American Spectator, de facto nationalization, decision in June, do what is right, health care, health insurance industry, MSNBC, Obamacare, political, politics, PPACA, Rachel Maddow, referendum on Obama, Robert Creamer, ross kaminsky, SCOTUS
By Ross Kaminsky on 3.30.12 @ 6:10AM Posted April 1, 2012
Obamacare, politics, and the modern Supreme Court.
Democratic political strategist and organizer Robert Creamer claims that overturning Obamacare would make the Supreme Court the “most activist [and] partisan in modern history.”
Radical leftist MSNBC host Rachel Maddow says that the Obamacare decision “may as much be a referendum on the Supreme Court and whether or not the Roberts court is so conservatively politicized that it will make a decision to hurt the President, rather than sticking closely to precedent here.”
In short, supporters of President Obama and his de facto nationalization of the health insurance industry are setting the table to blame the impending destruction of Obamacare, or at least its core “individual mandate” provision, on politics.
The Court’s decision may indeed be political, but not in the way the left suggests.
The most reasonable claim of Court partisanship is against Elena Kagan who should have recused herself from this case due for involvement in the Obama administration’s legal defense strategy for the law, and for her e-mailed glee at the law’s passage. In any case, the idea that conservative judges appointed by prior presidents would rule based on partisan politics is liberal paranoia.
But if Democrats want to say the decision is partisan politics, I say — quoting another famous leftist — Let It Be.
Let the constitution at long last return to speaking words of wisdom to the “broken hearted people” of America suffering under the Obama regime’s many petty tyrannies.
The Obamacare Supreme Court decision will probably be a 5-4 vote, at least on the issue of the mandate that people, as a condition of living in America, must purchase health insurance or pay a penalty.
How can it be that four black-robed judges can say with a straight face that such a law is constitutional?
It can be because the Court, while to some degree living in its own cloistered world, is also a reflection of the trend of the nation, a trend that until the rise of the Tea Party movement was distinctly in a Wilsonian direction. Woodrow Wilson, our first fully “progressive” president, called the United States Constitution “political witchcraft” and said that its meaning should be “one thing in one age, another in another.” For Progressives, the rule book should be re-written whenever those who want to grow government find the game of politics not going their way.
Wilson, at least, was an intellectual; he understood what he was saying and why he was saying it. But his legacy became ever more anti-intellectual as it ran through FDR, LBJ, and Barack Obama, with a pinnacle of brain-dead anti-constitutionalism being reached in the person of Nancy Pelosi. When asked in 2009 by a reporter for CNS news “Where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?” Pelosi famously responded “Are you serious?” Her spokesman reiterated the then-Speaker of the House’s contempt for our Founding documents: “You can put this on the record. That is not a serious question. ”
The Supreme Court’s eventual ruling will be political to the extent that Americans have too often voted for presidents and members of Congress — mostly, but not exclusively Democrats — whose relationship to the Constitution ranges from ignorance to contempt, their oaths of office soon forgotten as their words waft away in the self-important breeze of their colleagues’ hot air.
Thanks to Democrats’ massive overreach with Obamacare, Americans are being reminded that there is a Constitution, and that it matters as something more than an item on an 8th grade civics class exam — to be forgotten, like most politicians’ oaths, right after the test.
Is it not remarkable that there are polls being done (such as by Reason, The Hill, and Gallup) asking Americans whether they consider the Obamacare mandate to be constitutional? Is there not a hint of a new American awakening in the survey results, with the Reason poll finding twice as many Americans believing the mandate unconstitutional as believe it permissible? For those who cry, “But Reason is a libertarian organization; of course their poll reaches that result,” I point to Gallup’s even more dramatic results: 72 percent of those surveyed believed the mandate is unconstitutional, to only 20 percent who believe it is permitted under our Founding law. In the Gallup survey, even a majority of Democrats believe the mandate is unconstitutional.