Category: judiciary

Categories
judiciary Tenth Amendment federalism too much government

Resistance Still Possible

According to a majority on the Supreme Court, Obamacare’s penalty for not buying medical insurance is constitutional because it’s a “tax,” not a “penalty.” Hmmm. All taxes may penalize, and penalties sure can be “taxing,” but this similarity doesn’t give us license to swap one for the other.

Chief Justice John Roberts reportedly flip-​flopped about whether the Obamacare mandate is unconstitutional — perhaps in fear of left-​leaning politicians and pundits. (“We’re not going to like you if you hinder our tyrannical medical regime by applying constitutional principles!”)John Roberts, flip/flop

The chief’s formal opinion states that under the Constitution the wisdom of legislation is a “judgment … reserved to the people.” Whoa. Hasn’t Marbury been decided? Doesn’t the courts’ power of judicial review help ensure that constitutional restraints on government power continue to restrain?

Well, just because the Roberts Court refuses to do its job doesn’t mean we must twiddle our thumbs in response. We can fight for an anti-​Obamacare majority in Congress and the White House in November.

We can also urge our state governments to decline to cooperate with Obamacare right now. As wretched as it is, the court’s ruling at least overrules the new law’s attempt to force states to massively expand Medicaid. Almost immediately after the ruling, Florida Governor Rick Scott, who had refused to cooperate with other aspects of the law, announced that Florida will not expand Medicaid eligibility. A dozen or so other governors have made similar commitments.

What about your governor? Do you need to make a phone call?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
judiciary tax policy too much government

Supreme Oxymorons

With the Supreme Court’s decision in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act has achieved its first milestone: The repudiation of logic, the Orwellian assertion that A both is and is not A.

The reform package, popularly known as Obamacare, requires that individuals buy medical insurance. If you fail to do so, the law imposes a fine.Justice Roberts

The zillion page legislation refers to this financial penalty 18 times. It never refers to a tax.

Its principal booster, President Obama, repeatedly insisted it wasn’t a tax. And as Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in his dissent, “We have no doubt that Congress knew precisely what it was doing when it rejected an earlier version of this legislation that imposed a tax instead of a requirement-with-penalty.”

But Chief Justice John Roberts, a George W. Bush-​nominee, joined the four liberal justices to declare that what was not a tax, when proposed and passed, now is a tax — so that it could be declared constitutional under Congress’s taxing power. Roberts explains:

Congress did not intend the payment to be treated as a “tax” for purposes of the Anti-​Injunction Act. The Affordable Care Act describes the payment as a “penalty,” not a “tax.” That label cannot control whether the payment is a tax for purposes of the Constitution, but it does determine the application of the Anti-​Injunction Act.

Only were Obamacare not a tax could it be litigated at this time under the Anti-​Injunction Act. Accordingly, the majority says it is not a tax. But it can only be ruled constitutional if it is a tax. So, the High Court calls it a tax and not a tax at the same time.

The dissent called this “remarkable.” Stronger words spring to mind.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
judiciary national politics & policies term limits

Reform Follows Function

Waiting for this week’s Supreme Court decision on Obamacare, which most folks expect to strike down the mandate and perhaps the entire law, George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley argues in the Washington Post that the court should be expanded from nine justices to 19.

FDR, no doubt sitting up in his grave listening for details, would find Turley’s suggestion of allowing each of the next five presidents to choose two new justices very politic, even sneaky.Jonathan Turley

One reason to add more justices, Turley hazards, is the damage caused to popular government when controversial issues are decided narrowly. Predicting a 5 – 4 vote on Obamacare, he unaccountably thinks it would be less controversial to then give the President two new justices so that this law (or other Obamanisms) would be upheld 6 – 5.

If I have my arithmetic correct, there can be legal cases decided by a single justice with any odd number of justices … nine, eleven, 13, 15, etc. That is why we choose odd numbers, if not odd justices.

Prof. Turley is correct, however, in addressing the awesome power of each Supreme Court justice, the fierce political battles each nomination now engenders and the ensuing politicization of the Court. He simply applies the wrong medicine.

