Become a digitalPLUS subscriber. 99¢ for 4 weeks.
News Opinion

The 'Oprahfication' of America

When asked at the close of the Constitutional Convention in 1787 what the Founders had wrought, Benjamin Franklinfamously said, "A Republic, if you can keep it."

That question might also be put to the five Supreme Court justices who voted last week to uphold the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, which mandates health insurance for most Americans, based on twisted logic that it is a tax and thus within the power of the Congress to impose on an already overtaxed people.

Even better than the question of what the court has allowed government to do is: What does its ruling says about us?

Rugged individualists founded and helped preserve America through many challenges. They believed we should first take care of ourselves and help our neighbors, with government intervening only as a last resort. Today we are rapidly becoming a collective in which government penalizes achievement and subsidizes failure, thus producing less of the former and more of the latter. Apparently promoting the "general welfare" has come to mean welfare. Food stamp ads run on the radio. The USDA pays for the ads, which encourage more people to apply for the program.

Among the avalanche of postmortems delivered by "experts" and pundits after the court ruling, one may have gotten closest to answering the question about what was in the mind of Chief JusticeJohn G. Roberts Jr.and how it reflects on what our nation is becoming.

Paul Rothstein, a professor at Georgetown Law School, taught Chief Justice Roberts when he was a student. In an interview withWashington, D.C., radio station WTOP, Mr. Rothstein said it was empathy for the uninsured and disdain for partisanship that swayed Chief Justice Roberts, making his the decisive vote.

"It's a very odd decision," said Mr. Rothstein. "The conservative guy went liberal."

Mr. Rothstein further speculated about Chief Justice Roberts' motives when he said that the chief justice's experience with his own health issues and working in big business might have contributed to his decision. Mr. Rothstein said Chief Justice Roberts had good health care when he needed it and that "He was probably thinking about the millions of people who are less fortunate than he is."

Mr. Rothstein said Chief Justice Roberts needed to land on "the right side of history and morality" and these, too, probably influenced his vote.

Notice in all of this there is nothing about the Constitution. And what's this about morality? Whose morality would that be? Is it a fixed morality, or one based on opinion polls and wanting to land on "the right side of history," whatever that means? Liberal justices regularly decide cases based on such non-constitutional irrelevancies. Why must a conservative?

This is the "Oprahfication" of America, in which feelings trump truth and personal experience and class guilt rule, not the Constitution. Oprah Winfrey, who endorsed Barack Obama in 2008, might head a new cabinet department should Mr. Obama win a second term: the Department of Feelings.

The Supreme Court didn't worry about morality and which side of history it was on when it decided to make prayer and Bible reading illegal in public schools a half-century ago -- and what about the "morality" of ripping constitutional protection from unborn babies? Whose moral code decided that case?

This sounds like selective morality by those academics who will write history. Such reasoning is not based on sound legal principles like the Constitution, much less a moral code created by one more "supreme" than the Supreme Court.

Mr. Rothstein said, "Roberts wanted to show that the Supreme Court is more responsible to legal principles than they are to partisan principles. He has eyes on his legacy."

Again, what does this have to do with the Constitution? At future confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, should senators ask questions about legacy, morality and history in addition to the nominee's views of the Constitution and individual cases?

If the majority on the Supreme Court is to continue with such unsound judgments, maybe we should consider changing our national anthem from "The Star-Spangled Banner," to that irritating '70s song "Feelings."

Readers may email Cal Thomas at tmseditors@tribune.com.

Copyright © 2014, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
  • An incomplete report on payments to doctors from drug companies [Letter]

    It actually doesn't do much good to head up an article about payments to doctors by telling readers that a doctor invented a great new device and the company sent him a check for royalties ("Payments to doctors from drug companies, device makers revealed," Oct. 4).

  • Obamacare: Beyond the website
    Obamacare: Beyond the website

    While it's too early to declare the new Maryland health insurance exchange website a complete success, its largely smooth launch this week offers the prospect that this open enrollment period will be focused less on the technology and more on ensuring Marylanders are getting access to high...

  • Health exchange still a hassle
    Health exchange still a hassle

    I found The Sun's editorial, "Beyond the website" (Nov. 23), about how well the new-and-improved Maryland Health Connection had launched to be ironic and not in a good way. Perhaps you should have looked beyond the health insurance website itself to see if the system really had been improved...

  • Getting help with health exchange
    Getting help with health exchange

    We couldn't agree more with the importance of consumers getting in-person assistance when they purchase health insurance ("Obamacare: Beyond the website," Nov. 21). That's why the Maryland Women's Coalition for Health Care Reform named Maryland's connector entities with their navigators and...

  • Health site has political overtones
    Health site has political overtones

    The Maryland Health Connection website is certainly much improved from its original debut, but why has it been politicized ("With Obamacare, health insurance leads to better health," Nov. 18)? The prominent heading on the exchange is "Change is here" echoing President Barack Obama's campaign...

  • Gruber and his liberal lies
    Gruber and his liberal lies

    Nice coverage of the Jonathan Gruber hearing which amounted to, I think, about 60 words ("Obamacare adviser sorry for comments," Dec. 10). He appeared to spend most of the time denying, lying and obfuscating — true traits of liberals these days.

  • Why has The Sun neglected the Jonathan Gruber scandal?
    Why has The Sun neglected the Jonathan Gruber scandal?

    Your systematic neglect of the horrendous Jonathan Gruber/Obamacare scandal is undoubtedly attributable to your partisan bias ("Gruber flap reopens not-so-old wounds," Dec. 1).

  • Unaffordable care in Bel Air
    Unaffordable care in Bel Air

    I am 59 years old, have been a practicing family physician for 30 years and I can't wait to pay my new health care premium for 2015. This past year, I paid $680 a month for my wife and me with a $5,400 deductible. With the Affordable Care Act, in 2015, I will be paying $700 a month with a...

Comments
Loading