Do only law school grads understand SCOTUS and our Constitution?
Several readers, one an attorney, have sent me links to articles making the case that Chief Justice Roberts was actually brilliant and principled in his opinions issued yesterday because what matters is finally setting some limits on the Commerce Clause. One of those pieces assumes those who fault Chief Justice Roberts for his words released yesterday (and the days before concerning Arizona's immigration law) are rubes...
Here's an excerpt:
Few today notice what (Roberts) has done. Long after many of us are gone, this 5-4 opinion finally setting limits on the reach of the Commerce Clause will continue to affect American lives and protect private citizens from Washington's intrusions.
It is understandable that most Americans, who are not law school graduates, do not think in these terms, nor do most pundits outside the legal community who interpret news. However, attorneys and certainly law professors get it. We know what happened on Thursday. It was subtle and below the radar, like a tsunami beginning in the middle of an ocean, still days away from the shore. Only the trained insiders know what that rumbling will cause in the future. This was a tsunami, finally giving us our first Supreme Court precedential holding in nearly a century that reins in the federal government's unbridled abuse of the Constitution's Commerce Clause. And the liberals, excited as they understandably are by the temporary survival of ObamaCare, do not even realize what has happened to a pillar of their enterprise. And that is fine.
It's hard for me to imagine anyone half-awake not noting immediately the ground gained by this decision against the abuse of the Commerce Clause. Of course we all took notice and are dutifully thankful for that significant victory. Why our good writer would think otherwise is beyond me.
The larger matter, though, is the Chief Justice's lack of integrity in manufacturing a justification for not overturning nationalized health care. The other men of the court didn't think they had to invent some specious justification for nationalized health care such as Chief Justice Roberts' "It's a tax." Why did Chief Justice Roberts think he needed to invent one?
Really, when we see it's not necessary to sustain President Obama's nationalization of health care in order to take a stand against the abuse of the Commerce Clause, Chief Justice Roberts no longer looks brilliant, but simply craven. And that's where I stand.
One other matter: someone commented saying I should not waste or abuse my pastoral authority by writing about this Supreme Court ruling because it's not a matter of the Gospel nor something all Christians living under Scripture must agree on. True. I never said or implied otherwise. There are many things on this blog that are a matter of faithfulness to Scripture. This SCOTUS decision is a political matter and the authority I cited was the U.S. Constitution. So if you disagree with me on this and think Chief Justice Roberts is not craven, but brilliant, God bless you. I hope all Baylyblog readers realize that there are many posts that are not sermons or Biblical exhortations, but thoughts "out of our minds."