Ryan W. McMaken
June 28, 2012
SCOTUS voted 5‚Äď4 to uphold Obamacare and have concluded that the Constitution actually empowers the government to force people to buy things. In this case, it’s health insurance, but now that the precedent is set, the feds can now require you to buy anything it wants, apparently justified by the Constitution’s granted power to tax.
This nicely illustrates the theory that SCOTUS judges will almost always come down on the side of more government power unless doing so will dangerously undermine their own power. They’re politicians in robes. The number one concern of the court is its own independence, as illustrated by the craven switch in time that saved nine. It will only vote for more freedom when backed into a corner by the text of the Constitution itself, as in the case of Chicago v. McDonald. But now, calculating that there’s enough political support behind Obamacare to get away with it, SCOTUS has handed the executive branch a new massive amount of power.
It’s hilariously ironic that a Catholic Bush appointee (Roberts) switched sides to hand a great victory to Obama. How often are we told that we should vote Republican because the GOP president will appoint “good” judges? Often. The upside is that Catholics, who are only now finally starting to figure out that the government is not our friend, may finally have to grow a spine and quit relying on meek petitions to government lawyers (judges) for a defense of religious freedom.
Now that one of Bush’s appointees saved Obamacare for Obama, every conservative who voted for Bush to get “strict constructionists” on the bench should have the word “sucker” tattooed on his or her face.
So, when it comes time to get out the vote, will we hear from the GOP about how we need a Republican in office to give us good, Christian, freedom-loving judges in office? Oh yeah, I’m sure Romney appointees will be so much more reliable than Bush’s.
Update: I see that Laurence and I were thinking the same thing.