In a Washington Post opinion piece, Charles Krauthammer makes the case that it is ObamaCare that is on trial—not the Supreme Court. The focus should remain on this “fundamentally transformative law” that “remak[es] one-sixth of the economy.” Krauthammer notes that ObamaCare passed on strictly partisan lines, unlike other major social legislation such the Voting Rights Act, Medicare, and Medicaid. He suggests that perhaps the Court will not give Congress the normal “restraint and deference” in considering the constitutionality of ObamaCare.
Krauthammer notes the irony in President Obama’s sudden transformation into an advocate for a restrained judiciary. Of course, cautioning against partisanship on the Court should not just be directed at the conservative justices. Why aren’t more people calling on Justices Sotomayor and Kagan to show they are not partisan, since they were appointed by President Obama? As Krauthammer rightly comments:
Partisanship is four Democrat-appointed justices giving lock-step support to a law passed by a Democratic Congress and a Democratic president – after the case for its constitutionality had been reduced to rubble.
Just don’t hold your breath waiting for calls to impeach the liberal justices if the Supreme Court upholds ObamaCare.
Source material can be found at this site.