Many of the up and coming members of the Gang of 500 in Washington, DC — those reporters and pundits who help shape and cover inside the beltway conventional wisdom — lean left of center. In so doing, they are sympathetic to the talking points of the left.

I’m sure for the last 72 hours, in the run up to the Obamacare decision, many reporters have been meditating over the talking points from Center for American Progress and the Obama campaign.

The basic talking point goes like this: the five Justices of the Supreme Court have usurped democracy because everybody that’s anybody knows the individual mandate is constitutional.

We won’t know until later today what the Court decides. What we do know is that the left’s last minute spin willfully chooses to ignore a few points that reporters, if they are competent, should notice.

First, while the left would rather focus on the conservatives on the court, the implication can be countered that the left-wing justices are less persuadable than the conservatives. Everybody is pretty sure that Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan will vote with the Administration. Kagan was a part of that Administration while it passed this law, after all. Yet many Republicans voted to put her on the Court – while President Obama himself voted against Chief Justice Roberts and attempted to filibuster Justice Alito.

We do not know about John Roberts or Anthony Kennedy, two Republican appointees. It seems the left-wing spin is actually more damning against the left than the right considering, even with the left-wing handwringing they are subtly admitting the Republican appointees are more persuadable.

Second, the majority of Americans oppose Obamacare and most Americans, or at least a sizable plurality, think it is unconstitutional. What does it say about the arrogant pretentiousness of the left that they’d rather us look to a group of liberal law professors than the American people?

Third, if we are going to look at liberal law professors, consider some of these law professors less hysterical commentary about Chief Justice John Roberts. They viewed him as a cypher during oral arguments and many are now speculating that he will write the majority opinion. Some have speculated that, should Kennedy go with the liberals, Roberts will go too so he can control and write the opinion, making it as limited as possible in scope.

If Roberts does write the opinion and comes out swinging against the over reach in Obamacare, I wonder how many liberals will remember that Roberts and his wife are pro-life Catholics and his wife has been very active in the pro-life Catholic community. Maybe, just maybe, some liberals will conclude Kathleen Sebelius should have waited until after the decision to go to war with the Catholic Church. In fact, should the case go against the Obama Administration, I give it no more than 12 hours before some liberal pundit points out the number of Catholics on the Court and tries, yet again, to blame the Church.