Letter Submission

To submit a letter to the editor, please email us at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Letters must contain the author's name, hometown (state as well, if not in New Hampshire) and phone number, but the number will not be published. We do not run anonymous letters. Local issues get priority, as do local writers. We encourage writers to keep letters to no more than 400 words, but will accept longer letters to be run on a space-available basis. Letters may be edited for spelling, grammar, punctuation and legal concerns.

 

I wonder if liberal justices have even read the U.S. Constitution

  • Published in Letters

To the editor,

Re: The ObamaCare debate and the questions before the Supreme Court, I find it hypocritical that the liberals are now using fairness to argue for universal health care coverage, and to support the "penalty" for non-compliance. It's not fair, according to the liberals, for freeloaders to use the emergency rooms, increasing costs for the rest of us.

For one thing, it was the liberals who were behind mandates that emergency rooms couldn't turn anyone away, so ...

To the editor,

Re: The ObamaCare debate and the questions before the Supreme Court, I find it hypocritical that the liberals are now using fairness to argue for universal health care coverage, and to support the "penalty" for non-compliance. It's not fair, according to the liberals, for freeloaders to use the emergency rooms, increasing costs for the rest of us.

For one thing, it was the liberals who were behind mandates that emergency rooms couldn't turn anyone away, so it’s disingenuous to hear them using that argument. Second thing, if the liberals want to prate about fairness, let's have them require that anyone who's caught not wearing a seat belt pay twice the health insurance premium that seat belt wearers pay. (Statistics show that hospital costs are two times greater for those scofflaws.) Likewise with anyone who doesn't wear a helmet on a motorcycle, habitual smokers, alcoholics, drug users, you name it. Why should people who try to take care of their well-being pay for those who don’t care? Is that fair?

But that would offend the Democrat’s major constituencies, so that kind of fairness will never happen.

Regardless, the fairness argument is put forth in some of the exchanges reported during the current proceedings before the Supreme Court on ObamaCare. Consider the non-germane comments of the liberal Supreme Court justices: http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/scalia-health-care-kagan/2012/03/27/id/434048?s=al&promo_code=E89A-1

Here’s a quote from Ginsburg: ““People who don’t participate in this market are making it much more expensive for the people who do; that is, they will get, a good number of them will get services that they can’t afford at the point where they need them, and the result is that everybody else’s premiums get raised?”

Kagan, Sotomayor, and Ginsburg are not concerned with the constitutionality of the law, they're concerned with social and economic issues. The questions that these liberal justices are asking are not by way of gathering background information, they are proposing social and economic arguments to justify an opinion. These justices are not meant to be legislators. The Supreme Court is there to provide a check on the lawmakers and the executive. The arguments they use to justify an opinion must have a legal, constitutional basis.

Admittedly the comments in the above-referenced article are selected to show the liberal justices "progressive" positions, but there the questions are — from three of what appear more and more to be political hacks appointed for the worst of reasons. I wonder if they've even read the Constitution more than once. The same applies to the president, who’s claims to be a constitutional scholar.

So much for the rule of law for the Supreme Court liberals. Unfortunately, many of the people in this country accept this kind of judicial activism. It is very dangerous thinking to assume that these judges can and should legislate from the bench, either by judicial order, or by failing to understand their role as interpreters of the law. It’s one more step toward achieving Obama’s dream of the imperial government.

John Lukens

Gilmanton Iron Works