Health Care at the Supreme Court

Many folks in this country disagree with the Health Care Reform Act commonly referred to as Obama care. Some disagree primarily with the mandate portion of the bill. This, in fact, is the basis of the lawsuit which has wound it's way to The Supreme Court with opening arguements scheduled for today.

A couple of points are important here. It is assumed that due to precedent and any reading of the Commerce clause in the Constitution that this law will stand. One good example is the forcing in many states of drivers being mandated to have liability insurance. This is to protect the state and fellow citizens from picking up the cost of your not having insurance. One does not need insurance until one needs insurance and the same could be said for health care.

However disregarding this obvious ruling our Republican friends should know something else. Each time The Supreme Court tramples on precedent to achieve a partisan political aim they are guarenteeing the same will be done to them. By now everyone knows that the campaign finance ruling known as Citizens United sets aside assumed and literal precedent that has been the law for over a hundred years. What that and if the health care law's potential reversal guarentees is that for the future any law that is the law now is only the law until the numbers change on The Supreme Court. And they will. There is a demographic nightmare coming straight at the Republican Party.

The Supreme Court is there last chance to hold that off for as long as possible. Cynically were President Obama to be defeated I would not be surprised to see the next Republican nominated Justices to be in their early thirties. The Republican intent is to hold the majority in this unelected office long after their demographic mandate has shriveled.

Still upsetting long term precedent for short term political gain has a risk. Nothing might energize the left more than realizing that perhaps the greatest legacy of a President are the justices he or she places on the Court. Nominees bent on destroying precedent and settled law might visit issues that we in this country are in no way desiring to have revisited. A President Romney or Santorum could bring about a majority court that agrees on these womens issues that have been the main topic of discussion in the primaries of late.

In short when deciding who to vote for it would do us all well to decide if we are happy with the basic constitutional guarentees we have. A President allowed to cement a Conservative majority long after the country moves away from that direction is a President we may regret.

I am no fan of this health care bill. I think it did not go far enough and feel that a single payer government run system would be the eventual result of a defeat of this bill due to the Commerce clause. So I will shed no tears for its defeat. But as has been said for as long as we can remember follow the money. Who is getting rich off the system as it is. Do you really think that insurance companies have your best interest at heart. Please ...we are all smarter than that.