The Liberal press and blogosphere is absolutely insane over the recent Obamacare oral arguments before the Supreme Court. Apparently a day to digest the argument has given them enough time to conjure up enough vitriol to make a Spike Lee tweet look trivial. On one article on DailyKos, the writer used the term "radical" to describe the Supreme Court ten times in five paragraphs indicating that writers on DailyKos are in sore need of a thesaurus. The New York Times ran an article declaring "Conservative Judicial Activism Run Amok" because some Justices had the audacity to insist the government articulate a cogent limiting principle on Congressional power under the Commerce Clause (note: they really couldn't). Echoing those same sentiments, Jonathan Chait, in the New York Times Magazine declared that this limiting principle- something apparently foreign to Liberals- was "disturbing." And never one to be quiet in any area, apparent Supreme Court expert Paul Krugman chimes in with his editorial titled, "Broccoli and Bad Faith." Here, he claims the Justices either don't understand or choose not to understand how insurance works. He then somehow likens the argument to the privatization of Social Security, a concept which Mr. Krugman and company either do not understand, or choose not to understand. At least SALON did not attempt to approach their analysis from some feeble attempt to be cerebral and simply declared this limiting principle concept "stupid."
Of course, before a decision had been rendered or an opinion published, the Liberals have resurrected their attack on the "activist" Roberts Court. This would appear to be a classic Liberal oxymoron since many of these same writers were recently railing against the Court's "originalist" thought and concepts like "strict construction" and such. Because they believe the results will not fall in their favor, the Court is now suddenly "political" and "activist." Perhaps, a better word word be "principled, but then again I forgot that to a Liberal, the word "principle" is foreign. I found it funny that one editorial theorized that if they rule against the mandate, it will go down in history as one of three bad decisions by the Roberts Court- it, Bush v. Gore and Citizens United. Apparently this writer was too busy wiping the froth from his mouth to consult a history book since four of the current Justices, including John Roberts, did not decide Bush v. Gore. Like principles, Liberals never let history get in the way of their narrative.
One of my favorite moonbat Liberals- E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post- claims in his analysis of the severability issue that the Court was "acting as an alternative legislature." Of course, when they struck down state abortion laws in 1972 they were just doing their job admirably. I read the transcripts and listened to the audio again of that argument thinking I had missed something. Nope! What I heard was a Supreme Court grappling with the issue in a series of "what if" questions that ultimately led back to: "Its back to you, Congress." But, Dionne hears otherwise leading him to conclude that if the Court strikes down the mandate, it will be akin to a "judicial dictatorship." These are strong words coming from a defender of a law with numerous DICTates from on high. He then extends the argument outward and concludes that the Court's line of questioning proves why no one should "cater to the hard core conservatives." If I am hearing correctly, if someone believes in limited government, they should be dismissed out of hand. This is strange coming from a Liberal who prizes diversity- except in thought, it appears. Which leads me to ask Mr. Dionne: Who is being the dictator now?
Then there are the Liberal attacks on Solicitor General Verrilli. Because of a few coughs and a sip of water, Liberals are pulling him over the coals. Should Obamacare fall, all fingers will be pointing at him. Obviously, Verrilli, like the challengers prepared and held mock courts and anticipated these questions. Half of them were in the almost record number of briefs filed. These questions did not come out of left field. The broccoli analogy is nothing new nor is the one about the forced purchase of American cars. John Roberts actually gets added bonus points for creating the cell phone analogy. But then again, there has to be a scapegoat ignorant of the fact that this was just a bad law from the start.
This gets to the gist of the Liberal frustration with Verrilli. His only articulation of a limiting principle was regulations that had no nexus to the Commerce Clause. Well, duh! Verrilli could not articulate a principle because he knows that if the mandate is upheld, there will be no limiting principle. Hence, Verrilli had nothing to really defend in that line of questions. It would be like Jeffrey Dahmer's defense attorney trying to explain the severed head in the refrigerator. Except that lawyer could always use an insanity defense. Verrilli could not. Under the circumstances, Verrilli did an admirable job. His argument- and honestly the best he could do- was like a .150 hitter (his argument) going up against the Cy Young award winner (the Constitution).
Likewise, I find it reprehensible that the RNC would actually doctor Supreme Court audio to make a political point in an advertisement. In case they were asleep that week, there is an effort to televise Supreme Court arguments that the Court has thus far repelled. This slimy use of the audio should be enough reason NOT to televise the Supreme Court. They made the audio available the day of the arguments instead of waiting a week, which is their normal custom. Even that proved too much of a temptation. Imagine if there was video. While the Left is slamming the Court for playing partisan politics, the RNC then uses the Court for political purposes. Two wrongs do not make a right, especially considering that all eyes and ears were on the Supreme Court this week as they argued a case of profound Constitutional importance. This merely sullied the whole process and the RNC should be ashamed of itself as should they who got a little giggle out of the advertisement.
It is obvious that the Left is oblivious to any thought other than their own which, in their minds, must be correct. That is why they today, using every apparatus of the media, are in a state of shock regarding the very real possibility that the poster child of the Obama Administration may be in trouble.No one knows which way this case will be decided despite all the hand-wringing on the Left and the fist pumping on the Right. Too many times I have heard Justices argue a conservative viewpoint, then come to a liberal decision. Regarding the mandate, we don't know if the whole law must fall or even if the Supreme Court itself will adequately articulate a "limiting principle" on Congressional power under the Commerce Clause. But, I do know today just as I knew in 2010 that this mandate was an overreach of Federal power. To paraphrase a famous Supreme Court quote from the past, "I can't define Congressional overreach, but I know it when I see it." As for the Liberals out there, another Supreme Court quote seems appropriate: "Three generations of imbeciles is enough."