“Sadly, even before the sessions on health-care reform had ended, some liberals were preemptively trying to delegitimize a potential defeat at the court. If the justices strike down the individual mandate to purchase health insurance, they said, they will prove themselves partisan, activist and, essentially, intellectually corrupt. We share in the disappointment that the justices on both sides of their ideological divide are, for the most part, so predictable. That’s not, in the ideal world, how judging is supposed to work. But we also think there’s a kind of cynicism, or at least intellectual laziness, in asserting that this is an easy or obvious call — that no justice could possibly strike down the mandate out of honest, reasoned conviction.”
—The Editors of the Washington Post in this morning’s superb, balanced and fair editorial entitled “Civics Lesson From
the Supreme Court.” The Post leaves no question that it supports the individual mandate as necessary—at least now, after the fact of
"Biased political hacks!! The ones who disagree with us, that is..."
Obamacare’s passage into law—because “no American should go without health care, and that society as a whole should be willing to pitch in toward that end.” But the editors also properly chastise the cynical and cowardly political calculations by the bill’s supporters that placed the constitutionally-dubious mandate in the position to jeopardize the whole law, as well as criticize the unethical phenomenon that Ethics Alarms discussed here-–the preemptive effort by Democrats and their pundit allies to blame the rejection of Obamacare, if it occurs, on “judicial activism” and political bias by the conservative justices. Continue reading
Ethics Alarms 