At Power Line, John Hinderaker offers a contrarian conservative view of yesterday's decision. Even if you don't agree with John's opinion on the merits of John Roberts' reasoning, his conclusion is difficult to dispute:
Scott made a great point earlier today: contrary to popular belief and its own self-image, the Court has rarely been much of a bulwark on behalf of individual liberty. Certainly it has acquiesced, not just today but for many decades, in a steady expansion of federal power beyond what is contemplated by the Constitution.
Today’s decision was disappointing, but probably should not have been unexpected, and would not have been, but for the three days of arguments that highlighted the constitutional problems posed by Obamacare. It has been a long time since we could even hope to rely on the courts to protect us against further accretions of government authority. This is a democracy, and if a majority of our fellow-citizens are content to live as wards of the state, subsisting from cradle to grave as dependents, we are, frankly, screwed. There is only one place where freedom and a proper constitutional balance can be restored: the ballot box.
In hindsight, expecting the Supreme Court to do the right thing on Obamacare was unrealistic. Cnservatives are no doubt disappointed, frustrated, and angry today. The most productive thing to do at this point would be to channel that energy into efforts into getting political leaders elected who will do what the Supreme Court was unwilling to.
