After following the news coverage and reading some of the commentary on the Supreme Court’s Obamacare ruling, I’ve come to the conclusion that it is indeed a bag-over-the-head, punch-in-the-face, and the appropriate response to John Roberts is this (Caution: appropriately dirty language):
— Are judges allergic to simple, easy-to-follow, straight-line reasoning? It seems like the ruling in every big case has to be some kind of behind-the-back, three-rail bank shot of logic that’s indecipherable to everyone, including other judges.
— In a nutshell, I understand the ruling as this: “The law is unconstitutional if you read it as a mandate under the Commerce Clause. However, if you read it as a tax, then it’s fine. Therefore, we’re going to henceforth read it as a tax, in spite of the fact that the people who wrote the law insist that’s not how they meant it.” So the Supreme Court can not only interpret law, but it can interpret interpretations of the law. They are now the meta-Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court was a sitcom character, they would be Abed from Community.
— Here’s the tweet in response to the ruling from the executive director of the Democratic National Committee (also language, this time less appropriate):
There’s a guy who’s clearly concerned about the health care insurance options of his fellow Americans, and not at all focused on winning through any means possible for purely political reasons.
— It’s hard to deny now that we are playing a rigged game. There’s a preset assumption that the liberal thing to do is the right thing to do, and however the facts have to be bent, twisted, and crushed to fit into that mold, that’s what’s going to happen. We’ve counted on the Supreme Court again and again push back against this tendency, and again and again they’ve shown that they’re not interested in doing anything of the sort. We expect them to be the backstop against governmental overreach, but as Rush Limbaugh said on Friday after the ruling, there is no backstop.