A matter of interpretation

Luckily, my comments written in haste (see previous post) immediately following the Supreme Court of the United States' ruling on Obamacare, were not changed by the many meticulous readings of Chief Justice John Roberts' opinion.  More interesting now, a few days following the decision to uphold the Obamacare law, is the realization by liberals that throughout the ruling is a near 180-degree turn against previously generous interpretations of the Commerce Clause, i.e., the power of Congress to compel individuals and states to do as they are told.

Not being a lawyer, let alone a Constitutional scholar, if the conspiracy theorists are correct saying that "turncoat" Justice Roberts switched his vote at the last minute, Roberts (and true conservatives) clearly made off with the booty.  If, as the story goes, Roberts decided to change his vote merely to protect the Court from recriminations of partisanship for tossing out the law in its entirety, he extracted from the Justices to his left, a wicked (to them) price.

But I digress.  The importance of the ruling cannot be seen merely through either political or Constitutional lenses.  Let's remember, the most awesome of the Supreme Court's powers is the power to decide what cases it will hear and rule on.  To those disappointed by the ruling, this begs the question why did the Court take it up at all?

The Supremes took the case because of one thing: Ruling on it would give the nation at large an overdue "learning moment" in CITIZENSHIP too juicy to pass up:

First, when a confusing, complex, and punitive law passed in the name of making X more affordable by forcing Y and Z to pay for it, no matter how bad or objectionable, the Court system is not a political janitor; sloppy citizenship begets sloppy lawmaking and sloppy government, but "it ain't my job."

Second, for citizens to believe that appointed Justices owe their political patrons loyalty when making decisions does greater harm to political life and public discourse (and the exercise of freedom under the Constitution) than for citizens to depend on the Courts to protect them from politicians who change their minds and loyalties to the people who elect them.

Third, by making politically unpopular Rulings that are nevertheless Constitutional, we (the Supremes) challenge elected politicians to write laws that are more popular and just from their inception, and challenge citizens and voters to decide matters (more actively, please) accordingly.

Finally, the Supreme Court, to say nothing of the federal bench in general, is not a mini- or even super- "Congress of last resort."  The Court's job is not to protect politicians or even voters, it is to protect the Constitution so it stays potent for CITIZENS.

Though many of my friends will suffer financially and otherwise from the upholding of Obamacare, our children and grandchildren will undoubtedly benefit by the disposition of the Obama presidency in November, and live to appreciate the rude awakening given by the Court to the American citizenry to take ownership of their rights and responsibilities, and not surrender their political judgement to others' interpretations.

Way better than a super-PAC

Not being a legal scholar, I can say with zero authority that the Supreme Court of the United States ruling today on the Affordable Care Act of 2009 (aka Obamacare) was as expected.

While a few commentators will blame Chief Justice John Roberts, whose appointment by conservative President George W. Bush will be analyzed for weeks, I can only imagine the delight with which the Chief Justice exposed President Obama's deception that the individual mandate was not a tax, and having done so, hand the ugly baby back to the White House to explain and defend.  Though some at 1600 Pennsylvania are undoubtedly celebrating the Court's decision, the moment will dawn on them shortly that far from endorsing the onerous Obamacare law, the Supremes called their bluff.

A tax by any other name is still a tax.  Opponents of Obamacare now have the ruling of the US Supreme Court behind them to prove that Obamacare means raising taxes-- mostly on small businesses and self-employed earners, and burdening states with higher costs to provide Medicare.  In other words, by ruling in favor of the President, the Supremes have stripped away any pretense of good-versus-evil, exposing the skeleton of Obamacare as the unlimited taxation power grab that it always was.

The easy question is if Obamacare was so bad, why didn't the Supremes just do the honors and dispose of it?  The easy answer is, that's the job of Congress.  And in defense of Chief Justice Roberts, whose "political loyalty" will be attacked forevermore, I must say his majority opinion was the most conservative decision of the Court in many years for its explicit message that the Court will not legislate for those who legislate however poorly-- "It's not our job," so said the Court.

Finally, the Supremes could not have acted any better to energize the conservative political base in a hotly-contested election year, and for this alone Mitt Romney must be eternally grateful.  Unable himself to generate enough excitement or momentum for his candidacy, the Supremes have made a donation to his campaign far more valuable than any super-PAC.  Now Mr. Romney will enjoy the spoils of Obama's legal victory-- becoming at last the vehicle for a cause greater than himself.

Houston, we've got company

The Chinese make it look easy in this well-edited video of the events taking place this week above us.  Congratulations are deserved, but just a few years ago, this was so hard to imagine.