A better reform would be to end lifetime tenure for justices on the High Court (but not for lower level federal judges). By requiring rotation no one could lock in a majority on the court for decades without sustained majority support of the people.

Turley informs us that 60 percent of the public already favors this approach. But the Washington elite? No such support.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
judiciary U.S. Constitution

Liar in Chief

When you hear the word “unprecedented,” reach for your … dictionary.

As I’ve noted before, the word no longer sports its traditional meaning.

On Monday, President Barack Obama commented on the possibility that the Supreme Court would strike down the 111th Congress’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act by saying that such a move would constitute “an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” Yesterday, a three-​judge panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the Justice Department to clarify the president’s statement. By Thursday.

Does the president — who happens to have taught constitutional law — really think the courts do not have the power to review and disqualify law on the basis of constitutionality?

As reported on CBS News’s Crossroads site, “Overturning a law of course would not be unprecedented — since the Supreme Court since 1803 has asserted the power to strike down laws it interprets as unconstitutional.”

I’d like to take a moment and thank the president … for help making the Constitution a live topic of conversation these days. But there’s something worrisome here. The president knows better. This is even worse than, say, Newt Gingrich totally messing up his comments on “activist judges,” making hash of law and interpretation. This is a president with a Harvard-​established reputation on the subject saying something patently untrue.

He could only have been “fibbing.” And hoping to get away with it … apparently on the supposition that Americans are so miseducated we wouldn’t even notice.

We noticed.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
judiciary property rights

Pest Control for Pesky Evidence

Should courts be outlawed from thwarting outlaws?

The Environmental Protection Agency has acted to unilaterally ban a pesticide in use for decades. Writing for the Cato Institute’s blog, Ilya Shapiro notes that the agency’s move exemplifies “a growing trend among federal agencies and courts to incrementally expand the government’s enforcement power by adopting statutory interpretations that go beyond their plain meaning and intent.”

The pesticide is carbofuran, used to protect crops since 1969. What is the evidence that carbofuran poses a hitherto un-​comprehended threat to human well-​being? Federal law requires EPA to provide for a “notice and comment” period before altering an established legal threshold for pesticide residues on food. If “material issues of fact” are then raised, the agency must conduct a public evidentiary hearing. National Corn Growers indeed raised “material issues of fact” regarding the alleged hazards of carbofuran. So an evidentiary hearing is mandatory.

The DC Circuit ruled, however, that scientific disagreements are insufficient to trigger judicial review and that decisions about new residue tolerances should be left entirely to the EPA. If upheld, the decision means the agency could determine all by itself whether its regulatory actions are consistent with law. Even when they obviously aren’t.

Along with the National Corn Growers and other industry groups, the Cato Institute and Pacific Legal Foundation are challenging this latest assault on property rights and the rule of law — an assault you might even call a pestilence.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
initiative, referendum, and recall judiciary

Rights and Democracy

Democracy and constitutional rights fit together better than some people think.

Most people don’t think of democracy as some hyper-​pure system where two wolves and a lamb decide whom to eat for dinner. They envision a constitutional republic that protects fundamental rights while also democratically controlling government’s legitimate decisions and policies.

Increasingly, our representative bodies — from city councils to Congress — have attacked both our rights and our votes.

We need a direct democratic check on government; we need voter initiative and referendum.

Yet, even when citizens vote directly on an issue, the courts remain there to provide an additional check. Recently, Federal Judge Vaughn Walker struck down California’s Prop 8, a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. He said the measure violates the 14th Amendment’s requirement of “equal protection of the laws.”

Controversial? Yes. Sensible? Also yes.

Not so sensible, though, have been some criticisms.

My friend Joe Mathews, no initiative enthusiast he, wrote in the Washington Post: “Perhaps the spectacle of a federal judge overruling such a momentous electoral result will force Californians to reckon with the fact that their initiative process is at odds with norms of American civil rights and government.”

But this is about rights, not procedures. The vast majority of states have bans just like California’s. Banning same-​sex marriage has been popular with both legislatures and voters.

Politicians can be wrong. Voters can be wrong. Judges can be wrong. But with each checking the others, we will be better off.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.