The Constitutional Court is failing in its responsibilities to determine if the case presented, dealing with legislation as written, is constitutional and can be upheld or is not constitutional and must be withdrawn in spite of the consequences of the implementation of bad legislation.
“The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. “Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.”
The Chief Justices characterization of a penalty as a tax leaves the realm of common understanding and was the precursor to words not meaning what words are written into enacted legislation.
Fast forward to June 25 and again the words written in the legislation are interpreted to mean something that is not written. Words matter and legislation is based on the words used not the Justices interpretation of the intent of the writers.
But we have even bigger problems. The Supreme Court cemented President Obama’s fundamental change of American Society by overruling State’s rights on June 26.
Marriage was ordained by God, not by man. The Supreme Court has declared itself equal with God by declaring gender is irrelevant in marriage. At the Federal level, marriage is no longer a Holy Institution, it is a civil union.
Citizens who oppose same-sex marriage will never view one as a legitimate marriage. Just as they continue to view abortion as murder. Federal law allowing such actions do not change the attitude of people whose moral code is based on the 10 commandments and 2000 years of biblical understanding.
Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan have invented a new right and assert that liberty can be found through an entitlement of governmental benefits. These justices then support that liberty and dignity do not come from a superior power, but flow from government. This is the path to governmental tyranny when the government believes it is the source of Citizens rights.
What makes these five people more “enlightened” than the millions that have voted in States referendums to determine the future course of social order? Justices Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito in their dissent acknowledge that social transformation without representation has occurred.
Justice Roberts seems to be most concerned with maintaining a status quo. He wrote in the majority for maintaining shoddy legislation that was already in effect (ACA) and voting in the minority when major social change (gay marriage) was being decided. These two opinions in their details are incongruous.
The ideal of an independent Supreme Court is necessary in our triad representative republic. But independence should not shield Justices who can no longer decide legal questions and are more concerned with legislating social order. Judicial impeachment is rarely performed. It requires the cooperative action of the House and Senate. Offenses for bad behavior may be pursued but it will be more difficult to garner the necessary majorities because their decisions are suspect or dis-agreeable.
A more obtainable solution to keep Justices focused on their duty may to be enact a constitutional amendment providing for judicial review and retention voting by the Citizens.