ObamaCare’s Fate? Here’s What A Key Supreme Court Justice Just Said That Could Be A Huge Clue

Image Credit: Wiki Commons

As the U.S. Supreme Court considers a case whose outcome could prove to be a death blow to Obamacare — a case challenging whether enrollees through the federal signup site, healthcare.gov, are entitled to premium-reducing subsidies — one key justice has casually dropped what could be a huge clue to his thinking.

The Daily Caller reports that Justice Anthony Kennedy — who often casts the high court’s swing vote — said something intriguing in testimony before the House Appropriations Committee.

Justice Anthony Kennedy’s comments in a run-of-the-mill budget meeting Monday may have signaled how he intends to vote in this year’s biggest Obamacare lawsuit over the legality of federal premium subsidies.

Kennedy…made comments that could suggest he’s leaning in favor of the plaintiffs in King v. Burwell. The question in the pivotal case is whether the text of Obamacare restricts the law’s popular premium subsidies to state-run exchanges….

Kennedy’s remarks to the committee related to the Obama administration’s argument that all ObamaCare subsidies must be maintained because to declare the federal marketplace customers ineligible would be disastrous for the law’s future.

The Daily Caller article notes that the administration “seems to be trying to convince the Court that ruling otherwise would be catastrophic for the health-care law, and therefore for the Court’s image.”

In other words, Obama, his legal team, and his liberal allies want the high court to go beyond considering what the law actually says and to give weight to what impact striking down the controversial provision would have on the millions of people who would be affected.

Responding to a question during Monday’s hearing, Justice Kennedy seemed to say that’s a faulty and largely irrelevant argument, that the Supreme Court should not be concerned with the impact of a decision or with the ability of Congress to “fix” a flawed law.

“We have to assume that we have three fully functioning branches of the government that are committed to proceed in good faith and with good will toward one another to resolve the problems of this republic,” Kennedy argued.

In fact, the head of the agency responsible for implementing Obama’s healthcare takeover scheme, HHS Secretary Sylvia Burwell, has said there is no backup plan for fixing the law should the Supreme Court rule against it in the subsidies case.

The justices are expected to issue their ruling in the latest challenge to ObamaCare in June. That’s when we will learn if what Anthony Kennedy said to lawmakers in the hearing on the Supreme Court’s budget was, in fact, a clue to how he will vote.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Here’s How The Supreme Court Should Decide The Same-Sex Union Cases

shutterstock.com

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear four cases involving the issue of same-sex unions. These cases come from the Sixth Circuit, where the U.S. Appeals Court had earlier upheld Michigan’s definition of marriage as limited to one man and one woman. That decision (DeBoer v. Snyder) created what is called a “conflict among the Circuits” and forced the Supreme Court to address the issue.

The court will be likely to issue a decision in June 2015, with arguments in April. There are two questions that the court has agreed to take up. Does the 14th Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex? Secondly, does that same Amendment “require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?”

How should the Supreme Court decide these cases? Specifically, the justices should reject the recent rash of federal court decisions that have, for the time being, forced same-sex marriage on the citizens of 31 states who had democratically chosen to define marriage as between one man and one woman. The court should follow the lead of Justice Clarence Thomas, who recently warned his brethren in a different but related context that they should “show the appropriate respect we owe the states as sovereigns and to the people of those states.” This is a call for the court to unapologetically take a stand for federalism—governmental power shared between the national government and the state governments. Federalism is a principle that has been at the very heart of our American government from the beginning. James Madison described it this way in Federalist # 45: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments, are numerous and indefinite. … The powers reserved to the several states will extend to … the lives, liberties, properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the state.” This is the federalism endorsed by the Founders, and the court should restore it to its proper place in American polity by allowing states and their citizens to make up their own minds about same-sex unions.

