Liberals' Pre-emptive Whining Over ObamaCare Ruling
Mainstream pundits continue their all-out pre-emptive attack on a hypothetical Supreme Court opinion against ObamaCare. If the Court strikes down a single syllable of the law, they warn, the public will see this as a "political" decision and the legitimacy of the Court will be tarnished forever. Juan Williams repeats this idiotic narrative in a column proclaiming: "Team Obama is right to conclude there is fertile political ground to be plowed in lashing out against the right-wing activism of the Roberts Court." (ht: Ed Whelan at NRO Bench Memos).
More pathetic is the piece by Ezra Klein as WaPo griping about how hard this whole ObamaCare thing is on . . . law professors. He quotes Akhil Reed Amar (an otherwise solid, albeit liberal scholar):
"If they decide this by 5-4, then yes, it’s disheartening to me, because my life was a fraud. Here I was, in my silly little office, thinking law mattered, and it really didn’t. What mattered was politics, money, party, and party loyalty.”
Cry me a river, Akhil. He knows perfectly well (as do many scholars, such as Georgetown's Randy Barnett) that there are sound constitutional reasons to strike down all or part of the Affodable Care Act. The idea that the Court's legitimacy faces some unique danger, after 70+ years of treating the Constitution as a decorative prop, is absurd.
Even dumber is the idea that if the Court strikes down ObamaCare by a "narrow" 5-4 vote, the public will be outraged. Does anybody seriously believe that the public (which overwhelmingly wants the individual mandate struck down) is going to quibble about the vote margin?
- Comment (23)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
May '10
Re: Liberals' Pre-emptive Whining Over ObamaCare Ruling
Couldn't a conservative law professor write the same thing in wonderment over the four justices that vote to uphold it?
Apr '12
Re: Liberals' Pre-emptive Whining Over ObamaCare Ruling
How can a scholar of high repute hold such views as Amar puts forth here? "Those who worship at the Church of Obama believe in the law, the constitution, and justice, while those who don't are motivated only by money and politics." It's impossible to take such a man seriously. Clearly, he has not really listened to his opponents' arguments. If he had, he wouldn't be persuaded, but at least he might show a bit more respect in his disagreement, and in doing so enhance his own dignity.
Dec '11
Re: Liberals' Pre-emptive Whining Over ObamaCare Ruling
Your making my head hurt. Are people really saying that putting a limit to an absurdly broad previous exercise in sophism, without actually overturning said sophism, is a threat to the legitimacy of the court.
Personally I would like them to throw out wickard vs. filburn and the entire edifice that is built upon it, on the grounds that it is patently ridiculous. Anything less is a threat to legitimacy of the court (so there).
Edited on June 22, 2012 at 10:33pmJun '10
Re: Liberals' Pre-emptive Whining Over ObamaCare Ruling
While our pathetically whiny professor sits in his "silly office," he may want to do a little research on the concept of a "limiting principle" to an enumerated power?
Edited on June 22, 2012 at 10:54pmDec '10
Re: Liberals' Pre-emptive Whining Over ObamaCare Ruling
Adam,
I'd enjoy it if it went 6 to 3. I'd love it if it went 7 to 2.
However, as long as the damn thing is DOA I don't really care.
The Obamite Brain Trust has already proven its incapacity to legally reason. If 4 liberal Justices want to lose their reputations as well over this then there isn't anything to do but beat them and move forward.
Regards,
Jim
Edited on June 22, 2012 at 10:44pmMar '11
Re: Liberals' Pre-emptive Whining Over ObamaCare Ruling
Is it time for the Friday afternoon gloating cocktail, yet?
Mar '12
Re: Liberals' Pre-emptive Whining Over ObamaCare Ruling
Unbelievable. A Constitutional Law professor whose "life is a fraud" if it is revealed that political considerations actually may play some role in the selection (and thus the views) of SCOTUS justices? How do you study (much less teach) Constitutional Law at Yale, and remain blissfully unaware of, say, "a switch in time to save nine." We have seen Obama demonstrate his legal credentials as a student at Harvard Law and a professor at U of Chicago are fraudulent. Now we see even Yale Law credentials are apparently (and self-admittedly) fraudulent. If nothing else, the Obama Presidency is accelerating the collapse of the Law Education Bubble.
Apr '12
Re: Liberals' Pre-emptive Whining Over ObamaCare Ruling
This is just the national theater level of what I'm sure we've all seen with the Left. Disagreement with them is evidence of fraud, stupidity, or evil.
