5-4 rulings? They’re not wrong about the justices and partisanship. It’s just that each side gets it right half the time.

    1. I don’t think he’s arguing that the court isn’t partisan, it’s just that in liberal world that’s the only way it could possibly exist.

  2. When every single thought you have or decision you make is based on feeling rather than reason, a non-partisan ANYTHING is inconceivable.

    1. I was just arguing about this on FB (yeah, I know). One person was making the at least semi-logical argument that the fine constitutes a form of taxation, therefore it’s legal. The rest of it was like, well only Constitutional Scholars are able to interpret the Constitution because it is complicated and old and based on English common law, etc. One person said that trying to judge the intent of the FFs (I said the intent was to enumerate negative rights) smacked of necrophilia.

      1. Did you tell them that necrophilia is a victimless crime?

        1. Heh heh, no. But I should’ve asked if discussing what Plato meant by such and such in The Republic also smacked of necrophilia.

      2. One person was making the at least semi-logical argument that the fine constitutes a form of taxation, therefore it’s legal.

        Other than the fact that the law was explicitly written as not-a-tax, that argument is golden.

        1. Yeah, but I don’t think the intent of the law has anything to do with its constitutionality. Congress does have the right to levy taxes.

        2. Even if you look at it as a tax, taxation without some sort of exchange or activity taking place or rather, taxation on inactivity, would be an unconstitutional direct tax. the argument that it is a tax still doesn’t work.

    2. Everything they believe is based on feelings and an love of the state – with no underlying principles at all.

      Modern Leftists / Statists really aren’t liberals any longer.

      1. We are government!
        If you don’t love the state then you don’t love yourself!
        Why do you hate yourself?

        1. Because I’m fat and I drink too much.

  3. I remember when the hugely unpopular kelo decision came down hearing on NPR that there were more “Republican justices” in the majority. Turned out they weren’t alone in that “analysis”.
    “Republican Justices” are who they say they are depending on the case and decision.

    1. Walker, Texas Ranger is the only Republican Justice needed.

  4. I want to rewrite this
    Title-
    “Can Liberals Only Conceive of the Supreme Court in Partisan Terms?”
    Article-
    Yes.

  5. I sure wish liberals would be able to admit this. I’ve known a few that did, but they were sarcastic, selfish bastards, who didn’t give a damn about right, or what someone else might prefer.

    To my way of thinking, the S Court should put the constitution on a pedestal, and weigh everything directly against it. Only looking at precedent, as a clarifying agent. When a decision is made, it should not carry the weight of the constitution, and many times it seems like precedent trumps the constitution.

    1. When a decision is made, it should not carry the weight of the constitution, and many times it seems like precedent trumps the constitution.

      Well, that’s the difference between the Anglo-American common law tradition and the civil law tradition of much of the world.

      I prefer the common law tradition as it seems more conducive to liberty.

      1. I live in a civil law country and I have now clue how it works. But they usually have constitutional courts that operate solely for striking down un-constitutional laws–in practice they are pretty weak sauce, it seems.

    2. The problem is, we have a lot of SCOTUS rulings that set bad precedents. Wickard V Filburn,as an example, said that people cannot grow grain solely for the purpose of feeding their own livestock and set the “impact on interstate commerce” standard as precedent. in my opinion, this greatly widened the scope of the commerce clause allowing pretty much anything to be reasoned under it’s umbrella.

  6. Liberals might as well jump up and down and scream “I wan it! Not fair! I wan it now!”

  7. look, it may be only a handful of hardline progressives that really want this law, but they’re the ones who know what’s best for us. Plus, how are they going to get their socialist European friends to stop making fun of them unless they can force UHC on us? Huh? Answer me that.

  8. Yet virtually all of these same liberals support the last century’s worth of breaks from precedent when those breaks come down in favor of laws they like. Most subscribe to a basic theory of the Constitution that argues that the document’s meaning evolves and changes over time, depending on particulars and circumstances as well as on the specific interpreters and arbiters themselves.

    Shorter: they believe in mob rule through elected officials. They have no coherent vision of government, other than that it should deliver everything imaginable to their friends, and plunder all their enemies.

  9. I still don’t understand how this law can withstand a basic 6th amendment challenge.

    Screw the commerce clause for a minute.

    The law says the penalty fee is not a tax. That means it is a criminal penalty. Once you say it’s not a tax, there’s nothing else for it to be.

    And the 6th amendment clearly and unambiguously states that I’m entitled to a jury trial before the imposition of a criminal penalty.

    1. You don’t actually own your own body. It is on loan from the state.
      After all, representatives of the state can lock you in a cage or take your life if they choose, so you are their property.

      This is simply a user fee.

    2. But aren’t you also entitled to a trial by jury for not paying your taxes?

    3. and even if it is a tax, since it is a tax on inactivity, wouldn’t that make it a direct tax, which is still unconstitutional?

  10. Oh, come on Suderman, you were on such an alt-text roll!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.