To the Editor:
Although I agree with your editorial decrying the heedless politicization of the Supreme Court by right-wing justices (“The Radical Supreme Court,” July 1), your statement that the justices are not “articulating a new social consensus” is highly debatable. The excerpts from the Supreme Court hearing on the Affordable Care Act and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.’s majority opinion make abundantly clear that the conservative justices believe they are upholding a new social consensus of the primacy of the marketplace in just about all facets of society.
Their obstinate refusal to concede that health care is a necessity and not a mere commodity like broccoli can only be rationally explained by the fact that such an admission would shatter the glass menagerie of their ideology. This is pathetic at best and dishonorable at worst.
Yet, before judging the justices, we must also consider that this ideology is arguably the prevailing social consensus, demonstrated by the high ratings of right-wing news media and the 2010 election results. Those of us who differ with this ideology can argue its merits, but its current pervasiveness is undeniable.
LARRY DEBLINGER
Monroe, N.Y., July 1, 2012
Note from KBJ: Why is it "right-wing justices" who are politicizing the Supreme Court? Didn't the so-called liberal justices vote together to uphold ObamaCare? Why are they not politicizing the Court? Oh, wait. The progressive view is self-evidently correct. The only question is why anyone would deviate from it. Those who deviate from it must be doing so for base reasons rather than from honest disagreement about what is good and right. Never mind. I understand it now. By the way, there are many necessities for human beings. Health care is but one of them. Are we to empower government to guarantee that everyone has whatever he or she needs: food, fuel, shelter, clothing, medical care? And what is to stop wants from becoming needs? Do people "need" cellphones, transportation, and leisure time? How about a month off work every year, as in France? Individuals and not government (or governmental functionaries) are responsible for their necessities. The letter writer will find out in four months what Americans think of the Nanny State. I think he will be unpleasantly surprised.
