Posted on 03/30/2012 6:52:43 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Via Newsbusters and Ace, who points to Karl’s piece in the Greenroom as a reminder that our very open-minded friends on the left have a little echo-chamber problem of their own. Says Jay Cost:
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?
Fair points all, but look: Even I was surprised at how hostile the conservatives on the Court seemed to be towards the mandate. That’s not because I’m reading back issues of The Nation, it’s because the painful fact remains that the Supremes almost always let Congress do any ol’ thing it wants when it comes to regulating commerce. Remember the terrible, terrible Raich case? That wasn’t the Warren Court and it wasn’t a 5-4 decision. It was 2005 and it went 6-3 thanks to — ta da — Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia. It came fully 10 years after the landmark Lopez case, which was supposed to herald some new golden age of limits on the Commerce Clause but hasn’t borne much fruit yet. Maybe ObamaCare is where it’ll pay off, or maybe Scalia’s point during oral arguments that “commerce” doesn’t include people who haven’t yet bought insurance will save the day. But it’s not pure leftist hallucination to think that 70 years of the Court letting Congress run wild with economic regulation might lead to them rubber-stamping the mandate too. Remember, even a conservative judicial eminence like Laurence Silberman upheld the mandate at the appellate level. I’m on record as of today in believing that the Supremes will, in fact, uphold it too on a 6-3 vote with Roberts writing a very narrow majority opinion. Can’t blame the left for being surprised that the Commerce Clause suddenly exists. Although you can, of course, blame them for dismissing conservative legal objections to the mandate simply because they’re conservative. That’ll never change — their sense of infallible intellectual superiority is too precious to them. But it’s fun to see it shaken.
Some nut on an Obamacare discussion panel told the Friends this morning that if it gets struck down is just means that the Supreme Court is made up of right wing judges legislating from the bench.
,,,,, it sent chills through his buttocks I bet .
The Lefties must be utter morons if they cannot grasp this very simple concept:
There MUST be limits on federal power, both vs. the states and the people, or else we live in a dictatorship.
Really, what is so difficult to understand about that - unlimited power is, by definition, dictatorship. THAT is what conservatives are upset about, and THAT is the reason why this law has been challenged (hopefully successfully, otherwise our Republic is officially over).
Liberals: Evidence that “Stupid is as stupid does” is a metaphysical truth.
Chris’s brain doesn’t tingle, he is an idiot.
I think Obama's position on this is to make it a win win and get the issue resolved once and for all before the election. It narrows the campaign focus.
If it gets thrown out Obama doesn't' have to worry about it and can run against A "GOP that wants to take away your access to healthcare." If it gets shot down, the GOP won't be running a campaign to repeal or against it. It would actually help the deficit problem so Obama gets to run on how he is now reducing the deficit.
If it's upheld (gawd help us), he gets to run against the GOP who is campaigning to have it legislatively dismissed. "The GOP wants to take away your access to healthcare."
If it were not heard before the election, the speculation and the damage that it is and will do will support the GOP campaign message against it. It is hard to defend statistics and facts with gesture and postulation when there is uncertainty ESPECIALLY when popular opinion is against you the merit of the speculation has no rational argument.
Obama has to run on emotion. His best hope is that some other national crisis happens between now and election time to change the focus from the economy. He needs to get past the hottest issues to narrow the focus of his emotional influence based campaign.
He doesn't want to have to run against the economy and Obamacare.
My biggest fear is that he will propose something like the "Fair Tax" and get it passed before the election. While it would be good for the country, it might be enough to get him re-elected and start picking off the "Libertarians" and small business moderates.
What would be the point of voting? Fortify your home, solidify your relationships with friends and loved ones, consider shorting the market, hunker down and pray for miracles, although they will be unlikely, based on history, to show up in our life time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.