Such a stance does not require the court to do anything more than depend upon its own history in this regard. The federal judiciary has largely left the definition of what constitutes marriage—its contours, moral limits, and rationale—to individual state governments. This “hands-off” approach has not resulted in a stagnant status quo. It has not prevented some states from gradually altering their marriage laws over time. States throughout the nation have dealt with a variety of difficult and highly charged questions having to do with marriage. Legislatures have had to address questions concerning marriage such as what shall be the age of consent to marry (marital consent laws), whether a medical exam or waiting period is required, whether “common law” marriage is recognized, whether blood relatives may marry (consanguinity laws), whether one may be married to more than one person at one time (bigamy laws), how a marriage may be dissolved (divorce laws), as well as the current hot-topic—whether or not marriage partners can be of the same sex. State legislators are experienced at considering the benefits and costs of changes to this important institution. They are used to weighing the sentiments, convictions, and apprehensions of their constituents and responding accordingly. Our Founders wisely left such matters to the individual states acting through their chosen representatives because those state legislators were closest to the cultural pulse of the people affected. The Supreme Court should do the same.

In addition to a respect for state governments and their citizens, the court should practice self-restraint here if for no other reason than the centrality of traditional marriage to the well-being and stability of American society. The court should not lend its authority to those who are intent upon jettisoning traditional marriage like so much unwanted cargo. The justices should resist those who want to make marriage into an “anything goes” institution guided by unfettered personal preference. In short, they should be apprehensive about sanctioning a fundamental change in one of the longest-standing institutions of Christian Western civilization simply because of a current shrill campaign that falsely claims its origin is in the American tradition of equality.

The justices ought to heed the admonition of Edmund Burke in “Reflections on the Revolution in France.” He writes: “When ancient opinions and rules of life are taken away, the loss cannot possibly be estimated. From that moment we have no compass to govern us; nor can we know distinctly to what port we steer.”

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Federalism Can Still Save Religious Liberty

Photo credit: shutterstock.com

We live in a post-Christian America, broods the insightful “natural pessimist” on morality and religion, Rod Dreher, writing two long pieces on his The American Conservative blog that feature theologian Peter Leithart coming to this dramatic conclusion about government and Christianity in America today:

We’ve fooled ourselves for decades into believing that Christian America was derailed recently and by a small elite. It’s tough medicine to realize that principles inimical to traditional Christian morals are now deeply embedded in our laws, institutions and culture. The only America that actually exists is one in which “marriage” includes same-sex couples and women have a Constitutional right to kill their babies. To be faithful, Christian witness must be witness against America.

Specifically, Leithart had predicted beforehand that “Tax exemption will be challenged, and so will accreditation for Christian colleges and schools that hold to traditional views of marriage. Once opposition to same-sex marriage is judged discriminatory, no institution that opposes it will be unaffected.” He justified his pessimism by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent in Windsor:

In the majority’s judgment, any resistance to its holding is beyond the pale of reasoned disagreement. To question its high-handed invalidation of a presumptively valid statute is to act (the majority is sure) with the purpose to “disparage,” ”injure,” “degrade,” ”demean,” and “humiliate” our fellow human beings, our fellow citizens, who are homosexual. All that, simply for supporting an Act that did no more than codify an aspect of marriage that had been unquestioned in our society for most of its existence—indeed, had been unquestioned in virtually all societies for virtually all of human history. It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race.

Dreher concluded with an even darker insight, from Catholic Cardinal Francis George:

I am (correctly) quoted as saying that I expected to die in bed, my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr in the public square. What is omitted from the reports is a final phrase I added about the bishop who follows a possibly martyred bishop: “His successor will pick up the shards of a ruined society and slowly help rebuild civilization, as the church has done so often in human history.”

Dreher bases his grim view from the passion on the matter exercised by the other side of the debate. He recalled that Maggie Gallagher had reported on a 2006 Becket Fund conference about the now EEOC Commissioner Chai Feldblum, who, raised as an Orthodox Jew, was open enough to attend the symposium with the goal of showing gay respect for religion. Yet, it turned out to be a limited type of respect.

