In her piece, she makes some key points about the courts and limited government:
It does not appear that the supporters of health care reform gave any serious consideration to the law's constitutionality, a question that is scheduled for three days of argument before the U.S. Supreme Court next week. The unseemly process by which the law was enacted, and the apparent failure to consider its profound constitutional concerns, are precisely why we need an engaged judiciary to review and, when necessary, check the power of the Legislature...(Read the full text of "Health care law shows why we need courts to guard against government overreach".)
The Constitution was designed to prevent runaway government like we have today and to account for the fact that, as Thomas Jefferson warned, "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." The Framers knew perfectly well that legislatures are not inclined to recognize limits on their own authority.
When they do not, it is the job of the courts to enforce the Constitution. Increasingly, however, courts are not doing that job. A study by the Institute for Justice last fall found that the Supreme Court struck down just two-thirds of 1 percent of federal laws enacted between 1954 and 2002...
We don't know how the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) will decide after they hear arguments next week. But they do hold in their hands the future of 1/6th of the US economy -- and our essential freedoms.
For a nice flowchart on the upcoming SCOTUS arguments scheduled for March 26-28, 2012, please see this nice one-page infographic by the Center for Objective Health Policy (PDF or JPG).