The hypocrisy of asking Justice Thomas to recuse himself from Obamacare rulings

Obamacare is on the ropes – no big secret there.  Federal courts have already said the law is unconstitutional because it contains an “individual mandate.”  This is the part of the law that requires the purchase of some type of health insurance coverage. With federal court decisions being appealed, it is only a matter of time before the landmark healthcare reformation law is brought to the Supreme Court.   The perfect check and balance system that our forefathers gave us is ready to work exactly as it is supposed to.  Or is it?

The defenders of Obamacare seem to be a little bit scared about this check and balance, because they know the majority of the Court holds a conservative ideology.  The so-called “individual mandate” has been defended by the White House as a key provision of the law, and has said the rest of the reform just can’t survive without it.  They believed this provision to be so vital that they intentionally did not build a severability clause into the legislation.  Almost every piece of legislation written by our Congress has a severability clause – so that little technicalities don’t make the whole legislation void in the event of an error or omission.  This law (by design) does not have one, so if one point of the law is found unconstitutional – the whole law is struck down.

Well the genius of not putting severability into this law now comes home to roost.  So, if you can’t change the law, just fix the Supreme Court so it rules in your favor!  This is exactly what is happening right now.  Justice Clarence Thomas is being targeted by several left-wing, liberal groups because his wife works for health care companies and he had income from right-wing, conservative groups such as the Heritage Foundation.  The argument goes that the Justice can’t be objective because he is financially linked to healthcare and would benefit financially from a ruling against Obamacare.  And, if the court can’t mathematically come to majority, it can’t strike down the law. 

Can I call time out here?

Another politically charged court case is pending.  It is the US Government (in the form of the NLRB) versus Boeing Corporation for starting a production line in South Carolina.  The NLRB holds that Boeing is building its Charleston facility in an effort to escape union contracts it has in Washington State.  (Remember – I believe whole heartedly in a free market!  I have no love of unions and certainly do not think this government has a right to tell any private or publically held business where it should or should not build plants based upon its pro or anti union sentiment.) 

But justice must prevail, so let’s bring it to court.  But just one thing:  Three out of the four members of the NLRB General Council who will get to make the final ruling on this matter have financial ties (in one way or another) to big labor unions.  They have either work(ed) for unions or contribute(d) to liberal, pro-union think tanks for money.  The council chair, Wilma Liebman was a union attorney for several years before being selected to serve on the NLRB.  Craig Becker was Associate General Counsel for the AFL-CIO before his appointment.  Mark Pearce was hand selected by Obama in a recess appointment as a punishment for the Senate not acting fast enough for his liking.  I do not doubt their collective expertise or experience, but just how objective can you be when asked to rule against the groups that made you successful? 

Obviously, by the logic of those asking Justice Thomas to recuse himself, these three council members should step out of the case.  Right?  We all know that’s not going to happen – our President loves unions and will do anything he can to make sure unions are protected by his administration.   Further – we all know that capitalism and socialism mix like oil does water, and this president doesn’t exactly fit the capitalist lable. 

Now, it is said that justice is supposed to be blind.  I submit to you that if these three obviously pro-union council members can “blindly” adjudicate the Boeing case, then Justice Thomas should be able to judge impartially as well.  After all, he has been a Supreme Court justice for coming up on 20 years. 

Here is my bottom line:  Politicians need to stay out of the courts.  If you don’t like what the court has to say about your law, next time write a better piece of legislation that doesn’t conflict with the constitution and people’s individual rights and liberties.  Don’t ask justices you don’t like to recuse themselves to get the ruling you want.

Your thoughts and comments invited!