To Feldblum the emerging conflicts between free exercise of religion and sexual liberty are real: “When we pass a law that says you may not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, we are burdening those who have an alternative moral assessment of gay men and lesbians.” Most of the time, the need to protect the dignity of gay people will justify burdening religious belief, she argues. But that does not make it right to pretend these burdens do not exist in the first place, or that the religious people the law is burdening don’t matter.

Feldblum believes this sincerely and with passion, and clearly (as she reminds me) against the vast majority of opinion of her own community. And yet when push comes to shove, when religious liberty and sexual liberty conflict, she admits, “I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.”

And it appears that public opinion is now on the side of the gay community. Case closed.

Is America really on the verge of a civil war in which Christians replay the early persecutions? Actually, the most recent Pew survey finds only a plurality of 49 percent in the U.S. support gay marriage, but also that 51 percent still think such marriages are sinful. Gays may have won the marriage law, but they still lack the legitimacy they demand. The public is split down the middle on whether caterers and florists who have religious objections should be able to refuse services to gays. As far as political elites, region and urbanization play big roles. California has required churches to purchase insurance that includes abortions. Oregon required bakers to supply gay marriage ceremonies. Washington state sued to require a florist to garnish for a gay marriage. Catholic dioceses in Washington D.C. and Boston have left adoption services because they were forced to refer children to gay couples against church policy. The city of Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, demanded that married, ordained Christian ministers running a wedding chapel marry gays. The New England Association of Schools and Colleges threatened to revoke their accreditation of Massachusetts’ evangelical Gordon College if it did not change its policy on homosexuals.

This division reflects that of U.S. politics and culture generally: left and right coasts verses middle America, blue verses red states, sophisticates verses rednecks, religious against secularists, conservatives against liberals. The difference is that power has shifted radically left through the Ivy League elite-dominated Supreme and lower federal courts. But does this mean civil strife? Leithart recommends that discriminated-against Christians witness peacefully even at the cost of reputation, economic opportunity, and income or even more serious repression. James Davidson Hunter has long recommended shunning politics and especially national policy and going local to reconnect with Jesus and community. Are the catacombs, then, the only remedy for traditionalists determined to follow their faith as courts take decision-making from local control?

Fortunately, federalism is not that brittle. While granting national appeal courts a strong hand against the states on gay marriage, the most recent Supreme Court decision actually turned the matter back to the states for administrative disposition. National courts have limited ability to write their own marriage laws; and even with their oversight, there is much room for state action to limit the damage as traditionalists await future changes in the complexion of federal courts and law-making.

Before the Supreme Court ruled, 24 states more-or-less voluntarily adopted or accepted same sex marriage. That means that remedies are potentially available in the other 26 states to consider legislative remedies to preserve, in some manner or another, marriage between one man and one woman as a unique relationship. The fact that Republicans now control two-thirds of state legislative bodies makes this possible. At least some gay marriage supporters—for example, law professor James G. Dwyer–recognize there is a sufficient state interest to pass federal judicial rational-basis review in treating traditional marriage distinctively based upon the unique biological composition of such unions in producing children–and perhaps even because children may benefit more under such relationships.

State regulation of marriage itself could remain minimal as at present, being basically a contract between the couple being married. Only with children and the possibility of their abuse, or in separation or divorce, is state regulation of marriage per se common. Marriage could even be a purely private or religious contract without government controls other than offering an alternative state contract for those who might prefer one and for all of them being enforceable in state courts. Divorce and separation options could be specified in the original contract, perhaps with limited additional state oversight. When children are involved, the law could distinguish between different child situations: most sections of traditional state child protection law could be re-organized under the title of biological family law–and new titles added for adoption and artificial insemination for other child custody originations, which clearly present different issues. Rational differences could be deduced and the state interest in each identified, including any empirical benefits to children under different relationships.

