No longer Checks and Balances on Congress by SCOTUS

Laws no longer mean what they say.  Congress no longer need concern itself with careful and accurate writing and wording.  The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) will plug the breach, intuit the "real" intent of Congress while ignoring the actual wording of the duly passed statute, and save the day.  Of course, there is a consequence for this service: SCOTUS has now re-affirmed its move from co-equal branch of Congress to a second rate arm of Congress. We have ceased to be a nation governed by laws and now are dependent on a political class that continues to fund the courts as a sap to many who wish to continue to delude themselves that there is a check and balance against Congress. Anyone with a brain recalls how Congress "crowed" about the condition of creating a State Healthcare program as a prerequisite to getting Federal Funding. They tried to blackmail the States and it didn't work, so now they went to their underlings, the Supreme Court, to absolutely legislate from the bench and eliminate holding Congress responsible for its actions. "Umpires" indeed...if so this is the Black Sox Scandal with the Umpires bought off instead of the Players.  Does anyone question whether SCOTUS' budget request will now be granted in full?

There is a serious question of the legitimacy of any government structure when the laws mean nothing and can be interpreted as a politician wishes, instead of obeying the clear reading of words written and voted upon.  This is the result of the political class coming to adopt the Bill Clinton plea of "It depends on what the meaning of is is."  So many laughed as the absurdity of that comment, even as it turned out to be legally effective...and so we began to slide down the slippery slope of making honesty and truth and consequences immaterial in the American political world...and have also just made them immaterial in American life generally:  now it is apparently acceptable to narcissistically focus on getting "free" stuff even as we all know that someone is paying for it...as long as that someone isn't "us."  How delusional...and how clearly designed to ultimately destroy our country.  Khrushchev will turn out to have been right when he claimed we would destroy ourselves from within...he is chuckling in his grave right now.  Deservedly so.

Obamacare and the Supreme Court: any good options?

There was a reasonable argument from the very beginning that the Mandate in Obamacare made the whole Act unconstitutional.  And the line of questioning recently by the Supreme Court Justices suggest that they see the same problem.  But...that is only the beginning of the morass.  If they see the mandate as unconstitutional, what is the next step?...and why?  Whats the problem, you ask?  Well, there are two follow-up directions to determine if the mandate is ruled unconstitutional:  it that mandate severable from the rest of the act, or not.  If it is, then the rest of the Act could continue to stand.  If not, then the whole Act must also be ruled unconstitutional.

The Court in the past has bent over backwards to sever parts of bills, and they will undoubtedly look to do the same here.  But there are considerable problems with this, however.  And those problems go back to the clear language of Congressional deliberations prior to and construction of the final ACA.  Specifically, the original draft provided for a severability clause; it, as most bills do, indicated that if for any reason a portion of the bill were to be ruled unenforceable, the rest of the the bill could stand and be severed from the failed portion.  However, Congress removed that clause.  And, in addition, the Congressional Record shows that the Democrat majority which passed the final bill both understood and agreed that without the mandate the bill would be a financial disaster.

So, both logically and logistically, it would seem that Congress intended that the entire bill should and would fail if the mandate failed.  Ah, but enter the illogical and thoughtless process that so pervades our Capitol and its inhabitants:  as it passed, some desirable things were tacked on as a quick, expedient way to get them passed when it was suspected that they would not be enacted on their own merits...and then consider that some of the provisions in the Act are actually desirable, such as the elimination of limits on benefits and raises in premiums after purchase in response to developed claims.

The clear...and neat...way would seem to not severe the mandate and rule the entire bill unconstitutional as the Congress clearly intended.  That way, Congressional negotiations could begin immediately to formulate a way of re-establishing those particular insurance rules that most people would agree should be re-enacted and thus preserved.  And I earnestly hope that will come to pass...but in the meantime, the spectacle is absolutely riveting.