ObamaCare: Recouping the Loss

Over the past few days there has been an explosion of articles and analyses on the Supreme Court’s ruling on ObamaCare. I recommend beginning with Philip Klein on Why Roberts deserves conservatives’ scorn. I’ve followed Klein on health care for years, from the time he would eviscerate Massachusetts’ health care plan (now usually called RomneyCare) with a series of posts at The American Spectator blog. I think each headline began with the question, How’s That Mass Health Care Working Out For You? He started with Part I, and worked his way up at least into the twenties, listed the latest problems and failures.

On Friday, Klein posted an interview, Randy Barnett says Roberts’ tax power argument is “lame” but “easily fixed”, in which Barnett, a Georgetown Law professor, gave his perspective on the ruling. Also at the Washington Examiner, you can also read yet a third opinion from Mark Tapscott in UPDATED II: Roberts is not the goat in today’s Supreme Court decision.

To mix my metaphors, we can recoup the loss of this ruling and make it a Pyrrhic victory if Americans determine that the November elections will be a Phoenix rising from the ashes of this conservative defeat.

Timothy Dalrymple’s Five Possible Silver Linings in the Obamacare Decision, may be overly optimistic, but we won’t get rid of the taste of ashes until we realize:

The Supreme Court is not going to save us against our own poor electoral decisions, if the people we elect go on to pass foolish taxes.  Conservatives cannot rely on the Supreme Court as a backstop.

In I’m Not Down On John Roberts, Erick Erickson had similar things to say:

…Roberts forces everyone to deal with the issue as a political, not a legal issue. In the past twenty years, Republicans have punted a number of issues to the Supreme Court asking the Court to save us from ourselves. They can’t do that with Roberts. They tried with McCain-Feingold, which was originally upheld. This case is a timely reminder to the GOP that five votes are not a sure thing.

Philip Klein reported:

I asked Barnett to respond to the fact that in the broader sense, the Supreme Court still advanced the assumption that it would find some way of justifying Congressional action when it comes to major legislation.

“Four justices weren’t prepared to do that, one was,” Barnett said. “We had to hold all five. We start off with four against us, we knew that. Every time we have to hold all five. Here’s what it tells you – five justices are not enough. That’s your lesson…You need seven. If we have seven justices, Congress won’t mess with this. With five justices, sure.”

Congress wouldn’t mess with this and with us if we more carefully examined who we were voting for in the first place, and we won’t get those seven justices without voting for a President who will nominate them and a Senate who will approve them.

The House, the Senate, and the President are determined by our votes. We have the most influence over the House with elections every other year, next the Senate, because although they are elected every six years, they have a narrower geographic accountability, and third, the President.

…we are told that Pyrrhus said to one who was congratulating him on his victory, “If we are victorious in one more battle with the Romans, we shall be utterly ruined.”1

As we read the self-congratulations of the Left on their victory, remember the November elections can make it ruinous to them with the truth in advertising label ObamaCare bears as the ObamaControlCare Tax & IRS Expansion Act. We the citizens are the final guardians of the Republic, and it’s up to us to be galvanized to regroup and defend it if we want to keep it.

Further Reading:
Stanek weekend question: What are some takeways from the Obamacare decision?
Top Ten Takeaways from the Obamacare Decision
What’s Wrong With ObamaCare? Here’s A Partial List
Obamacare’s Hidden Taxes
SCOTUS Ruling Means Bigger, More Intrusive IRS

The Legend Of The Fenix, Evangelivm: GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.
Pyrrhus of Epirus. Museo Archeologico Nazionale (National Archaeological Museum of Naples): Public Domain, via Wikipedia.
1Plutarch, “The Life of Pyrrhus,” The Parallel Lives, 21:9.


One thought on “ObamaCare: Recouping the Loss

  1. Good post. It is just not the SCOTUS’s job to save us from bad laws or politicians who make bad laws. Just unsalvagably unconstitutional laws, and they found a way to salvage Obamacare. It is our responsibility as citizens, as voters, to inform ourselves and make good decisions at the ballot box and if we do not wish to be a Euro-style nanny state or worse, we, as a nation, should not elect collectivist, wealth-redistributionist politicians, no matter how hopey-changey they are. Stated simply, that means some Republicans and all Democrats. Anyone who does not support such ideas should not be in that party or vote for their candidates. As the Court just said, the appropriate remedy is for the voters to grow up, wise up and “throw them out of office”.

    And as Franklin said, “…a republic, madam, if you can keep it.”

    Let us together keep the republic.

What are your thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s