|
Precedential election
Thursday will be a big day, in the American Republic, if the Supreme Court indeed pronounces upon ObamaCare. Its decision is likely to include surprises, pleasant and unpleasant to all parties, and the arguments will themselves be unexpected to many. This is because the court currently has, among its nine members, perhaps six who are genuinely learned in the law, and therefore capable of thinking outside received media and academic categories.It makes more sense to comment before the decision, than immediately afterwards, when pundits will fixate upon the immediate political implications. This is understandable in a presidential election year, when the fallout from the ruling will be substantial. The election result could depend on how the respective parties spin it -- so that, for instance, apparent defeat in court could be turned into victory in November, or a close finish turned into a rout. But to my mind, the benchmark the justices will inscribe may have a larger consequence, as precedent, farther down the road. For the question about the "individual mandate" -- whether the U.S. federal government has the power, under the "commerce clause," to compel the citizen to purchase something he does not want, and may consider to be morally abhorrent -- goes to the heart of Roosevelt's New Deal, and the American Nanny State that was erected upon it. Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2012-06-27 |
| http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=347334 |