They're arguing the Affordable Care Act in front of the Supreme Court. Yesterday, based on the questions some Justices asked, we were told it was likely they'd vote to uphold the thing. Today, based on the questions some Justices asked, we're being told it's likely they'll vote to kill the thing. Tomorrow, Clarence Thomas will cough and that will prove something. At some point, apparently before Election Day of this year, there'll be a ruling and everyone who likes it will say it was the only possible choice and everyone who doesn't will say the other side was just playing politics. Me, I think 90% of what this and all recent Supreme Courts have done has been politics even when they vote my way.
And in this case, I'm not completely sure I know what my way is. I mean, it seems pretty simple. Can the government insist that your employer has to buy you health insurance? Apparently, it can…and even those who liken "Obamacare" to slavery have never contested that. So why can't the government insist you have to buy your own health insurance?
Since I think the health care situation in this country is actually killing people and/or driving them into poverty and there does not seem to be another serious proposal to change it, I should be rooting for the High Court to validate the mandate and all other aspects of the A.C.A. so we can get on with it. But then I read op-eds and pundits suggesting that if the Supremes do invalidate it, it will (a) galvanize poor voters to go to the polls and vote for Obama and (b) create a clear path to what I think we oughta have in this country, which is Single-Payer. So I don't know how I'd like to see them rule.
I'm thinking no one knows anything except that the more conservative justices will almost certainly vote against the mandate if not the whole bill, and the more liberal ones will almost certainly uphold it…and there are one or two swings that could go either way. It's sad that it ever comes down to that with the Supreme Court. They're not supposed to vote like Congress does with the Democrats voting for the Democratic position and the Republicans voting for the Republican position and only one or two votes ever hanging in the balance. You'd like the Supreme Court to transcend that and to at least feel that anyone's vote could go the other way based on the merits of a given case. That is, after all, why they serve for life, the theory being that if their jobs don't hinge on who wins any election, that takes them out of the realm of politics. But obviously, it doesn't.
I can imagine a Supreme Court Justice who isn't allied with either side and who's independent enough to rule on the merits of the law and nothing else. It cannot possibly be the case that the conservative POV is always right or the liberal POV is always right but some Justices vote like it is possible. So while I can imagine a Justice who can set politics aside, I can't imagine such a person getting nominated and then confirmed.