Full Disclosure: I am not a lawyer nor a trained legal scholar.
As was the case with Thomas More Law Center v. Obama (TMLC), a Clinton-appointed Democratic political official masquerading as a federal judge issued a political statement of Democratic talking points masquerading as a judicial ruling. I don’t want to delve too much into the weeds of this “ruling” since Liberty University, et al. v. Geithner, et al. says pretty much the same thing as TMLC and it’s pointless to reiterate it. But I want to get to the meat of the keys to what “Judge” Norman Moon wrote. Suffice it to say, this guy states that by law, the federal government is allowed to treat Americans as serfs. To make things worse, this clown cites his fellow Democrat’s TMLC “ruling” as precedent, even though TMLC has gotten only through the first part of its journey on to the Supreme Court.
The first thing that needs to be noted is that Moon dismisses the government’s position that the penalties in Obamacare, the mandate requiring people and companies to buy health insurance whether they need to or not, is a tax. While that looks good on the surface, Moon goes on to explain how the mandate falls under the Commerce Clause. That, in and of itself, is outrageous. Democrats in Congress (this is their law, nobody else’s) put those penalties in as penalties to avoid the political fallout of having them be considered as taxes, taxes that would be raised on those people Democrats deem wealthy (those making less than $200,000 per year); yet, the government tried referring to those penalties as a tax in its defense to keep the mandate from being overturned on Commerce Clause grounds. Moon should have ruled against the government on that basis alone; instead, he uses Democratic talking points to justify the mandate falls under the Commerce Clause.
Here are the key parts (page 27 of the PDF) [emphasis from original]:
While the unique nature of the market for health care and the breadth of the Act present a novel set of facts for consideration, the well-settled principles expounded in Raich and Wickard control the disposition of this claim. I hold that there is a rational basis for Congress to conclude that individuals’ decisions about how and when to pay for health care are activities that in the aggregate substantially affect the interstate health care market.
The conduct regulated by the individual coverage provision—individuals’ decisions to forego purchasing health insurance coverage—is economic in nature, and so the provision is not susceptible to the shortcomings of the statutes struck down by the Court in Lopez and Morrison. Nearly everyone will require health care services at some point in their lifetimes, and it is not always possible to predict when one will be afflicted by illness or injury and require care.
Moon then goes on to cite TMLC to justify that outrageous statement. Along with TMLC, Moon pathetically cites the unconstitutional Wickard and Raich rulings, along with TMLC. As I mentioned in my earlier post, at least those older cases had to do with some form of activity. But as with the Democrat in TMLC, the Democrat Moon decides that just being a living American is an act of commerce to be controlled by the federal government, which fits in well with Democrat policies; we are serfs to the ruling class in every sense of the word. None of what Moon says references any rights Americans have as people, rights protected by the Constitution. To Moon and the other Democrats, a life as an American is nothing more than a commercial transaction.
But that isn’t the only outrage in this ruling. Moon follows the Democrat talking point that abortions, outside of those done as a result of rape or incest, would not be funded by the government (page 43 of the PDF) [emphasis from original]:
Indeed, the Act contains strict safeguards at multiple levels to prevent federal funds from being used to pay for abortion services beyond those in cases of rape or incest, or where the life of the woman would be endangered. See Act §§ 1303, 1334; Exec. Order No. 13,535 of Mar. 24, 2010, 75 Fed. Reg. 15,599.
No it doesn’t. We’ve already seen where both Pennsylvania and New Mexico tried to sneak in federal funding for abortions-on-demand in state health care plans required under Obamacare. We also know that the language Democrats in Congress put into Obamacare is all set to allow the federal government to fund abortions-on-demand because Obama had to issue an Executive Order requiring the government to adhere to the Hyde Amendment to disallow it, which has to be renewed every year by Congress when it sets the budget for HHS. Even with the rebuttals from both Pennsylvania and HHS claiming abortions-on-demand would not be funded by the federal government, John McCormack mentioned this from a so-rare-as-to-be-nearly-extinct pro-life Democrat, Illinois congressman Dan Lipinski (who voted against the final bill):
He says he doesn’t question Stupak’s good faith but told Stupak before the vote that “the executive order probably would not stand [in court] and even if it did stand, it only covered part of the abortion funding—the direct funding of abortion [at Community Health Centers], not the fees for [subsidized] health plans.”
Moon saying there are protections in place against abortions-on-demand is nothing more than a regurgitation of the smoke-and-mirrors peddled by his fellow Democrats to pass the Obamacare travesty. Neither the Constitution or the law were considered.
A commenter in this post at Tom Maguire’s noted that it is very possible that any challenges to Obamacare, especially on Commerce Clause grounds, are likely to fail, and he could be right. But it isn’t because there is something wrong in the Constitution. It’s because liberal Democrats like Moon can’t see beyond their myopic little worldview and will lazily rely on bad precedent instead of what the Founders put in the Constitution. There still may be enough of that left in the Supreme Court provided Justice Kennedy ignores his statist implulses, which he has done on occasion, to overturn the mandate and to relegate Obamacare to the dustbin of history.