WaPo's indelible E.J. Dionne has a op-ed out today where he is trying to make the case that Obamacare is a victim of poor messaging and politics rather than whether the law is constitution. He starts with pandering to the left and whines about the conservative activist judges on the bench:
And if it [SCOTUS] throws out all or part of the law now popularly known as "Obamacare," we will need a fearless conversation about how a conservative majority of the court has become a cog in a larger right-wing project to make progressive political and legislative victories impossible.
You see what he's doing here. Rather than speak to the issues that some, albeit, conservative justices have with the law's constitutionality, he takes it on faith that the law is constitutional and anyone who challenges that is a political activist. Further, he bemoans how no 'progressive' legislation can ever move forward due to that darn right-wing conspiracy.
I do agree with Dionne that we need a 'fearless conversation' but not about the conservative majority in the court, but way back when this abomination known as Obamacare came into being in the first place. Dionne seems to forget that this legislation was written behind closed doors and was only passed in the Senate through Harry Reid's violation of established Senate procedures with ZERO republicans voting for it.
I still harbor the perhaps naïve hope that some conservative justices — Anthony Kennedy? John Roberts? — will pull back from judicial activism and allow the voters to decide the fate of the health-care law in this fall's elections.
To quote her highness Fancy Nancy P. "Are you serious? Are you serious?" (sorry couldn't resist). Quick civics lesson for you E.J. there are three count them three branches of government all equal and all have checks and balance over the others.
This atrocious law was created in a perfect storm where the democrats found themselves with total control of two branches of government. They subsequently took full advantage by passing Obamacare and now are crying foul when, to their utter dismay, some folks in black robes -gasp- question its constitutionality.
Finally after talking about all the good stuff that's in the law - pre-exiting condition, adults kids staying on their parents coverage until they are 26 etc. without letting his readers know how we are going to pay for it, Dionne gets to the heart of the problem (at least in his eyes):
For unelected judges to give the back of their hands to legislators whose job is to solve problems while accounting for competing priorities would be the height of arrogance and a flight from democracy. But all the liberal anger in the world will not make up for the size of the setback.
Hey, E.J. the reason they are unelected is so they will be untouchable. Further my friend; it is the court's job to give congress the back of their hands when it overreaches its authority as it has in this case.
Oh and by the way, where were you when Roe v. Wade was upheld? Oh wait those judges weren't activist because they supported the unerring progressive agenda.