Why Liberals Could Hardly Believe Their Ears
While we're waiting for today's oral argument to be released, Jen Rubin explains why liberals found yesterday's argument so astounding:
The reaction on the left and right yesterday was telling. On the right was relief and confidence. Justice Anthony Kennedy has not been bamboozled by the new justices. He understands that the Obamacare defenders have no constitutionally significant bright line (or even a dull one) between Congress compelling purchase of insurance and compelling purchase of other goods and services.
The left expressed two distinct sentiments. The predominate one was a freak-out. “Train wreck!” It’s a “disaster” they moaned. The other was a vague (understandable, given the absence of concrete evidence) and self-delusional chatter that somehow Justice Kennedy was wavering....Do they hang their hats on his comment at the end of two hours of argument that young non-purchasers of insurance sort of come close to affecting “commerce”? (Those who have followed Kennedy all too closely spot the common feint of showing fleeting interest in an argument; Not a bad way to snag the job of writing the majority opinion.)
What is going on here is the result of inattention and even contempt for the Constitution that has infected what passes for liberal jurisprudence over the past 30 or 40 years.
Inattention and contempt. Yup, I'd say that about sums it up.
- Comment (23)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
May '10
Re: Why Liberals Could Hardly Believe Their Ears
I don't really get this. Before yesterday did any think this would not be a 5-4 outcome? Really? All the surprise reactions, including from J. Toobin, strike me as utterly insincere ratings lunging.
Jun '10
Re: Why Liberals Could Hardly Believe Their Ears
Kennedy will as he will. No explaining it, and he is as likely to uphold an unconstitutional law as to throw it out.
He holds the dice in a jurisprudential crap shoot.
May '10
Re: Why Liberals Could Hardly Believe Their Ears
(including here)
May '10
Re: Why Liberals Could Hardly Believe Their Ears
By a long shot liberals so believe in this thing that they almost universally believed it would be 9-0 at best and 7-2 at the worst. (Their thinking is that it might be hard to drag Mr. Justices Scalia and Thomas into the 21st Century.)
Sep '10
Re: Why Liberals Could Hardly Believe Their Ears
EJHill
By a long shot liberals so believe in this thing that they almost universally believed it would be 9-0 at best and 7-2 at the worst. (Their thinking is that it might be hard to drag Mr. Justices Scalia and Thomas into the 21st Century.) · 0 minutes ago
I'm with Adam Freedman. They never really believed it was an easy call. They are merely posturing, and laying the ground for their eventual line of attack should the law be overturned.
"This was such a no brainer case, that only a far right wing political activist judge could possibly vote the law down."
May '10
Re: Why Liberals Could Hardly Believe Their Ears
You give them more credit than I do. I try not to confuse ignorance with strategy.
Dec '11
Re: Why Liberals Could Hardly Believe Their Ears
Its just a shock that all ends don't justify all means.
Edited on March 28, 2012 at 7:09pmMay '10
Re: Why Liberals Could Hardly Believe Their Ears
This shock at the possibility that Obamacare could be considered unconstitutional is Exhibit A in demonstrating that liberals don't think; they feel. They look about at people who are too poor to afford health insurance and they feel like something ought to be done by .... someone .... not them, of course. So who better than government. Of course, if they thought at all, they'd recognize that "We the people" actually does include them. But it just feels good to express compassion for others. So why actually get into the hard, messy work of thinking?
May '10
Re: Why Liberals Could Hardly Believe Their Ears
The attitude is perfectly exemplified by Nancy Pelosi's "are you kidding?" reaction to questions about the law's constitutional basis . . . but of course you can't take anything that woman says at face value.
Jun '11
Re: Why Liberals Could Hardly Believe Their Ears
I certainly don't know for sure why analysts in the MSM were suggesting that it would be a slam dunk to uphold the mandate. While it is possible they were setting up a response in case of a loss, it is more likely that they all convinced themselves of their position buttressed by what they heard in their own internal echo chamber. That explains why the Solicitor General seemed so ill prepared. I try to abide by the notion: Never assume maliciousness when incompetence is a sufficient explanation.
Jul '11
Re: Why Liberals Could Hardly Believe Their Ears
I take her at face lift value. She should ask for her money back.
May '10
Re: Why Liberals Could Hardly Believe Their Ears
"This was such a no brainer case, that only a far right wing political activist judge could possibly vote the law down."
He forgot the "radical" before far right-wing.."
Monday morning, I tried to channel Andrew Breitbart and ask Rep. Nadler why most of the SCOTUS is "radical." Some of my quotes were left out, but I did become Nostradamus (and have the color of my suit changed): http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/politics/2012/03/5558234/nadler-defends-health-care-against-radical-supreme-court-and-street
Edited on March 28, 2012 at 7:25pmRe: Why Liberals Could Hardly Believe Their Ears
For what it's worth, ParisParamus and Frank Monaldo, I spoke late last week to a very senior, thoroughly conservative member of the faculty of a bigtime law school . (Sorry to be cagey, but since I never asked whether I could quote him, I figure I'd better not lose his name.) His call?
