Dear Editor,
What does the John Roberts Supreme Court decision on ObamaCare mean? My first impulse, hearing of the decision, was to imagine it a net positive. I said to myself, “This will surely mobilize opposition to the leftist president who gave us this piece of garbage!”
I thought of other positives. The President could not claim a “politicized High Court.” Roberts, a Republican, was voting with four justices appointed by Democrats. Had Roberts decided to make conservatives the scrappy underdogs, for the sake of the November election? He did say in his opinion, “It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.” Could you be any clearer, Chief Justice Roberts?
So, though I couldn’t imagine that the Court would uphold the law, given the remarks of justices in oral arguments, should I be grateful for the decision? And so I was, until I read the July 4th Liberty Legal Foundation piece, “Grieving for freedom.”
The piece called my reaction to the decision a form of denial, the first stage of grief. It said that, “Now Congress can regulate anything, as long as it forces us to comply by “taxing” non-compliance.” It said further that, “The Constitution was supposed to prevent any Congress from enacting any legislation that violates fundamental freedoms,” and, “if we must now depend upon winning every single election in order to keep our freedom, then freedom has no chance of surviving for our grandchildren.”
I’m not feeling so well now. Those who love the Constitution meet in Rockton the third Thursday each month at 302 W. Main Street at 6:30 pm. We have to keep fighting.
Jane Carrell
Roscoe
