• Comment (34)

In Healthcare Case, the Supreme Court Is Risking Its Legitimacy

April 2, 2012 RSS Feed Print

April first has not rinsed the Supreme Court out of my hair.

Disturbing my peace of mind: the arrogance of Antonin "Nino" Scalia and his four fellow "conservatives" (almost too good a name for what they are if they dismantle President Obama's healthcare law). Piquing my patience: the journalistic myopia leading up to this moment.

If five unelected men dare to do that, that would be a radical affront to the constitutional authority of the president and the Congress, who both represent the voices of the people. They call the three branches of government a balance of power. Very nice. But in practice, considering the Supreme Court led by Chief Justice John Roberts, all bets are off.

[See a collection of political cartoons on healthcare.]

Hearing their voices last week during the case's oral arguments awakened me—and many of us—from a slumber of apathy about the high court. In general, the justices are a given, a group of nine who rule from a beautiful marble building. We the people can't do anything about the Republican majority of five—even if we believe Clarence Thomas is a scoundrel who has no place in deciding other people's fates. They are removed in their black robes, resistant to cameras capturing their proceedings, and altogether mysterious to the public. You can't even walk up the famous front steps anymore. The cloistered "brethren" like things that way, literally above it all.

Now it's clear as an April morning: They are unacceptably apart from the rest of us. A nation of 300 million cannot tolerate five men (appointed by George W. Bush, his father, and Ronald Reagan) making a huge medical decision involving life and death for the population. The political class and the press should start letting it be known the court had better not rule against a complex legislative achievement on its second try since Bill Clinton's presidency. Doctors, nurses, citizen groups, write letters and go stage a demonstration. Let the court hear your voices in their marble manor, just as we've heard theirs, insolently comparing health insurance to broccoli—thanks for that, Nino.

In other words, my fellow Americans, don't just wait for a decision to be handed down from on high. Healthcare reform is surely at stake with this momentous decision, but so is the popular legitimacy of this court.

[Read the U.S. News debate: Should the Supreme Court Overturn Obama's Healthcare Law?]

Far from being fair-minded and deliberative, we are faced with a court characterized by five partisans—and I include Anthony Kennedy, seen as the swing vote. He has enjoyed glowing treatment from the Supreme Court cadre of journalists who have used him as a plot point for years. A Washington institution, he's not the man in the middle now anymore than he was when he voted for George W. Bush in the Bush v. Gore debacle in 2000, giving new meaning to democracy's "one man, one vote. " That wasn't even 12 years ago, people!

In the scene-setters for the case, I read too many articles in The New York Times and Slate—and heard one too many NPR stories—asserting Kennedy would be a "reasonable" or "moderate" key player in upholding the healthcare reform mandate for his legacy. In fact, one law correspondent said, "everybody" in the legal journalism community thought upholding "Obamacare" was a done deal—until the actual arguments started.

In covering a rarefied realm, journalists jointly create a narrative for a cast of characters—and perhaps get too close to their sources, as those sources aren't going anywhere for a long time. In Congress across First Street, fresh faces and new blood are circulating every two years. The press galleries there resemble public school, while the press room in the court feels like a posh private school.

As the poet said, April is the cruelest month—at least until June crashes in.

Tags:
Clarence Thomas,
Antonin Scalia,
healthcare,
healthcare reform,
Anthony Kennedy

Reader Comments Read all comments (34)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Yes, the Supreme Court is far too political--currently the majority is biased to the political right wing. It is so much so that it is a threat to our democracy. The American people should demand a new formation of the court. I suggest that rather than lifetime tenure, that there be NO PERMANENT MEMBERS of the supreme court. I suggest that it be assembled on a case by case basis by a random selection of federal district judges who specialize in constitutional law. And in any 5-4 decision the case would be reviewed by an appellate court who would scrutinize the individual rulings and determine if the case should be tried again and under what circumstances (for example, perhaps a judge is shown to be biased, have a conflict of interest, or misinterpret the facts of the case--as so often happens with the current court). This way, the American people are not subjected to a court stacked with appointees with a political bias.

Richard of CA 12:32AM June 15, 2012

What you have failed to realize is that Congress and the President have already lost their legitimacy. Why should taxpayers fund healthcare for illegals, non citizens visa holders and for people who take advantage of the system. Both parties have abandoned the American citizen. Until Americans come first then I say defund the whole health care legislation and everything else. Why should we pay for something that will give us no benefit. We are already forced to send and fund our kids to public schools but yet we get no voucher support or break on our school tax if we do send our kids to private schools so why do it for health care. Blow it up and defund the entire government. No money no government

Eric H of TX 12:18PM May 01, 2012

I will wait judgement until the court provides its "Constitutional" arguments. Should their arguments and reasonings not be "Constituional", they must be impeached.

ajhindalou of MO 10:58PM April 08, 2012

Jamie Stiehm

Jamie Stiehm

Jamie Stiehm is a weekly Creators Syndicate columnist. Her op-eds on politics, culture, and history have appeared in newspapers across the nation, including The New York Times and The Washington Post. She previously worked as a reporter at the Baltimore Sun and The Hill. Jamie's first journalism job was as an assignment editor at the CBS News bureau in London.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

An End to the NRA’s Angry Swagger

Polls show that overwhelming majorities of Americans, and even of NRA members, favor universal background checks.

Mary Kate Cary

Washington’s Toxic Stew

President Obama's burgeoning problems affect more than this week’s three scandals.

Latest Videos

advertisement