A Supreme Court justice should present an image of intelligence, competence, and wisdom. Such qualities identify sound judgment and inspire public trust. But two of SCOTUS’s “progressive” purists have sullied that image. In fact, we might wonder if a grasp on reality remains requisite for a seat on the high bench.

During ObamaCare arguments Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked, “What’s wrong with leaving this in the hands of those who should be fixing it?”

Were Sotomayor referring to the free market, which has been all but removed from the healthcare industry, we could admire her insight. But when we understand that she’s referring to Congress, we must question her loyalty to, and understanding of, our Constitution. We might even question her sanity.

The U.S. Constitution doesn’t grant Congress the power to force citizens to purchase anything, including health insurance. Such federal power is neither expressed nor implied, therefore it doesn’t exist. But even if Congress were authorized to provide, manage, or mandate health insurance, who in their right mind would defer to Congress’ wisdom?

The Congress that passed ObamaCare, to which Sotomayor would defer, was under Nancy Pelosi’s direction, and Pelosi is contradiction personified. She recently told reporters that her Congress “wrote our bill [the Affordable Care Act] in a way that was Constitutional.” That’s beyond unbelievable, coming from the person who said ObamaCare must pass so we could discover what the bill contained. It’s even more unbelievable when we consider that this same Nancy Pelosi piously dismissed a reporter’s concern about Congress’ constitutional authority to enact ObamaCare. And yet Sotomayor trusts Congress, which has proven inept at nearly every subject it addresses, to correct problems within the healthcare industry? That’s psychotic.

If Sotomayor’s views were isolated, or represented a worst case example of judicial reasoning, we might dismiss them out of hand. But her opinions are neither isolated nor a worst case scenario. Justice Elena Kagan upped the ante. One of the key arguments against ObamaCare is its coercive nature, to which Kagan responded, “Why is a big gift from the federal government a matter of coercion?”

Kagan possesses, at best, a warped appreciation for giving. A gift is, by definition, free. ObamaCare isn’t free. The cost may be reflected in mandates, fines, or coverage for the uninsured, but ObamaCare carries an unavoidable price. State governments, insurers, medical professionals, and individuals must absorb the cost of Obama’s supposed gift while navigating the regulatory maze the requisite bureaucracy will create. A gift with such strings attached is better left unwrapped.

Because Sotomayor and Kagan are Supreme Court justices their opinions, however incredulous, are granted credibility. It needn’t be so. Ronald Reagan warned us, “Don’t be afraid to see what you see.” While both Sotomayor and Kagan are educated, education doesn’t invariably grant wisdom to its possessor. When we hear Sotomayor and Kagan speak on ObamaCare’s constitutionality and benefit, let us not be afraid to see their incompetency and the threat to liberty it represents.

Comments

  • Whodat

    Not many comments to a well written piece, Mr. Hager.  Perhaps because we are all essentially in agreement or because we find the Obomb statements so out-of bounds that we cannot even comment.

    As we near a very special day, I will comment on my thanks for my country, my freedom to read and speak and write, and most of all, for the forgiveness of my many sins.  Easter is a very special day and I hope both friend and foe find it so and find the joy I find in being forgiven… And, in spoiling my grandchildren with enough chocolate to give an army acne.

    God Bless All,

    Whodat

  • Whodat

    Not many comments to a well written piece, Mr. Hager.  Perhaps because we are all essentially in agreement or because we find the Obomb statements so out-of bounds that we cannot even comment.

    As we near a very special day, I will comment on my thanks for my country, my freedom to read and speak and write, and most of all, for the forgiveness of my many sins.  Easter is a very special day and I hope both friend and foe find it so and find the joy I find in being forgiven… And, in spoiling my grandchildren with enough chocolate to give an army acne.

    God Bless All,

    Whodat

  • Steve M.

    You seem to be confused by Justice Kagan’s comments. The argument was that the Bill is coercion because it threatens to take away all Medicaid funding if the state refuses to accept the Medicaid expansion funding. Her quote was referring to the gift of billions of dollars of medicaid funding. She made a very appropriate analogy. This line of argumentation (Wednesday morning) had absolutely nothing to do with mandates or fines — it was strictly about medicaid funding. The question was, is it coercion when the punishment is not providing a huge gift.

  • Steve M.

    You seem to be confused by Justice Kagan’s comments. The argument was that the Bill is coercion because it threatens to take away all Medicaid funding if the state refuses to accept the Medicaid expansion funding. Her quote was referring to the gift of billions of dollars of medicaid funding. She made a very appropriate analogy. This line of argumentation (Wednesday morning) had absolutely nothing to do with mandates or fines — it was strictly about medicaid funding. The question was, is it coercion when the punishment is not providing a huge gift.