Listen

Liberals everywhere are readying themselves one way or another to cry foul should the Supreme Court of the United States strike down the unconstitutional ObamaCare law tomorrow.  And while I agree with Rush Limbaugh that the major narrative of the left – the one that will be most often circulated, and the one the administration will settle on using in the campaign – will be that four white guys and a black “Uncle Tom” took away the healthcare of millions of Americans, that won’t be the only idiotic complaint the left makes.

In fact, many are already testing out their best objections.  One I found particularly idiotic came from the left’s boy wonder, Ezra Klein at the Washington Post.  Again demonstrating how little brain power one must muster in order to be considered a genius to, by, and for the left in this country, Klein broke out his thesaurus in an effort to make a really dumb position sound uber-intellectual.

Here’s what he wrote:

Over the past two years, the Republican Party has slowly been building a permission structure for the five Republicans on the Supreme Court to feel comfortable doing something nobody thought they could do: Violate the existing understanding of the commerce clause and, in perhaps the most significant moment of judicial activism since the New Deal, overturn either all or part of the Affordable Care Act.

In other words, conservative Republicans have put pressure on the “conservative” Supreme Court justices to rule the way their going to.  And the way they’re going to, according to Klein’s silly premise, is a “significant moment of judicial activism,” and one that violates “the existing understanding of the commerce clause.” 

Good grief.  First of all, far from being an act of activism by the Court, the decision (assuming it goes the way Klein and others assume) will be the very definition of originalism.  If you assume the Court has the ability to exercise judicial review, then for the Court to defend the rights of the individual over the aggressive assertion of federal government power into the lives of average citizens is not an act of judicial activism in the least.  Surely a man as supposedly learned as Klein knows that to be the case.  If he does, he is committing the very offense he condemns: attempting to weave a narrative that other liberals will parrot whether it’s sound or not.

LIKE US ON FACEBOOK

Secondly, what is this crap about “violating the existing understanding of the commerce clause?”  Whose existing understanding are we talking about there, Ezzy?  The whole point that conservatives have made with this Act is that it goes beyond what the “existing understanding of the commerce clause” allows.  The commerce clause allows Congress to regulate interstate commerce.  Klein would be right in saying that the Court has, through the years, expanded that meaning to allow the Congress to regulate intrastate commerce.  But ObamaCare is well beyond even that.  It allows Congress to force an individual into commerce, just so they can turn around and regulate them.  That’s not in any non-socialist’s understanding of the commerce clause. 

Ken Sheppard, looking at the various amicus briefs (friend of the court briefs) filed with this case, explained that’s not all:

Another conservative/libertarian amicus brief, filed by the Institute for Justice (IJ), held forth that ObamaCare violated fundamental principles of American contract law. Contracts, IJ attorneys note, cannot be legally enforceable if they are entered under compulsion, which is precisely what ObamaCare's individual mandate would engender.

Sheppard also pointed out that Klein, in his effort to proclaim this nothing but conservative jurists on an anti-Obama crusade, failed to acknowledge that a Clinton-appointed judge on the 11th Circuit agreed that this ObamaCare thing was way beyond the scope of anything the commerce clause allows, or the Constitution would justify.

In short, this was a really stupid thesis from a supposedly smart guy.  Saddle up your horses, and expect more of the same if the Court strikes down Obama’s signature “accomplishment” tomorrow.