Second guesses and theories about the Supreme Court decision and its aftermath

In the days and weeks preceding oral argument before the Supreme Court on ObamaCare, all Democrat (politicians and pundits) and a surprising number of conservatives were convinced that the Supreme Court would sustain ObamaCare.  After two and a half days of argument, the conventional wisdom has suddenly shifted.  Democrats are sure they’ll lose, and conservatives are cautiously optimistic.

With this radical shift, something else has happened:  Democrats are boasting, and conservatives are worrying, that a Supreme Court loss is the best thing that could happen to the Democrats.  Both claim that if the mandate alone goes, the remainder of ObamaCare will survive and be better than ever; and both also claim that if the entire bill goes down, ObamaCare’s loss will reinvigorate the base in November, while possible ensuing chaos in the health care world will so frighten ordinary Americans that they’ll demand a big government solution.

The Democrats’ spin make sense.  It’s all they can do.  The conservatives’ spin is less easy to understand.  Are conservatives guarding against hubris?  Is this a case of “hope for the worst, but plan for the best”?  Our we overestimating the Obama-ite’s tactical brilliance?  The last is intriguing, actually.  The theory goes that Obama and Co. decided that they could make more hay out of a loss than a victory, so they actually encouraged the Solicitor General to humiliate himself and basically appear like an articulate idiot.  They want to lose, because it sets them up for some even more nefarious plan.

There is such a thing as over-thinking things.  Under the above world view, it is impossible for conservatives to win.  If we lose before the Supreme Court, we lose.  If we win before the Supreme Court, we lose.  This is an unsustainable mindset.  You have to fight your battles as they come.  It is possible to win most of the battles and lose the war, but it’s more likely that the party with the greatest number of victories in separate battles also wins the war.  The one thing that’s certain is that, if you lose all the battles, you also lose the war.

I have been over-thinking something myself.  As jj noted in his comment to an earlier post, it is unconscionable that Elena Kagan is one of the sitting justices for this ObamaCare decision.  She was an important part of its passage, not to mention an ardent cheerleader.  Each of these facts creates an overwhelming appearance of bias and impropriety that, with nothing more, should force a judge’s recusal.  Yet Kagan didn’t recuse herself and, it seems, Chief Justice Roberts didn’t push the issue.

I’m wondering if they struck a deal….

Roberts must have realized that Obama’s base would become something close to insane, and probably violently so, if Kagan was knocked off this panel.  Perhaps he said to her something along the lines of, “You can stay, and you can help them out in oral argument, but you vote with me when the time comes.”  His role as Chief Justice means that he has considerable power to make Kagan’s Supreme Court tenure pleasant or unpleasant.  I can imagine him using a little polite blackmail.

Speaking Roberts, in my humble estimation, he has been the best Chief Justice in my remembered lifetime.  I have a great deal of faith in his management skills and, if he believes ObamaCare should be struck down in its entirety, I can see him making it happen — especially when it comes to encouraging Justice Kennedy to make the right decision.  (And jj, you’re right about that too, which is that it’s unconscionable that a man of very weak principles, although he does seem to side with individual liberties, is the one who seems to bear the whole burden of upholding the Constitution’s integrity.)

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. Charles Martel says

    If the Supremes overturn Obamacare, the Democrats will not being to explain away one simple thing: Re-electing Obama so he can bring socialized medicine before Congress again will not produce the same piece of legislation. Instead, Obamacare 2.0 will have to have all sorts of hedges built into it to pass constitutional muster. His deep base will not be pleased if the legislation lacks the coercive individual mandate.
     
    However, as the sainted Lenin once said, “Two steps forward, one step back.”
     
    (Also, thinking like the Alinskyites who know occupy the White House, I see where Obama could wait for one of the Supremes’ old men to resign and then replace him with a racist dimwit like Kagan or Sotomayor. Then he’d have his court majority.)

  2. Zhombre says

    Hell, the left thinks all conservatives are revolting anyway.  What’s to lose?  Seems to me virtually everything the elites in media, academia, et al, do is predicated on the opinion that their opponents are vile and repulsive and should not be taken seriously.  

  3. says

    For those interested in owning some home defense weapons that aren’t easily legislated or regulated out of existence like guns are in DC, LA, Chicago, New Orleans, and other Democrat fiefdoms, I can recommend a blade from any of these reputable manufacturers.

    http://www.sword-manufacturers-guide.com/chris-zhou.html

    For practice, I recommend the 50 dollar Musashi Iaito, with the blunt edge that won’t slice off your shin or ear if you really don’t skill or training with swords. While it has no edge, I’ve tested the point and it can indeed go straight through a person if you apply enough thrust in a stab. And a hit with the false edge or the back, is going to do a lot more damage than any baseball bat in existence, given the impact geometry. If the police come looking for your guns, you can always say that it’s an art piece and just meant for decoration. Conveniently placed over your bed or other critical access points.

    For true sword users, however, they will want something a little sharper and more functional. The cheness 9260 silicon spring steel or the Hanwei tactical wakizashi 5160 spring steel blade are some of the toughest swords modern metallurgy has ever given birth to. The chance of the blade being damaged, chipped, or broken from an improper cut through human flesh and bone will be minimum. Those with skill sufficient to cut a straight plane through the target will appreciate the fact that nothing the blade hits, metal pipe or rifle stock or steel barrel, will degrade the metal of the sword or cause a permanent bend. 

    Cheness also produces a tanto, dagger, that is pretty good for thrust attacks. Most homes will only have enough space to swing a wakizashi, a shortsword around, so make note of that when choosing between full length katanas (40 inches) and short sword wakizashis (30 inches).

     And the list of manufacturers have all kinds of products for people who want something just a bit different from what I’ve described. From Western swords to Eastern, all is listed.

     The advantage of steel blades is that they’re just like the metal in guns. You need to oil them and maintain them. That’s definitely an advantage if you already have gun cleaning skills and kits. And they are both lethal implements, tools. But unlike guns, there is little legislation controlling who can own them and where they must be “stored” in a home.

    The disadvantage is that you must have some level of skill in the use of live steel or else take some quick lessons on using it as a stabbing device that lets you get more distance from a foe.

    I’ve seen some of Obata Toshishiro’s Shinkendo. Practicing with a false blade iaito means that one must work their arms to exhaustion in saburi in order to test whether they will accidentally hit themselves with the false blade, which would have dramatic consequences if it was a shinken (live blade). It’s much like pointing a gun at your head when you’re looking through the barrel. You better make sure it is unloaded and the safety is on and the chamber itself is empty.

     Hope for the best, prepare for the worst.

  4. jj says

    You’re presupposing a willingness to descend to democrat party levels of sleaze on Robert’s part.  While I’d be okay with him twisting her arm up behind her ear in a back room somewhere, I suspect him of harboring more honor than that.  I think he has standards – though obviously the organization of which he is the chief clearly no longer does.

  5. says

    Republicans play by the rules and lose. Democrats cheat and win. Republicans then try to cheat, but they still lose because the Democrats called their cheating virtue, and the Republicans cheating a vice. And people believed it because Democrats did everything first and claimed First Ownership above all else. Ownership is 9/10ths of the law.

Leave a Reply