On Obamacare, SCOTUS, and Liberal Desperation
The challenges to Obama’s health care initiative didn’t begin in the conservative legal academy. They didn’t even really blossom in the conservative legal media or think tanks. The real energy of these challenges arose out of those Tea Party town halls throughout the summer of 2010, in response to a longing to return to constitutional values, states’ rights, and ideas of individual liberty that have been dead for almost a century. (emphasis mine)
So sayeth the “esteemed” Dahlia Lithwick in her most recent article entitled “It’s Not About the Law, Stupid”. For those who aren’t familiar with Ms. Lithwick, she is a Canadian citizen who graduated with a B.A. in English from Yale in 1990. Since the date of her graduation, her singular purpose in life seems to have been to ingratiate herself into American society in such a way that she is capable of presenting “credible” writings and opinions on American law. Ms. Lithwick is the senior editor of Slate and a contributing editor to Newsweek.
I have no means of explaining why Ms. Lithwick seems to believe that American citizens should lend credence to anything she has to say on the matter of Obamacare. She is neither a lawyer nor a health care policy expert. She is not an American citizen, and quite obviously, as displayed in the closing words of the above quote, she doesn’t even remotely begin to understand the desire that law-abiding citizens have to see our Constitution, along with all of the rights and responsibilities included in it, protected and preserved within this country.
Yet she has interjected herself into a discussion that is of primary concern to American citizens all the same. What’s more, she’s done so in such a way to project aspersions on the American legal system, and specifically on the five conservatives Supreme Court justices. If you’re looking for something to set your blood boiling, read the entirety of her article. It’s filled with little more than attempts at projection that would support her narrative of why the individual mandate will be upheld while demeaning the integrity of the more conservative justices on SCOTUS at the same time. Take this comment, for example:
So that brings us to the really interesting question: Will the Court’s five conservatives strike it down regardless? That’s what we’re really talking about next week and that has almost nothing to do with law and everything to do with optics, politics, and public opinion. (emphasis mine)
The aspersions cast on the American legal process by Ms. Lithwick’s article are irritating to say the least, but I have to admit that I chuckled in spite of my irritations upon reading the above statements. Realistically speaking, the general consensus is that it is the liberal justices, i.e. Justices Souter, Ginsberg, Sotomayor and Kagan, who are far more likely to see the hearings as nothing more than a political opportunity, and that our hopes for having Obamacare reviewed fairly within the context of the law lies in the hands of the five conservative justices.
Ms. Lithwick seems desperate to persuade her viewers to believe otherwise. In fact, a number of liberals now seem desperate in their efforts to reassure themselves that Obamacare will be affirmed rather than rejected. You can view their efforts for yourself here, here, and here, for starters. Ms. Lithwick even alludes to such herself in her article….
The only question is whether they [the conservative Supreme Court justices] will ignore it all to deprive the Obama of one of his signature accomplishments (and again, emphasis mine)
In this context, the “signature accomplishment” of “the Obama” is also a key building block for following through with the “fundamental transformation of America” that would cause our nation to become a more socialistic society rather than a republic. Rejection of the individual mandate by SCOTUS would signify upholding the fundamental principles of rule of law and support for our republic. Of all things to occur, particularly during an election season, this has to be their greatest fear.
On the other hand, if SCOTUS upholds the individual mandate…what then? Just from the comments that have been made in various articles written by liberals (and of course, seeing that they are rarely if ever truly honest, evaluating what they may be hoping for and why requires a bit of speculation), I think they are hoping that if the individual mandate is upheld, this will signal acquiesce (if not support) on part of SCOTUS for the fundamental transformation of America to be completed. The opposition to Obamacare, and through it socialism, will be refuted and silenced. The right wing “nuts”, “extremists” and “racists” would be left dispirited and discouraged, unable to generate enough public support to win the election in November of 2012. This is what I believe them to be hoping for and striving to accomplish in the articles they are currently presenting to the public.
I suppose it is possible that the outcome they desire could become a reality, but I do not think it will take place in this way. After all, there is evidence to substantiate that the majority of Americans (56%) still favor repeal of Obamacare. There is also evidence to substantiate that 72% of Americans, spanning across the entire political spectrum, see the individual mandate as being unconstitutional. It would be far more likely for opposition to increase and for the ranks of those who support protecting and preserving the Constitution of the United States to grow larger still. In short, upholding the individual mandate could have the opposite effect of what liberals, in their never-ending “all-knowing” intelligentsia sort of way, are hoping will come to pass.
It stills remains to be determined what SCOTUS will decide. I can only hope and pray that all of members of SCOTUS will uphold their Constitutional duty in evaluating Obamacare within the context of the law rather than one of the political machinations and manipulations presented to them by anyone.
As for We the People, I hope that we will be of like mind in proving liberals wrong…in showing them, in no uncertain terms, that they do NOT define the outcomes of this for us. We define the outcome. We define it with our determination and persistence. We define it with our enthusiasm. We define it with our loyalty and allegiance to the fundamental principles of freedom and liberty.
And most of all, we define it with our votes.
Come November, let’s prove to them beyond any shadow of doubt that the battle for our nation is not yet over…not even close.