I continue to think about the Obamacare oral arguments at the Supreme Court. You know, there’s something about this that is genuinely troubling. We have nine members of the US Supreme Court. The media is focusing on five of them. Four of them are excused. Four of them are considered to be locked and loaded, and above and beyond question. And those are the four liberal justices. They are not expected to be open-minded. The media’s not asking them to consider things outside their normal purview. But the four conservatives and the one moderate, Anthony Kennedy?
The media is challenging them to be open-minded about this, to maybe see the way to voting against the way they are preternaturally inclined. So four justices are given a pass. The four liberal justices are considered, obviously, locked in stone (and properly so) and the pressure is being brought to bear on the other five. But beyond that, do you not find it troubling that in a case so blatantly unconstitutional, in a law that is so blatantly in violation of the United States Constitution, we have to rely on one or two justices to protect the republic? You would think that this wouldn’t even be a question for all nine of them. “Coerced contracts” are against the law, much less the Constitution!
You cannot force anybody to sign a contract, which is essentially what Obamacare does when it mandates that you buy an insurance policy. Yet we have to rely on one or two justices to see this. That’s precarious. That is a precarious balance in which freedom is on the scales. That’s troubling to me. Not to mention the fact that one of these justices should have recused herself: Elena Kagan. She was solicitor general in the Obama administration. She argued cases before the Supreme Court. She was responsible for formulating the Obama regime’s legal defense of Obamacare. That was her job. Now, if that isn’t enough to disqualify somebody as a justice on a case, I don’t know what is.