Skip to main content
Let me start by saying that John Roberts is a great Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. He understands what the separation of powers is supposed to mean, and he has a long track record of deference to the legislative branch as representatives of the people. And with the health care law, this is exactly what he did: he presumed the law constitutional (as is his obligation) and then he tested that presumption in the light of Congress's enumerated powers. He was also constrained by the precedent of other decisions to try to find a possible interpretation that supports its constitutionality. And that's what he did.
Our partisan fights over the role of judges and courts have obscured the tensions within the Right, broadly speaking, about what courts should do, as this points out. Libertarians construe our rights as grounded in our individual liberty, and thus, view everything that happens in the political realm as something to be judged absolutely in light of those inalienable rights. (There will be some overlap between them.) They are much more comfortable with a court system that actively strikes down anything that violates a maximal view of individual rights under the Constitution. Many conservatives, however, have feared a court system that overrides the people for the sake of some preferred policy choice. They were united in that liberals were willing to use the courts (and the Supreme Court) as a kind of super-legislature when rebuffed in Congress or some other arena. But conservatives presume that laws passed by Congress are constitutionally valid oftentimes, while others argue that Congress or the president could do something radically antithetical to liberty just as easily. And they're both right. The judicial conservatives, who urge deference to the legislature, clearly were able to bring the judicial sin of 'legislating from the bench' into the political popular lexicon. But our rights in an absolute sense were clearly in view when Justice Rehnquist, unimpressed by O'Connor's appeals to precedent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (the last real challenge to legal abortion) pointed out that Plessy v. Ferguson ("separate but equal"/segregation) was on the books more than 90 years when the Court rightly struck it down in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (which desegregated public schools). Our Chief Justice is definitely saying that he is not taking responsibility for Congress writing a bad law. The libertarian strain of thought won't agree with what he did, but he never said he was an activist.
If we want this law gone, and if we want the HHS contraception mandate gone, we have only one choice: beat Obama.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un