Liberals Shocked To Discover Conservative Arguments
Who knows how the Supreme Court will decide the Constitutionality of Obamacare? We saw the four liberal justices trying to save the government's lawyer by making points he'd failed to. They're a lock and nobody seems to care that they're not the least bit open-minded to the possibility that Obamacare, the sweeping law that changes the relationship of the individual to the federal government, might not pass Constitutional muster. Even though it's probably true that some or all of the remaining justices agree with the majority of Americans about the law's Constitutional problems, we don't know how they'll vote.
But one thing is clear -- the oral arguments at the Supreme Court this week revealed some seriously shallow thinking on the part of the law's liberal advocates. David Bernstein at Volokh Conspiracy writes about how frequently SG Verrilli mentioned the preamble to the Constitution and the preamble's line about promoting the General Welfare and securing the Blessings of Liberty -- as if this line is a sufficient counterweight to the idea that we have a federal government with limited and enumerated powers. He says that this is something that he's heard liberals do before and that conservatives might respond “you mean you’re not an originalist or a textualist and you want us to engage in ‘living constitutionalism’ with regard to all sorts of very specific and substantive constitutional provisions, but then you want us to take the preamble seriously?” He goes on:
This strikes me as part of a pattern I detect throughout this litigation and especially in the SG’s oral argument: the government’s lawyers seem to have no idea how conservative jurists typically think about the Constitution. Instead, they make arguments that would get almost unanimous nods of approval in the Harvard (or Columbia, the SG’s alma mater) Law School faculty lounge, but are not remotely persuasive to the other side.
Verrilli, after all, had months to come up with a succinct, plausible, limiting principle in defense of the individual mandate. He should have been able to repeat this backwards, forwards, upside down and in his sleep. Yet he could barely explain himself yesterday, when given the opportunity by three different Justices. Given his reputation as one of the country’s top appellate lawyers, a tempting explanation is that he couldn’t believe that anyone except perhaps Thomas was really concerned about that issue.
First off, it says something that a man of his stature would think it self-evident that an appeal to the preamble would in any way convince a conservative that securing the blessings of liberty is about expanding the scope and size of government. Is the implicit argument there that in order to secure the blessings of liberty, we need the federal government to force people to do things they don't want to do? I would say it shows hubris but really it's just stupid.
I suppose there's the possibility that Verrilli did this simply because he couldn't come up with any decent argument. And that's understandable. Defending the Constitutionality of this bill would be difficult. But remember it was only a few days ago that the left's revered Linda Greenhouse was mocking opposition to the idea that the law is Constitutional.
Jay Cost goes into this a bit deeper over at The Weekly Standard:
The problem for the left is that they do not have a lot of interaction with conservatives, whose intellects are often disparaged, ideas are openly mocked, and intentions regularly questioned. Conservative ideas rarely make it onto the pages of most middle- and high-brow publications of news and opinion the left frequents. So, liberals regularly find themselves surprised when their ideas face pushback.
I think that is exactly what happened with Obamacare. The attitude of President Obama (a former con law lecturer at the University of Chicago, no less!), Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid was very much that they are doing big, important things to help the American people, why wouldn’t that be constitutional? No less an important Democratic leader as the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee cited the (nonexistent) “good and welfare clause” to justify the mandate.
Having no intellectual sympathy for the conservative criticism of this view, they rarely encountered it on the news programs they watch, the newspapers they read every day, or the journals they peruse over the weekends. Instead, they encountered a steady drumbeat of fellow liberals echoing Kagan’s attitude: it’s a boatload of money, what the heck is the problem?
Then, insofar as they encountered conservative pushback, they mostly ignored it.
He goes on to give some specific examples of arguments they ignored. John Podhoretz argues along the same lines at The New York Post:
The panicked reception in the mainstream media of the three-day Supreme Court health-care marathon is a delightful reminder of the nearly impenetrable parochialism of American liberals.
They’re so convinced of their own correctness — and so determined to believe conservatives are either a) corrupt, b) stupid or c) deluded — that they find themselves repeatedly astonished to discover conservatives are in fact capable of a) advancing and defending their own powerful arguments, b) effectively countering weak liberal arguments and c) exposing the soft underbelly of liberal self-satisfaction as they do so.
That’s what happened this week. There appears to be no question in the mind of anyone who read the transcripts or listened to the oral arguments that the conservative lawyers and justices made mincemeat out of the Obama administration’s advocates and the liberal members of the court.
This came as a startling shock to the liberals who write about the court.
He notes how all the best liberal analysts predicted the law would be upheld 8-1 or 7-2. Now they're freaking out. In panic mode. Yes, their attorney did horribly and the conservative attorneys did well. But on the other hand, there was nothing new about any of the conservative arguments. There was no reason that the legal team charged with defending the law should have been surprised by any aspect of what happened this week.
