The Supreme Court started a three-day
long debate regarding the insurance requirement of the health care
plan designing by the Obama administration. Basically, taxpayers
would be required to subscribe to a health care plan, which a lot of
people are opposing to. Legally speaking, the Supreme Court has no
right to interfere with this debate. This takes us back to the
American Revolution: Americans protested against unjust taxation from
the Brisish Crown and eventually gained their independence. American
taxpayers have gained the right to protest against tax collection
from their government, and the Supreme Court has no right to
interfere.
Is the Supreme Court actually
representative of the people who are implementing these laws or
protesting them? Let's take a look at the current nine justices. Two
of them dates back to the Reagan administration, one from the Bush Sr
administration, two from the Bush Jr administration, two from the
Clinton years and two have been nominated by Obama. There is one
African-American man and three women. These nine justices belong come
from wealthy backgrounds and the youngest one is 52 years old. They
are highly educated and experienced, but do they actually represent
America? Justice Antonin Scalia has been nominated in 1986: how can
any of his views still be relevant today?
I think the Supreme Court functions as
a conservative institution that guarantees a heritage and can keep on
implementing old-fashioned American values. From an anthropological
perspective, they are the equivalent of the 'council of the elders'.
They are here to advise us and guide us – but we have to challenge
their ways to evolve and adapt to the modern world.
By stepping into this debate, the
Supreme Court is not respecting our right to protest against this new
tax, which is what our forefathers fought for. The Supreme Court is
endangering its status as a conservative institution. Is it the
beginning of a new era and a new role for the Supreme Court, or the
end of its legitimacy?
No comments:
Post a Comment