Blog

I’ve been fascinated in listening to the oral arguments at the Supreme Court (click HERE for basic information about the argument schedule and subjects to be covered).

But, I’ve also been frustrated.

It’s as if I am a child, out in a corridor, listening to a conversation coming from inside a room. It’s a strange sensation to realize “the adults” are talking about you, are trying to decide things about you, and the conversation is a bit over your head. You’re not going to be asked what you think, the decisions will be made, and then some adult will explain it in a way that you can understand (or maybe you just won’t). You don’t know what’s going to happen, you can’t follow all of the details, but you don’t like what you’re hearing.

"Facts of Life" by Norman Rockwell

As an intelligent, capable adult, I do question whether such musings should occur in listening to one branch of my government hear legal arguments about bills passed and signed into law by two other branches of my government.

But, what is the natural result of a growing nanny state? Those of us who don’t want a nanny and do not believe we need one, are likely to object when we see signs that one is being foisted upon us. Small wonder I feel like a rebellious child.

These musings, begun on Monday, lead me to recall a quote used recently by Linda from Federalist No. 62 (likely by James Madison):

“It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?”

To make arguments before the Supreme Court requires significant expertise, knowledge, and machine-gun thinking skills. To ask pin-point questions which cite specific federal statutes, recall prior Supreme Court rulings, and reference “____ cases” (an entire set of decisions), in making one point or another, is very impressive.

But, while I respect and admire the level of skills required, I can’t also help but wonder – have all of the parties involved become so much a part of the web of complexity that is now our government that it is no longer possible for them to step back and see “the big picture” or to understand the impact – on real human beings – of the subject they are discussing?

It seems to me that all involved – including the parties who, outside the Supreme Court’s chamber have publicly and loudly vowed to “fight ObamaCare” – start off accepting a great deal about what already exists in this country that they should not. More than anything – even the health care “reform” legislation itself – its the acceptance of WHAT IS that has me very concerned about the future – and not just in this case.

My philosophical musings will continue, there’s no doubt. But I am not philosophizing only. The system is what the system is at this moment and it will produce a critical and historic judicial ruling. Linda and I are interested in analyzing the arguments and, even, if time allows, the briefs filed in this case. We will share information with our readers as soon as we are able.

Meanwhile, if you are interested in listening to the arguments or reading the transcripts, here are the necessary links:

Monday, March 26 – Dept. of Health & Human Services v. Florida – Anti-Injunction Act – 90 minutes of arguments

• Audio files with multiple listening options and transcript HERE

Tuesday, March 27 – Dept. of Health & Human Services v. Florida – Minimum Coverage Provision – 2 hours of arguments

• Audio files with multiple listening options and transcript HERE

Facts of Life, Norman Rockwell via Wikipaintings.org