Of course, the law still might be upheld. But will the liberal elite realize how foolish they look?
- Comment (26)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (5)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Aug '11
Re: Liberals Shocked To Discover Conservative Arguments
This is of a piece with the article (someone here? You?) linked to last week or the week before to the study regarding how conservatives better understand liberals than liberals understand conservatives.
Interesting stuff! There's some deep analysis to be made here regarding the fatal flaw of wrapping yourself in too thick a bubble.
Re: Liberals Shocked To Discover Conservative Arguments
Yes! It was Diane's
Conservatives Understand Liberals. Liberals Don't Understand Conservatives.
And what's amazing about this is that it's the left that advances the meme that conservatives exist in bubbles and suffer from -- remember this? -- epistemic closure.
I had to re-read Linda "wisest Supreme Court analyst out there" Greenhouse's piece just so I could get a really good laugh. If I were her, I'd be humiliated. I'm wondering if she'll respond by further embedding in her liberal bubble or realizing that she should read conservatives a tad more.
Dec '10
Re: Liberals Shocked To Discover Conservative Arguments
For all the wailing and gnashing of teeth caused by the passage of Obamacare, there is a silver lining to the dark cloud it has placed above us. Through the argument over it (in the court rather than in the congress, where it should have happened) the American people are given a stark view of the two types of government they can have. They can now honestly decide whether they simply want stuff or if they want to stand on their own two feet, work with their own two hands, and make their own way in this world. With the latter choice comes the pride and satisfaction of knowing one has made his own way. Also with this comes a love of the nation whose government is strong enough to provide an environment for his achievements yet limited enough to not interfere with success. This fully craptastic law [sic] is forcing a complete reevalutation of what kind of government we want. The high disapproval numbers of Obamacare give me hope that enough American Spirit left in the American people to make the right choice.
Edited on March 29, 2012 at 4:29pmJun '10
Re: Liberals Shocked To Discover Conservative Arguments
Just in general, conservatives get challenged and accused of evil all the time. They're ready. If conservatives don't get physically attacked, along with the verbal attacks, hey, it was a good debate. If you can debate a crowd of libs without needing any stitches after, it's a great day.
Jun '10
Re: Liberals Shocked To Discover Conservative Arguments
Constitutional restraint rankles liberals like no other aspect of our legal system. The idea of a "living constitution" is simply a gambit to unfetter their desire for more governmental power. ObamaCare is not about health. It's an attack on the last roadblock to their totalitarian dreams. If this law is upheld, the republic is finished.
Feb '12
Re: Liberals Shocked To Discover Conservative Arguments
Mollie--excellent summary, thanks. A smile on my face the whole way through. Who could forget Pelosi's retort, "Are you serious, are you serious??" when asked if the mandate was constitutional.
I want to see Pelosi have to give the giant gavel back.
Feb '12
Re: Liberals Shocked To Discover Conservative Arguments
I experienced something like what is described above while I was in law school. In class, liberal arguments were challenged sometimes but professors usually wanted to move on. More "conservative" or textualist arguments were given a constant barrage of counterpoints, criticisms, and insults. Yet, there were moments when everyone had to concede the strict constructionists or textualists had a point they couldn't really refute.
Later in the lounge, my classmate's memories would selectively delete that particular point and go on emphasizing the liberal arguments and defenses as if there was no opposing arguments ever made during class.
I had to wonder, did they pay attention for only half the class? How can they still hold the same ideas when they had just been exposed as flawed???
Another favorite was the straw man. It is also a favorite of Obama. Pick the weakest, most incoherent, and perhaps xenophobic and intolerant conservative criticism of a liberal position and label it the official conservative response. I found myself being asked to defend silly arguments from conservatives I had never heard of.
I think its called cognitive dissonance, or maybe there is a better term.
Oct '11
Re: Liberals Shocked To Discover Conservative Arguments
I have a mixed marriage (the lovely wife is the liberal) and quite often she will look at me over breakfast (as she is reading the newspaper) and ask what conservative's are on about today vis-a-vis a particular story. The latest example was (stop me if you've heard this before) "if conservatives want a small government, why are they pushing for invasive sonograms, doctor oversight of Plan-B, etc all over the place?"
I answered, naturally enough (stop me if you've said this before), that this was NOT inconsistent. Conservatives just want government to do its job, and nothing more--and the protection of citizens' rights, lives, and property is job one. She had to understand that conservatives may actually believe what they claim: that its a child in that womb, and they are not posturing about it to pander for votes (for the most part).
This is an educated, politically, socially, and culturally engaged woman. But, she apparently doesn't understand that conservatives may actually believe what they say they believe about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and the maintenance of constitutional government.
