Necessary Collateral Damage?

OF COURAGE, COWARDICE, AND POLITICAL EXPEDIENCY

by Don Fredrick, ©2012, blogging at Colony14

(Jun. 29, 2012) — Like many others, I have mixed emotions on the Supreme Court’s ruling that ObamaCare is constitutional—and is so only by means of the convoluted logic of Chief Justice John Roberts that says the individual mandate is not really a mandate. According to Roberts, no Americans are being forced to buy health insurance, they are simply being taxed—by a tax Obama insists is not a tax—if they do not buy health insurance. That defense of ObamaCare is tantamount to claiming that an armed robber is not really forcing a victim to hand over his money; the victim is merely handing it over voluntarily in order to avoid being shot at close range. Roberts has declared the gun-wielding a legal process; the victim still has the “freedom” to decide whether to empty his wallet.

On the one hand, the ruling was certainly incorrect and the U. S. Constitution was flagrantly abused. The entire law should have been struck down.

On the other hand, the Constitution has been abused almost since the day it was ratified. A great number of federal laws violate the Commerce Clause, and the income tax itself is unconstitutional, so it is unclear how complaining about ideological purity may do much good at the moment. If the Justices cared about the Constitution ObamaCare would have failed in a 9–0 vote. If the legislators cared about the Constitution, ObamaCare would never have been passed. (If legislators cared about the Constitution, we would also not have the Patriot Act, spy drones flying over our heads, TSA personnel groping grandmothers, the Department of Education, and an EPA regulating the carbon dioxide we all exhale simply by virtue of our existence.) If the voters cared about the Constitution, we would not have Obama in the Oval Office, Nancy Pelosi in the House, or Harry Reid in the Senate.

Had the Court ruled ObamaCare unconstitutional, Obama and the left would be, as Rush Limbaugh has astutely pointed out, railing against “four old white guys and an Uncle Tom who denied health care” to millions of Americans. Many voters would have fallen for that, and Obama would perhaps win reelection by arguing, “Vote for me and I promise I will put decent people on the Supreme Court!”

The truth is that the Supreme Court Justices are cowards. If they cared about the absolute rule of law, rather than their personal agendas or legacies, they would have heard Kerchner v. Obama and thrown the thug-in-chief out onto the street. So, we have to deal with reality. In a perfect world ObamaCare would have been ruled unconstitutional. But in a perfect world Dick “Eddie Haskell” Durbin would not be allowed anywhere near the nation’s capitol, Nobel Peace Prizes would only be given to people who advance peace, Chris Matthews would be in an asylum, and Judy Garland would have won an Oscar for A Star is Born.

In our non-perfect world, Chief Justice Roberts either cared more about his legacy than the law—which is little different than his fear of addressing Kerchner—or, as some suggest, he was telling the Republicans, “I’m not going to bail you out. Get your butts in gear and get to work doing what you are supposed to do, legislating wisely and educating the public.” His ruling did, after all, include the statement, “Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.” In other words, “If the voters are dumb enough to elect Obama, Pelosi, and Reid, the result may be legislation like ObamaCare—and it’s not my fault you nominated John McCain and ran a lousy campaign in 2008.”

It is worth remembering that toward the end of  World War II Allied forces killed thousands of innocent people with their brutal bombing of Germany. Terrible as that was, we could not have defeated Hitler without bombing his factories, supply lines, and fuel depots. Hitler lost the war because he ran out of weapons, ammunition, and gas. The bombings reduced his ability to fight.

So, perhaps Roberts was engaged in a “bombing run” to reduce the enemy’s ability to fight. Roberts knew he was inflicting collateral damage to the Constitution, but understood that his side could ultimately be victorious if he took away one of the enemy’s main weapons. Obama cannot now spend the next four months campaigning against the Supreme Court. He cannot spend the next four months doing nothing other than attack Bain Capital and Romney’s wealth. Obama has been forced to spend the next four months defending ObamaCare—and ObamaTax. Obama knows that. He even said, “With today’s announcement, it’s time for us to move forward—to implement and, where necessary, improve on this law.” By “move forward,” of course, he means, “Let’s change the subject, because I know a majority of Americans oppose ObamaCare.”

Roberts’ bombing run reduces Obama’s ability to fight, allowing Mitt Romney to plan his D-Day invasion and lead the troops all the way to Washington, D. C. Yes, there was collateral damage to the U.S. Constitution, but that cannot always be avoided in a war.

Then again, the Chief Justice may simply be incompetent, Bush should have stuck with Harriet Miers, and Antonin Scalia should have been named Chief Justice.