With ObamaCare Affirmed by the Supreme Court, the Battle Moves to the Ballot Box
**********************************************************
John Roberts’ moment in the sun with Liberals will last only until his next decision they disagree with
**********************************************************
Perhaps one of the best things that came out of today’s Supreme Court ObamaCare affirmation by an unlikely coalition is that we won’t hear Liberals winnow (for now) over an “activist conservative court.”
The majority opinion was written by Chief Justice John Roberts, who Liberals have been catcalling for several years as a pro-business ideologue, especially after the Citizens United ruling that recognized the right of free speech for corporations and unions.
So much for that claim as Justice Roberts was the deciding vote which held that the law was a valid exercise of Congress’s power to tax. It will be interesting to see Mr. Obama defend such position in the months to come as it implicitly shows that Mr. Obama broke his pledge during the 2008 campaign not to raise taxes for those making less than $200,000 annually.
It’s impossible to get into Mr. Roberts head to try and understand his thinking on this and a seeming diversion from his jurisprudence, regardless of what the written opinion states. But unlike Liberals with decisions they don’t like, it should be assumed that he used his best and honest jurisprudential thinking on this and was not swayed by the shrill voices coming from all sides. For the time being, Mr. Roberts will enjoy a reprieve from the rhetorical pistol-whippings that Liberals like the MSNBC carnival barkers have inflicted on him. But such will be fleeting as the next decision he makes that the Liberal mob doesn’t like will renew his caricature as a mid-19th century Roger Taney who, as Supreme Court Chief Justice, upheld matters like slavery.
And perhaps one of the biggest losers from this decision is Justice Kennedy, who will be verbally flogged for not seeing the light that even Mr. Roberts could see. Is there a Justice protection program to shield Mr. Kennedy from the un-tender mercies that Liberals will unleash on him?
**********************************
As the weeks and months unfold, it will be entertaining to see how Liberals have no problem with the fact that this was a 5-4 decision. When Bush v. Gore was decided, the seminal decision in the multi-issue case came down as 5-4 and Liberals thereafter outwardly said that such a split decision is tainted, if not illegitimate, even though there is nowhere in the Constitution that even implies such. Will Liberals see the same split-decision taint in this decision as in ones that go against Liberals?
What about accusations of “ideologue” that are often bantered about when Conservatives and Republicans, whether congressmen or judges, take positions that are native to them instead of appeasing Liberals? In this case, the usual Liberal suspects stayed squarely in their camp, as they always do, while a Conservative came over and helped push them into the judicial end-zone. May we infer that Liberals are the unbending ideologues and Conservatives more open-minded?
**********************************
In a sense, today’s ruling may have strengthened Mitt Romney’s argument to elect him and fire President Obama this November. By keeping ObamaCare on the books, the only way now to rid this country of ObamaCare is to elect Romney as President and give Republicans majorities in both houses of congress.
It’s now up to Republicans, and their standard-bearer Mitt Romney, to make the case that only they stand between allowing sweeping and permanent changes to a major part of our economy, or replacing ObamaCare with something that this country can live with.
-I.M. Windee