Feb '11
Re: Liberals Shocked To Discover Conservative Arguments
For my own part, I often fail to engage leftists, especially on FaceBook. Most of them seem to lack the emotional maturity necessary for a rational conversation, and I generally don't have the time to deal with the litany of false assumptions and lousy arguments. If a person honestly believes that freedom means forcing someone else to provide them with things, then there's really not much you can do to persuade them. Granted, this only serves to reinforce their bubble; but with a 3 year old at home and a 2 week old in the NICU, I just don't have time to deal with those who have the intellectual worldview of a teenager.
Jan '11
Re: Liberals Shocked To Discover Conservative Arguments
Or to answer Nancy Pelosi : Yes we are serious ...
Apr '11
Re: Liberals Shocked To Discover Conservative Arguments
Liberals have had roughly 100 years (only counting since W. Wilson) to realize how foolish they look and they still haven't figured it out. What makes anyone think they're going to figure it out now. Their biggest obstacle is looking at themselves and seeing more than the mirror.
May '10
Re: Liberals Shocked To Discover Conservative Arguments
First off, prayers to the NICU. Had one there myself for almost six weeks. He's now 15 and quite the young man. May you be as blessed.
If you are raising children then you are engaging leftists. I think all children are natural born leftists. They demand that everything be handed to them gratis, bristle at the mere notion of any responsibility and they believe money and material objects just appear magically.
Conservatives are the ones that grow up.
Sep '10
Re: Liberals Shocked To Discover Conservative Arguments
When you've been taught all your life that conservatives foment spittle flecked invective, bite the heads off bats and cause the death of kittens in shelters by the mere utterance of their words, its a bit of a shock to discover they've brought a butter knife to a pun fight.
Sep '10
Re: Liberals Shocked To Discover Conservative Arguments
Liberals are taught all the points of view from A to B.
Re: Liberals Shocked To Discover Conservative Arguments
I'm glad you're allocating your time wisely. Sorry to hear about the little one being in the NICU -- I can only imagine how tough that is -- particularly with a toddler at home. Will pray for you all.
Apr '11
Re: Liberals Shocked To Discover Conservative Arguments
As an attorney, I am embarrassed that we have this equation on the Supreme Court: politics = law. In law school, I naively thought that the law existed as a set of rules that operated independently from politics. I know differently now. Maybe there is something to Critical Legal Studies.
Sep '10
Re: Liberals Shocked To Discover Conservative Arguments
Mollie, I was thinking the same after reading SCOTUSblog yesterday. Skepticism and "open mindedness" were all on the more conservative side of the court: Justices Alito, Kennedy and Roberts challenged both government and the plaintiff with sharp, incisive questions. The four liberal justices were just advocates for the government.
Remember this the next time you see a liberal with a bumper sticker that says "Question Authority".
Liberals flatter themselves that they are the intelligent ones -- so they only listen to other liberals and rarely bother to prepare arguments for their side. Mickey Kaus identified this long ago as the "liberal cocoon".
Edited on March 29, 2012 at 5:58pmMar '11
Re: Liberals Shocked To Discover Conservative Arguments
As I've mentioned before, I've spent many years in entertainment so I have a lot of "listening to liberals" experience. I had my very own Pauline Kael moment after the 2004 elections. A guy I worked with said, How did Bush win? I don't know one person who voted for him. In response, I said: You really should get out a little more.
True, it's purely anecdotal but his statement probably illustrates the world in which many liberals live much more closely than we all realize.
What has worked for me regarding dealing with liberals and their illogical thoughts is trying to get to the core of how do they know what they know? I rarely ask them why they think what they do. Instead, I try to get them to trace back to the moment they had their liberal ideas. And what you find out very quickly is that they don't "know" anything. Commonly, you discover that how they think the way the world should work is vastly different from how they think their daily lives should be. True, we conservatives believe this of Pelosi, etc. But your layman liberals are exactly the same.
Sep '10
Re: Liberals Shocked To Discover Conservative Arguments
For most of them, no. They're already blaming the messenger. The Solicitor General is one of the most able attorneys in the country, but since he couldn't make the government's arguments work very well, the liberal elite has decided he's a disaster. It couldn't possibly be that the government's arguments themselves are shallow and indefensible.
Jun '10
Re: Liberals Shocked To Discover Conservative Arguments
EJHill
First off, prayers to the NICU. Had one there myself for almost six weeks. He's now 15 and quite the young man. May you be as blessed.
If you are raising children then youareengaging leftists. I think all children are natural born leftists. They demand that everything be handed to them gratis, bristle at the mere notion of any responsibility and they believe money and material objects just appear magically.
Conservatives are the ones that grow up. · 2 hours ago
Amen on the NICU--I have a very healthy two year old grandson who spent 100 days in the hospital.
And, yes, children are natural liberals. They don't understand their parents in the same way older liberals cannot understand conservatives: their worldview is cast in stone and they can't comprehend that a different set of thoughtful principles could possibly contradict the principles that are so self-evident to them.
Edited on March 29, 2012 at 7:18pm