A Rush to Judgment

The U. S. Attorney General has requested and, accordingly, will probably see an early decision by the United States Supreme Court on the constitutionality of the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act." Conservative challengers to its constitutionality have been pressing the issue as well for an early decision by the Court.

A decision prior to the election by the Supreme Court upholding the Law would place the issue of repeal squarely at the top of the Republican 2012 election agenda. Given the almost total misunderstanding of the American people about the law and the lack of time for education, the Republicans may well achieve their goal of winning in 2012.

On the other hand, a decision of the Supreme Court in the Spring of 2012 holding the law or a critical element of the law unconstitutional would be a benefit to the President. He could then face the electorate honestly claiming to have tried to better their lives albeit with a slightly inappropriate approach and promise to correct the effort.

I assume therefore that the administration expects or at least hopes for a holding of unconstitutionality.

In any event, the fact that the Republicans orchestrated and acceded to the lies and distortions at the core of America's lack of faith in the law will not help the President. The fact that the Republican administration of George Bush created the breeding fields for those who nearly destroyed our economy will not help the President. The facts that Republicans in Congress purposely both created major delays and built legislative impasses to economic recovery will not help the President.

Why not? Because there are too many American people who are too easily manipulated, disinterested in learning facts about important issues, selfish and self-centered, disorganized, short-memoried and lacking the deep pockets of Republican backers interested only in maintaining existing financial/economic paradigms without oversight.

The Budget Battle

Assuming for the sake of argument that the most recent national election constituted a political "mandate" to firmly address the federal deficit, there is NO national mandate rationally discernible from that election to cut either federal regulation of air quality standards or support for women's health programs (labelling this by both political parties as "abortions" is inaccurate and misleading) or remove funding, for purely ideological reasons, for other programs of relatively insignificant budgetary effect.

Nor should a majority party in one House of Congress presume to speak for all Americans when the Executive and the Senate are controlled by the opposing party under the continuing mandate of two national elections. Eliminate all "riders" to the funding bill and the ideological issues can be argued and presented directly to the electorate for 2012.