Kathleen Parker’s column today argues that President Obama is preemptively scolding the Supreme Court for ruling against the health-care law he championed. Not that the Supreme Court has overturned the Affordable Care Act, but when and if and in case they do, Parker says, Obama and his left-of-center media lapdogs are readying a case to put before the public: The court is placing partisan politics above good public policy. It’s a form of extortive lobbying, Parker suggests, calling it “politics at its filthiest and beneath the dignity of the court — and of the White House.”
If it is true that politics have no place in the Supreme Court’s decisions, or Obama’s public speeches during their deliberations, many of this article’s 1700 commenters — at least those on the left — fear it’s already too late. The court, they argue, is already too biased to rule impartially — and so are we all:
The Supremes have a political agenda, and will not be deterred by democratic values. We are doomed.
The truth is that with cases like ‘Citizens United’ Justice Roberts has politicized the court. It is fair to say that if five Republican Supreme Court Justices vote like partisan hacks in the Obamacare case, they will be widely viewed as partisan hacks.
But if that happens, according to those on the right . . . it won’t mean we’re free of bias.
If history is not kind to the Roberts Court, it will be obvious that Liberal College historians have done the writing.
Politics is everywhere! It infects and pollutes everything, even the commenters in this very thread. GiveMeABreak77 has read through the comments, noted a familiar theme and declared it too politically biased to be able to make an impartial decision:
This thread lost any credibility it had for serious discussion with "moron Bush". C'mon, I thought the tolerant left was above that?
Denissail suggests that even opinion writers are too biased to be able to argue effectively or represent their species:
Ms Parker, I see your latest writing display the bias that disqualifies you as thoughtful human. You seem to have been sucked up in the church of Rush & Rupert.
If the president, the courts, the media and even commenters are all irredeemably biased, to what can we turn for objective justice?
TomfromNJ1 has an idea. We can only know a decision is free from partisan political hackery, he says, if it angers the partisan political hacks on what is perceived to be the decision maker’s own side:
Roberts has two ideas pulling in opposite directions. If he votes against the Affordable Care Act, that will make many [conservatives] happy BUT it would take away a campaign issue from his party.
Roberts is in the bind of a lose-lose situation. Maybe he could take a novel approach which he has never tried before -- i.e., actually make a ruling based on the merits.
EconomistsView agrees: You can only trust arguments put forth by political partisans with impeccable credentials of favoring one side when that person is expressly repudiating his or her own side and never has before or ever will again deviate from the standard party line. Coincidentally, EconomistsView has found just such a person who agrees with EconomistsView:
What Kathleen Parker ignores is that many conservative lawyers agree with [the liberal arguments she cited.]
Here is an example:
Charles Fried, President Ronald Reagan’s solicitor general: “So, [decades ago], the [conservative] Heritage Foundation said let’s do an individual mandate because it keeps within free enterprise . . . So now all of a sudden the free-market alternative becomes unconstitutional? I don’t get it. Well, I do get it. It’s politics."
At last, Fried has discovered the two-word clause on which we can all agree: It’s politics.