Our ertstwhile Anon. Commenter shows us a truly foolish opinion out of Texas, in one judge's purported reply to mine of this morning -- on North Carolina finally, and sensibly, accepting 95% free federal money -- in the form of Medicaid expansion.
It bears noting that this same silly Judge O'Connor was over-ruled by the Supremes in 2019, after he ruled in 2018 that all of the ACA was unconstitutional, on religious freedom grounds.
He's back now, preposterously claiming that many current free ACA covered cancer screenings also violate religious freedoms, by requiring that they be administered without any patient co-pays. Poppycock.
I personally don't recall any New or Old Testament verse that specifically said it was a sin to give away free health care. And I certainly recall the social gospel of Luke 6:30-31 -- saying that we are our brothers' and sisters' keepers. [That we are to give to those who have not, freely.]
Most of all though, he is wrong on the law, thus (from the Supremes, and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor -- no relation):
. . .This case is essentially identical to readily distinguishable from Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942).
To decide whether the Secretary could regulate local wheat farming, the Court looked to “the actual effects of the activity in question upon interstate commerce.” 317 U.S., at 120. Critically, the Court was able to consider “actual effects” because the parties had “stipulated a summary of the economics of the wheat industry.” Id., at 125. [In the health insurance mandate cases, the actual effects of 50 million uninsured are well-detailed in the Congressional Record, OMB studies and the briefs of the parties -- about which there can be very little dispute.]
After reviewing in detail the picture of the industry provided in that summary, the Court explained that [the number of people buying insurance was the most variable factor in evenly spreading the daunting cost of health care. . .] consumption of homegrown wheat was the most variable factor in the size of the national wheat crop, and that on-site consumption could have the effect of varying the amount of wheat sent to market by as much as 20 percent [could cost more than $2 trillion]. Id., at 127. With real numbers at hand, the Wickard Court could easily conclude that “a factor of such volume and variability as [trying to delay paying for one's own INEVITABLE health care costs] home-consumed wheat would have a substantial influence on price and market conditions” nationwide. Id., at 128; see also id., at 128—129 (“This record leaves us in no doubt” about substantial effects).
The Court recognizes that “the record in the Wickard case itself established the causal connection between the [number of insured and the price of health care] production for local use and the national market” and argues that “we have before us findings by Congress to the same effect.” Ante, at 17 (emphasis added). . . .
Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., Inc., 452 U.S. 264, 311 (1981) (Rehnquist, J., concurring in judgment). Indeed, if declarations like these suffice to justify federal regulation, and if the Court today is right about what passes rationality review before us, then our decision in Morrison should have come out the other way. In that case, Congress had supplied numerous findings regarding the impact gender-motivated violence had on the national economy. 529 U.S., at 614; id., at 628—636 (Souter, J., dissenting) (chronicling findings). But, recognizing that “ ‘ “[w]hether particular operations affect interstate commerce sufficiently to come under the constitutional power of Congress to regulate them is ultimately a judicial rather than a legislative question we found Congress’ detailed findings inadequate. [There are quite detailed findings of Congress, right in the Congressional Record, regarding the mandate provision -- the 2013 tax on people who refuse to buy insurance, as a point of significant reference. Inexplicably, Judge Hudson wholly ignored them -- and that would be a critical factor, under Justice O'Connor's analysis -- of this taxing measure.] Id., at 614 (quoting Lopez, supra, at 557, n. 2, in turn quoting Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241, 273 (1964) (Black, J., concurring)). . . .
If, as the Court claims, today’s decision does not break with precedent, how can it be that voluminous findings, documenting extensive hearings about the specific topic of violence against women [containing health care costs], did not pass constitutional muster in Morrison, while the CSA’s abstract, unsubstantiated, generalized findings about controlled substances do?. . . .
Now you know. He will go down in flames -- as every challenge like this has. . . since 2012. But it will take a few years. Damn.
नमस्ते
No comments:
Post a Comment