Significant privatization is essential for marriage and social policy generally if force and severe civil conflict are to be avoided. Justice Anthony Kennedy’s main concern was to provide equal material benefits to homosexuals as granted to heterosexual couples under Federal laws. That can easily be achieved by granting all welfare benefits to individuals, to children through whoever has legal custody. As far as anti-discrimination laws, these were adopted as an extreme means to combat the extreme evils of slavery and legal segregation. Over time, new aggrieved groups demanded equal remedy for less cause. Applying such laws to sexual preferences and religious disagreements on morality would be momentous. The European religious wars of the past are not appealing futures, and make no mistake: a secular demand for moral equality is a religious claim under a different label. One need only look to the Middle East to see what we should want to avoid. Any real reform of marriage must take place freely in what future pope Joseph Ratzinger then called an attitude of “non-conformity” toward the dictates of current fashion.

Conditions change. Christian marriage did not even require clerical witnesses for its first millennium. The state did not control marriage in Britain until 1754 or in France until the Revolution, before America broke free of both. Catholic marriages were not recognized in the United Kingdom until 1836. Meanwhile, American federalism provided the means for cooling things off. It managed tensions well enough to take extremely diverse colonies, from Puritan New England, to Anglican Virginia, to Quaker Pennsylvania, to Catholic Maryland, to mixes of these and others throughout the colonies and early states finally developing into a nation by allowing each to develop independently and freely. It failed in 1860 with a civil war but slowly arose again to a reasonably peaceful, just, and prosperous America in modern times.

The U.S. is divided once again by strong views on social policy; and wisdom suggests the solution once again is regional diversity, federalism, and a live-and-let-live culture. Without them, Dreher, Leithart, and George might just be proven prophetic.

 

This commentary originally appeared at The American Conservative.

Photo credit: shutterstock.com

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Conflict Between The Circuits: Gay Marriage Back On The Supreme Court’s Table

Photo credit: shutterstock.com

A month ago, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear a collection of cases that raised the question of traditional marriage vs. same-sex unions. Now, a Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decision may have changed all of that. By voting 2-1 to uphold same-sex marriage bans in four states under the appellate jurisdiction of the Sixth Circuit—Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee—the panel has now created a conflict between the circuits. This conflict exists because four other federal circuit courts had found bans on same-sex unions to be unconstitutional. We know now, at least according to statements from Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, that a lack of a conflict between the circuits was the reason the Supreme Court balked at hearing the earlier cases from five other states.

The Sixth Circuit majority opinion in DeBoer v. Snyder, written by Judge Jeffrey Sutton, is worth reading because it carefully discusses the major points of disagreement. The key question is whether “the 14th Amendment prohibits a State from defining marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman.” Judge Sutton zeroes in on the essential issue:  “Who decides? Is this a matter that the National Constitution commits to resolution by the federal courts or leaves to the less expedient, but usually reliable, work of the state democratic process?” The majority answer is quite clear. Today’s marriage laws should be allowed “to stand until the democratic processes say they should stand no more.”

Sutton’s opinion uses a “rational basis” review in assessing the marriage laws of Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee. This is a common approach followed by courts to evaluate if state laws pass constitutional muster. Basically, the court must determine if there are good reasons for a state to protect traditional marriage. Does the law “rationally advance a legitimate government policy?” Yes, clearly, says the opinion. The states in question established “ground rules” needed to create “stable family units for the planned and unplanned creation of children.”  The court continues, saying that “one can well appreciate why the citizenry would think that a reasonable first concern of any society is the need to regulate male-female relationships and the unique procreative possibilities of them.”

The court acknowledges that in this day and age, that is not the only way some view marriage. Yet, the fact that there are other more expansive or inclusive views of marriage does not dictate that states “suddenly must look at this policy issue in just one way on pain of violating the Constitution.” Sutton later writes that “[o]ne of the key insights of federalism is that it permits laboratories of experimentation—accent on the plural—allowing one State to innovate one way, another State another, and a third State to assess the trial and error over time.” Sutton writes that the States are wise to exercise a “Burkean sense of caution” when it comes to redefining such a fundamental and long-standing institution as marriage–and that, ultimately, such decisions are better left to “elected legislators, not life-tenured judges.”

