Ideologies provide contrasts in behavior

“The double standard on bipartisanship from Democrats is that it only goes one way, whether in the House of Representatives, the Senate or the Supreme Court—the right is expected to move to the left, but the left is not expected to compromise by moving to the right or even closer to the center. The ObamaCare decision is an example of that same one-sided bipartisanship which celebrates liberal Republicans, but shows very little tolerance for conservative Democrats.”

Daniel Greenfield describes the Swingers of the Supreme Court noting that the left side of the bench maintains ideological purity in their decisions while the right side tends to look more at issues, circumstances, and the law. As is being well illustrated in the AG contempt brouhaha, the left paints the other side as political and racist or whatever is handy and they are obstinate in such a defense of their behavior. That is called projection.

What brought this up right now is, of course, the USOC decision about the commerce clause and the ACA or ‘ObamaCare’. There is a lot of wrangling trying to figure just why a ‘conservative’ judge voted with the left on this one. Anthony Ciani provides background in describing The Constitutionality of the ObamaCare Tax

“It comes as a surprise that one of the Supreme Court’s liberty-leaning justices sided with the authoritarians to find that ObamaCare is constitutional. He made the expected finding that the mandate to purchase insurance was unconstitutional, but he found that the penalty for failing to meet that mandate was actually a tax, and therefore constitutional. Considering that a tax is a levy on doing something, it seems strange to find that government can levy a tax on doing nothing, but by using the legal principle of equivalence, it becomes clear that President Obama’s attempt to bring affordable health insurance to all was actually a massive, regressive income tax.”

“The Supreme Court did nothing at all surprising; it upheld our current tax code of social meddling. It has now been firmly established that providing an income tax credit or deduction for engaging in an activity is the same as levying a “penalty” for not engaging in that activity. The Cash for Clunkers tax credit was actually a penalty for not selling your clunker, or not having a clunker to sell. The tax credit for buying a hybrid car was actually a penalty for not buying a hybrid car. The Earned Income Credit is actually a penalty for not being poor. The mortgage interest deduction is a penalty for not having a house. The income tax code is replete with such penalties, or are they taxes?”

“In this ruling, Chief Justice Roberts reminds us of something preeminently important: we, the voters, are the ultimate enforcers of the Constitution, and the ultimate protectors of our liberty and freedom.”

The ‘right’ is trying to rationalize what happened in the USOC decision and is meddling in leftist behaviors. The key in any such process is whether it will stick, as it does on the left, or whether folks will grow out of the grief and get on to healing and repair. Romney’s contribution rate indicates that there are many who have indeed figured out that it is up to them, the voter, to get things back on track. That may mean that those who are obsessed with ruling and USOC hatred may well be moved off to a fringe (with the birthers and similar blind ideologues) and that would be a ‘good thing.’

Comments are closed.