I Must Buy My Car From the Government

Reuters

As we listen to the Supreme Court arguments on the health care law, understand one point: The federal government already requires each and every one of us to purchase certain products.  Like my car.

I must pay for all kinds of gizmos and features mandated by the feds, including seatbelts, catalytic converters and air bags.

The feds also insist I purchase unleaded gasoline. They tell me I have no choice but to pay for tires that meet specific government safety standards. The upholstery must resist fire of a certain intensity. All of this costs me money and I have no choice but to pay.

And just like health insurance, all of the automotive bits and pieces the federal government orders me to purchase are intended to preserve the health and welfare of me and those around me.

I also know that every one of the 26 state governments arguing against mandatory health care coverage impose specific standards on vehicles that would force me to spend money.

Federal Judges Fight Back

The U.S. Supreme Court today took a well-aimed shot at congress' attempt to decide who should go to prison for how long.

In a 7-2 decision, the court said federal trial judges can depart from mandatory sentencing rules that require longer prison terms for bad guys who are convicted of dealing crack cocaine rather than the powder version.

In essence, the rule said a crack dealer who sold less than 2 ounces of evil must do the same time as a a different dealer who sold almost 1.5 pounds of evil. This dubious distinction has angered judges, lawyers and civil libertarians for years.

More important than the specific issue at hand is the majority decision's declaration that sentencing guidelines should be "advisory" rather than mandatory. When "advisory' is better defined based on future cases, trial judges just might be able to avoid sending nuns to prison for five years if they try to sneak across the border from Mexico.

The Supreme Court Stops The Iraq War

Congress passes a defense appropriation bill that effectively requires the withdrawl of U.S. troops from Iraq. Bush vetoes it. Congress overrides the veto.

The Supreme Court gets involved because the administration claims congress is usurping Bush's constitutional powers to prosecute a war as he sees fit.

Congress argues the Constitution makes clear it alone holds the federal purse strings, something that has never been contested during any of the nation's wars, declared or not.

The nine justices conclude they don't care to rewrite the Constitution to suit the current president's needs, reaffirm the separation of powers and tell the litigants to deal with the situation amongst themselves.

Utterly defeated politically and constitutionally, Bush lunches with congressional leaders at Nancy Pelosi's home and they work out a reasonable, but prompt, troop withdrawl.