Was going to inflict you guys with a barrage of partisan verbage about the recent final chapter in our now four-year national nightmare that is the president's plan to reform America's way of insuring and paying for our citizen's health care.
I recall sitting up all night on a Saturday and into the next Sunday a couple years ago at my brother's home in Jackson, Mississppi, a lone pharmacist among 2 physicians and a speech therapist--interested parties all--as congress put an end to their final arguments and made it clear that President Obama would ultimately get what it was that he and his party had longed for all these decades.
And this week The Supremes finally got a chance to sing.
"Stop. In the name of (the) Law."
I say I was 'going' to inflict. But then the NY Times did it for me. I'm simply going to quote their lead editorial from Wednesday and insert my thoughts as we go. And hope that this makes my point. [My thoughts will be inserted within these **____**.]
Activism & the Roberts Court
The ideological nature of the health care case was obvious on the last day of oral argument. By the time the proceedings were over, much of what the conservative justices said in court seemed like part of a politically driven exercise--especially because the issues addressed on Wednesday were not largely constitutional in nature. In fact, they were the kinds of policy questions that are left to Congress and state governments to answer, not the Supreme Court. **well who's fault is THAT?? who sent the entire package to them? the administration did. they dared this bunch to take it or leave it in toto!! you loons. but i progress....**
On Wednesday morning, the court heard arguments on the issue of "severability"-- the question of what should happen with the rest of the 2,700-page statute if the requirement that most Americans obtain health insurance is struck down. The insurance mandate was effectively reduced to a bumper sticker by the opponents in their constitutional challenge, and the entire law reduced to little more than an appendage to the mandate. **yep!! kinda like the 4 years of working towards a degree in school is a bumper sticker and the degree a mere appendage! but I progress...**
"My approach would be to say that if you take the heart out of the statute, **yeah!!rip it out** **flesh tearing sounds inserted here**, the statute's gone," Justice Antonin Scalia said, **can I say that I'd have Antonin's children? see my FB posts for more..**, a position held by the law's opponents, who want to demolish the whole thing. **what evidence to you loons have for THAT? huh? seriously...** But H. Bartow Farr III, the lawyer appointed by the court to argue for upholding all other parts of the law if the mandate falls, showed how careless and wrong that view is. **it is truly a wonder that these loons didn't capitalize Wrong** His presentation compellingly explained what Congress actually passed: **it doesn't MATTER if they passed a $5 Acura NXS, if it isn't constitutional! but again I progess..** a thoughtfully constructed, comprehensive solution to the enormous problems of insufficient insurance coverage and ever-mounting costs of health care. **as they go on to describe what it is that Congress actually passed, in their objective view.**
As Mr. Farr made clear, the fate of the mandate should not determine the survival of the other elements of the law - **ok here we go!!!!! guys, this is, as I'm sure most of you know, where it gets precedential--if that's a word--. there has never been an administration so arrogant -- or so silly -- that would dare send a bill like this out in to the world. i'll just simplify the point at this point for further consideration later by saying that of course the mandate should determine the survival of the bill. the mandate funds the bill. period. ** --........
Under general principles, courts must avoid nullifying more of a law than is necessary. Justice Kennedy suggested that it would be more extreme to preserve part of the statute than to strike down the whole thing because that would alter Congress's intent. He could avoid this problem by upholding the mandate. **see?? insert multi-syllabic curse-paragraph here!(use baby wahhwahh voice here) just uphold the mandate so we can have the whole pretty package. they worked so hard on it and it has got so many pretty bows and thingies on it and stuff. wahhhh..** **He could avoid the problem!! AVOID THE PROBLEM OF IT BEING UNCONSITUTIONAL!! OH RILLY!! It has really come to this. Simply look past that little unconstitutionality of the thing. We've got a good deal here. We have to get it passed. Constitution, Schmonstitution. We need this power. ** **This is obscene **
And then, my next thought was, "What? Only 400 or so words spent on the most important 3 days in the Supreme Court in recent memory?" Does the NYTimes not deem it worthy of them, or do they think that 400 words is enough to sway us hicks out here?
Guys, the mandate ain't legal. The mandate pays for the whole thamn ding. There fore and so on, the law ain't legal. That's how this inky hick sees it. Saw it that-a-way 2 years ago. And 3 years ago. Every other tangiential discussion is, yes, irrelavent, Ms. Editor.
Start over, find a way to maybe let insurance companies sell catastrophic health plans across state lines at competitively extremely low costs, then call me.
But until then, Stop.
Brian K. Mitchell, an R.Ph., is the owner of Mitchell Pharmacy in Kennett.