Mar '11
Re: Liberals' Pre-emptive Whining Over ObamaCare Ruling
The plurality of Democrats think the individual mandate is wrong (this adds to the majority of Republicans and Independents).
Exactly who will be outraged if and extremely unpopular portion of an unpopular law is struck down?
The media is out of step with the public again. Hopefully more people will see that it is not the Court that is politically biased but the media.
Mar '12
Re: Liberals' Pre-emptive Whining Over ObamaCare Ruling
Guruforhire: ...
Personally I would like them to throw out wickard vs. filburn and the entire edifice that is built upon it, on the grounds that it is patently ridiculous. Anything less is a threat to legitimacy of the court (so there). · 46 minutes ago
Edited 38 minutes ago
You hit the nail on the head: the Wickard v. Filburn interpretation of the Commerce Clause (i.e., as including any subject that may directly or indirectly affect interstate commerce) has been exposed (by the breadth of Obamacare's mandates) as effectively granting the Federal government unlimited powers to regulate any and all aspects of human behavior. This renders the whole rest of the Constitutional scheme regarding state powers meaningless and redundant. Articulation of a limiting principle will require overruling Wickard, expressly or implicitly. (I suspect wrangling over how this is done explains the delay.)
Jan '11
Re: Liberals' Pre-emptive Whining Over ObamaCare Ruling
Adam Freedman:
Even dumber is the idea that if the Court strikes down ObamaCare by a "narrow" 5-4 vote, the public will be outraged.
Yes we will - at the 4.
Mar '11
Re: Liberals' Pre-emptive Whining Over ObamaCare Ruling
Adam Freedman:
3 hours ago
I see Professor Amar, I see. So what is your opinion of Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, the President has the duty to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."?
Jun '12
Re: Liberals' Pre-emptive Whining Over ObamaCare Ruling
Of course, if they uphold by 5-4, then all is just fine with that decision in Kleinville and Amarville.
The level of hypocrisy would have been astounding just three short years ago. It's not any longer.
Sep '10
Re: Liberals' Pre-emptive Whining Over ObamaCare Ruling
Is there even the slightest possibility that one of the liberal justices could join the presumed 5 votes in favor of overturning the individual mandate, if not the whole law? I imagine not, but I can't help but think what a wonderfully healing thing that would be for the country.
Re: Liberals' Pre-emptive Whining Over ObamaCare Ruling
Great points, all. In particular, Wickard must go. Scalia has indicated he disagrees with Wickard, and we know Thomas does, but I really doubt they can drag three other justices their way. But let us hope for some limiting principle.And yes, it is amazing that the Court can expand Article One and shrink the 10th amendment without a peep from legal academia, but even the possibility that the court might go the other way sends Professor Amar into an adolescent pout. If the mandate is upheld, even by a 5-4 margin, expect dancing in the streets of New Haven (and Cambridge, etc).
Jun '12
Re: Liberals' Pre-emptive Whining Over ObamaCare Ruling
Exactly my point. 5-4 in their error? Everything's just fine. 5-4 the other way? Horrors!
Dec '11
Re: Liberals' Pre-emptive Whining Over ObamaCare Ruling
The problem with Scalia is that most everything he believes he won't act on because of his belief that there is too much water under the bridge. Thomas on the other hand is perfectly happy to scream at a world gone mad.
Jun '12
Re: Liberals' Pre-emptive Whining Over ObamaCare Ruling
What if it goes 6-3 with Kagan, Sotomayor and Ginsburg dissenting?
Might these liberal law profs find another reason to cry?
Jun '12
Re: Liberals' Pre-emptive Whining Over ObamaCare Ruling
Lorne Russell: What if it goes 6-3 with Kagan, Sotomayor and Ginsburg dissenting?
Might these liberal law profs find another reason to cry? · 20 minutes ago
If that happens I'd suggest buying a lottery ticket post-haste, because God is in a miracle-granting mood.
Aug '10
Re: Liberals' Pre-emptive Whining Over ObamaCare Ruling
Our fellow citizens are about 66% against ObamaScare, and want to see it tossed.
Delusional thinking permeates the Left regarding the Supreme Court. Public opinion is more firmly behind them than any other branch of government, and there's approximately zero danger that a ruling against the Administration would erode confidence in the institution. Quite the contrary.
It astounds me, the Constitutional illiteracy of these professors.