In DeBoer v. Snyder the court addresses the claim, sometimes raised by supporters of same-sex unions, that the resulting state laws or constitutional initiatives succeed because of “animus” against homosexuals; and those motivations make the resulting bans on gay unions constitutionally suspect. Judge Sutton reminds readers that assessing the motivations of millions of citizens who voted for gay marriage bans in Michigan (2.7 million), Kentucky (1.2 million), Ohio (3.3 million), and Tennessee (1.4 million) “strains judicial competence.” Some favored the ban for some reasons, others for other reasons; but the courts are ill-suited to delve into the complicated “aggregation of factors” that motivates voters.

It is likely that the Supreme Court will abide by its own rules and accept one or more of the traditional marriage/same-sex union cases for review. Then the question becomes whether there will be five justices who: 1) graciously defer to democratically determined outcomes on this issue; 2.) respect American federalism, which recognizes that states retain the power to act in this highly-charged area; and 3) will be reluctant to judicially remake two of the central institutions of organized society: marriage and family.

Editor’s Note:  The Chief Judge of the Sixth Circuit, the Honorable Alice Batchelder, is a trustee of Grove City College.

Photo credit: shutterstock.com

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Hollow Justice And Courts Of Order In An Age Of Government-Sanctioned Tyranny

Photo credit: Talk Radio News Service (Flickr)

“The Constitution is not neutral. It was designed to take the government off the backs of the people.”—Justice William O. Douglas

Justice in America makes less sense with each passing day.

A Michigan couple that has been raising chickens in their backyard as a source of healthy food for their family could get up to 90 days in jail for violating a local ban on backyard hens. A Kentucky prison guard who was charged with 25 counts of sexual abuse against female inmates, trafficking controlled substances, and 50 counts of official misconduct walks away with no jail time and seven years’ probation. A 53-year-old Virginia man is facing 20 years in jail for kidnapping, despite the fact that key evidence shows him to be innocent and his accuser a liar; yet the courts claim they’re unable to do anything about it. Meanwhile, thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent refusal to hear the case of Jones v. U.S., judges can now punish individuals for crimes of which they may never have been convicted or even charged.

With every ruling handed down, it becomes more apparent that we live in an age of hollow justice, with government courts, largely lacking in vision and scope, rendering narrow rulings focused on the letter of the law. This is true at all levels of the judiciary, but especially so in the highest court of the land, the U.S. Supreme Court, which is seemingly more concerned with establishing order and protecting government agents than with upholding the rights enshrined in the Constitution.

Given the turbulence of our age, with its police overreach, military training drills on American soil, domestic surveillance, SWAT team raids, asset forfeiture, wrongful convictions, and corporate corruption, the need for a guardian of the people’s rights has never been greater.

Yet when presented with an opportunity to weigh in on these issues, what does our current Supreme Court usually do? It ducks. Prevaricates. Remains silent. Speaks to the narrowest possible concern. More often than not, it gives the government and its corporate sponsors the benefit of the doubt. Rarely do the concerns of the populace prevail.

In this way, preoccupied with their personal politics; cocooned in a priggish world of privilege; partial to those with power, money, and influence; and narrowly focused on a shrinking docket (the court accepts on average 80 cases out of 8,000 each year), the justices of the current Supreme Court rarely venture beyond their rarefied comfort zones.

Every so often, the justices toss a bone to those who fear they have abdicated their allegiance to the Constitution. In Riley v. California, for instance, a unanimous Court ruled that police need warrants in order to physically search the cellphones of people they arrest. Even in that instance, the victory rang hollow to those who understand that government agents, equipped with military-grade surveillance equipment, don’t need physical access to our phones in order to know who we’ve been talking to or texting and what we’ve been saying.

Too often, however, as I document in A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, the Supreme Court tends to march in lockstep with the police state.

Pages: 1 2 3 4

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom