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.