Thursday marks the day when the Supreme Court of the United States is expected to make a decision on the constitutionality of Obamacare.
No modern piece of legislation has received as much attention – and rightfully so. The most pressing question before the court is whether Congress has the right to compel you to purchase a product or service and punish you for non-compliance. This “individual mandate” will set precedent on future legislation for years to come.
2012, being an Election year, will present voters with choices. In making those choices, no piece of legislation better demonstrates a candidate’s view on government intrusion into your personal life than this one. There really is no greater modern test of a candidate’s willingness to use their office to dictate your behavior. It is also good to see where candidates stand on this issue before the high court rules, so you can measure their philosophy and courage to advocate for their beliefs.
In the PA Attorney General race, Democrat Kathleen Kane supports it, Republican Dave Freed opposes it. The Attorney General only becomes relevant to the conversation in that Pennsylvania entered into one of the many lawsuits opposing Obamacare. Kathleen Kane has said she would withdraw Pennsylvania from the suit on her first day in office, Freed would continue to oppose it by continuing the suit. This measure of support or opposition doesn’t speak to the legislation itself, but it is rather illustrative of their ability to interpret the U.S. Constitution and their philosophy on civil liberties.
In Pennsylvania’s 10th Congressional District, Democrat Phil Scollo doesn’t seem to have taken a position (that we can find.) Republican Tom Marino is opposed to it.
In the 11th District, Democrat Gene Stilp refused to say if he would have voted for it, Republican Lou Barletta has been vocally opposed to it.
So there you have it. The Republicans are particularly united in their opposition to Obamacare. The Democrats either support it, fail to show leadership on the issue by stating their position clearly (on their website, for example), or demonstrate cowardice by refusing to state their position on it.