That the Court would uphold the mandate 7-2.
As best I can tell, a lot of informed observers--and not only liberals--expected the Court to uphold ObamaCare in a breeze.
Edited on March 29, 2012 at 1:11amMar '11
Re: Why Liberals Could Hardly Believe Their Ears
I'm working my way through Dr Levin's masterful radio broadcast from yesterday (his podcast) - by far the best commentary I have come across.
Hard to keep up - as day 3 comes out, the train wreck is being downgraded (or upgraded?) to a plane wreck. Just about sums up Mr Obama's first, and hopefully only, term.
There is a glimmer of hope for the Republic.
Mar '11
Re: Why Liberals Could Hardly Believe Their Ears
Peter Robinson: For what it's worth, ParisParamus and Frank Monaldo, I spoke late last week to a very senior, thoroughly conservative member of the faculty of a bigtime law school who had himself served on the bench. (Sorry to be cagey, but since I never asked whether I could quote him, I figure I'd better not lose his name.) His call?
That the Court would uphold the mandate 7-2.
As best I can tell, a lot of informed observers--and not only liberals--expected the Court to uphold ObamaCare in a breeze. · 14 minutes ago
Edited 3 minutes ago
Including, if memory serves, Richard Epstein on Law Talk.
May '10
Re: Why Liberals Could Hardly Believe Their Ears
Whether they uphold the law or not is almost beside the point. That one can conclude what will happen based on the oral arguments is dubious. With the stakes as high as they are, the Justices will make every effort to probe both sides of the argument--even if their mind was made up long ago.
Mar '12
Re: Why Liberals Could Hardly Believe Their Ears
Parallel to Ruben's argument is the living constitution problem. If the constituiton is a living document, why may it not "live" in the direction of classical liberalism rather than Progressivism. How can anyone who believes in a living constitution ever say any constitutional argument is wrong? Who can be sure he knows the direction history is going?
P.S. I would love for a conservative nominee to the Court to answer every question this way: "I believe in a living constitution, x might be constitutional some day."
Mar '11
Re: Why Liberals Could Hardly Believe Their Ears
Peter Robinson: For what it's worth, ParisParamus and Frank Monaldo, I spoke late last week to a very senior, thoroughly conservative member of the faculty of a bigtime law school who had himself served on the bench. (Sorry to be cagey, but since I never asked whether I could quote him, I figure I'd better not lose his name.) His call?
That the Court would uphold the mandate 7-2.
But he's from an older generation, and even older conservatives, surrounded by liberal ideas all their lives, sometimes conceded arguments to the liberal position if their profession was dominated by them, especially in law. There are a lot of older, seemingly conservative lawyers and judges that were so imbued with the New Deal and Great Society that even they have trouble seeing them as wrong. Stare Decisis trumps the Constitution with such people. I'm thankful for their contributions... they helped get us here... but I'm also thankful for newer generations that won't let their minds be bound by such chains.
Mar '11
Re: Why Liberals Could Hardly Believe Their Ears
Mendel
Including, if memory serves, Richard Epstein on Law Talk. ·
Epstein has since reversed himself, if memory is correct, however. He has since come around to think the Court will overturn it. Yoo is the one who seemed more pessimistic about that these days.
BTW, Epstein has really given us a fantastic picture of the mindsets of the various conservative justices. I used to think that Scalia was the best and brightest judge on the bench, but after listening to many Law Talks, I have to come to the conclusion that Clarence Thomas is the finest Supreme Court justice of our lifetime. The man truly gets it. He gets the Constitution. He truly knows what a SCOTUS justice should do, and he does it consistently. He's truly the apostle of the Constitution, and there's nothing wrong with American jurisprudence that a bunch more Clarence Thomas judges couldn't fix over time. Every time I get steamed at Bush the Elder for David Souter, I have to remember that he also gave us Thomas, and that it took real courage to do so. Thomas is the best justice on that bench.
Edited on March 28, 2012 at 10:31pmMar '11
Re: Why Liberals Could Hardly Believe Their Ears
Douglas
Mendel
Including, if memory serves, Richard Epstein on Law Talk. ·
Epstein has since reversed himself, if memory is correct, however. He has since come around to think the Court will overturn it. Yoo is the one who seemed more pessimistic about that these days.
I knew one of the two was pessimistic about Obamacare, but you are probably right that it was John Yoo, and I was confusing the two in my mind. After all, their voices sound so similar on the podcast!
Edited on March 28, 2012 at 11:42pm