We use cookies to provide some features and experiences in QOSHE

More information  .  Close
Aa Aa Aa
- A +

SCOTUSCare Follies: Et tu, Justice Thomas?

3 10 0

Leftists are celebrating the Supreme Court’s latest ruling, in California v Texas, to uphold the constitutionality of Obamacare. And why wouldn’t they? Sure, Obama’s flagship legislation may be little more than a leaking and rotting hull in the D.C. harbor nowadays, but progressives are clinging to it nonetheless. And in spite of 18 red states’ most recent broadsides to sink her once and for all, this latest ruling ensures that she remains afloat for a little while longer. The 7-2 decision was pretty lopsided, too, with a concurring opinion that was written by none other than arguably the leftists’ most despised justice, Clarence Thomas.

In their concurring and dissenting opinions regarding the latest challenge against the constitutionality of Obamacare, California v. Texas, Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito find themselves on separate sides of the political divide.

Why? Well, the answer to that question may be more complex than most Americans might find in the headlines, cursory examinations, or fake news reports.

First, let’s revisit some history.

Do you remember why Obamacare’s constitutionality was originally considered questionable? It was the individual mandate, upon which the fiscal efficacy of the law relied. Congress no more has the power to make the purchasing of individual health insurance compulsory than it has the power to make the purchasing of broccoli compulsory, as the late Antonin Scalia cogently argued.

However, in 2012’s National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, the Court stood on a precedent set in 1937 when a similar question was argued before the Court. Forcing all Americans to purchase a stake in a fixed annuity (then and now called Social Security) from the federal government, for their own individual retirement income security, was deemed by some to be the coerced purchase of retirement income insurance.

The Court certainly agreed in the year that the Social Security Act became law. The Railroad Retirement Act of 1934, for example, used the word “annuity” in its legislative language with zeal, and was shot down for it in 1935 by the Court.

But in 1937, the Court, under duress for having continually thwarted FDR’s unconstitutional New Deal legislation and enduring his threats to pack the Court with new justices of his choosing, opted to uphold the federal government’s power to coerce the purchase of insurance, while offering a peculiar defense for it.

It wasn’t that the government was forcing Americans to buy insurance for their own individual welfare, the Court........

© American Thinker

Get it on Google Play