Instapundit: Forget The Supreme Court's "Legitimacy," Wot About Congress and the Prez?

In the Washington Examiner, Glenn Instapundit Reynolds follows up on all that hand-wringing about the Supreme Court's "legitimacy" by Obamacare partisans in the run-up to last week's big decision. 

[President] Obama also promised that if you liked your existing health insurance policy, you'd get to keep it -- something that quickly turned out to be false, as the changes mandated under the health care law led to severe cuts in coverage, or even cancellation of coverage, by insurers.

And if the executive branch's treatment of Obamacare was characterized by lies, the legislative branch didn't look any better. Obamacare, remember, was rammed through in the teeth of popular opposition; when the special election victory of Scott Brown meant that Democrats no longer had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, the bill was squeezed through via a "reconciliation" procedure under the fiction that it was a budget bill, not substantive legislation.

Add to that the intense role of lobbyists and special interests in drafting the law, Nancy Pelosi's famous remark that we'd have to pass the bill to find out what was in it and the rampant vote-buying (remember the "Cornhusker Kickback"?), and we have a process that was dishonest, corrupt and far less legitimate than any conceivable Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare.

So, at the end of the day, the legitimacy question rests not with the Supreme Court, but with Congress and the president.

As Reynolds notes, a recent Rasmussen poll puts at 22 percent the number of Americans who believe the feds have the "consent of the governed," which is not a great number.

Read the whole thing here.

Comments

[Fist of Etiquette]

So, at the end of the day, the legitimacy question rests not with the Supreme Court, but with Congress and the president.

Please. The Supreme Court had to rewrite the legislation to make the taxing powers argument fit. All three branches eventually had their dicks in this whore.

[Ken Shultz]

At the end of the day, the legitimacy question rests neither with Congress and the president nor with the Supreme Court.

The legitimacy question rests with my fellow Americans, and whether they have the ability to think for themselves.

The problem with our country is something that no politician will ever dare say. The problem is with the American people--and what's going on in their heads.

The American people don't want freedom--liberty scares them. Furthermore, the American people are easily manipulated by class envy and fear mongering...

...and the solution to what's going on in the American people's heads has nothing to do with Congress, the president or the Supreme Court.

The problem isn't with the politicians. It's with our moms and dads. It's with our brothers and sisters. It's with our coworkers and our friends. They're the problem, and it's time to tell them the truth.

[Ken Shultz]

The legitimacy question rests with my fellow Americans, and whether they have the ability to think for themselves.

I should have said "desire".

The legitimacy question rests with my fellow Americans, and whether they really have the [desire] to think for themselves.

I know they have the ability--wild animals think for themselves better than some people I've met, but it isn't because people can't think for themselves.

It's because they don't want to.

How legitimate is the American people's desire for freedom?

That's the question.

How do we persuade people to want to be free?

[Suthenboy]

I talked about this in the last day or two...tangentially. I said that most libertarians I know would rather crawl into a ditch and starve to death to escape slavery, but the majority of americans gladly put their own chains on to avoid missing even one meal.

[BMFPitt]

The libertarians you know should grow a pair.

If you're going to die to escape slavery, you better either get killed in a breakout attempt or after taking out a few guards.

[Chloe]

22% is not a great number? You're right it needs to be much lower.

[Fluffy]

As soon as the justices admit that any consideration whatsoever other than the constitutionality of a law entered into their decision, the SCOTUS is completely discredited.

That means that if a justice refrains from ruling a particular way because they're concerned that such a ruling would be perceived as partisan, the court is entirely discredited.

I also tend to think that the principle of judicial deference to Congress is a flawed one. The branches should be at odds; there should be institutional hostility (and personal amity) between them.

When the Congress refuses to act as a check against the Presidency out of institutional deference, the results are almost uniformly bad. Why shouldn't we assume that judicial deference isn't just as bad? Hell, there's every reason to assume it's a lot worse.

[Paul.]

I would also add to this that things like stare decisis and head scratchers like expectation of privacy loss also reduce the courts legitimacy as we continue to hold up clearly unconstitutional laws in the spirit if "just getting along".

Not to mention the last hundred years of purposefully and aggressively reading the commerce clause exactly wrong for the sole purpose of expanding the power of the state.

[Hugh Akston]

You must be one of those nihilist wingnuts who thinks that just because 99% of the Constitution is clearly written to limit government power that the Commerce Clause isn't intended to expand that power infinitely.

[Joe R.]

I wouldn't mind seeing a little personal hostility. Might help.

[snakotanko]

Man thats kinda crazy when you think about it dude. Wow.

http://www.Most-Privacy.tk

[Pound. Head. On. Desk.]

A poll: Who thinks this guy's from Tokelau?

[Anacreon]

Do you mean Alice B. Tokelau?

[Ice Nine]

His syntax is distinctly Northern Tokelauan so I really don't know why you would ask.

[wef]

OK, Mr. Gillespie, you now have the subject of your next book:

The Happy Subject, or how to live a good life under an illegitimate but still prosperous regime.

Forget politics. That could sell well as a self-help book.

[Fluffy]

Too late, the Stoics already wrote those books.

[Bitter Taxpayer]

OT: How Delaware Thrives as a Corporate Tax Haven

Now that the feds have the boot on healthcare's neck, it looks like they're setting the stage for a nationalized corporation law.

[Father Jack]

Feck each and every last one of the cack-chompin' fagnits in DC...especially them robe wearin' fucks.

[James Anderson Merritt]

"You won't get it!" "By hook or by crook, we will." And they did.

[Longtorso]

CBS: Roberts Switched His Vote From Invalidating the Mandate to Upholding It
...Because Roberts was the most senior justice in the majority to strike down the mandate, he got to choose which justice would write the Court's historic decision. He kept it for himself.

Over the next six weeks, as Roberts began to craft the decision striking down the mandate, the external pressure began to grow. Roberts almost certainly was aware of it.

Some of the conservatives, such as Justice Clarence Thomas, deliberately avoid news articles on the Court when issues are pending (and avoid some publications altogether, such as The New York Times). They've explained that they don't want to be influenced by outside opinion or feel pressure from outlets that are perceived as liberal.

But Roberts pays attention to media coverage....

[Keith3D]

"OBAMA: My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I'm taking over every sector of the economy..."

...

[Brutus]

So who you gonna believe, the Lightbringer or your own lyin' eyes?

[tee shirt pas cher]

The problem with our country is something that no politician will ever dare say. The problem is with the American people--and what's going on in their heads.

The American people don't want freedom--liberty scares them. Furthermore, the American people are easily manipulated by class envy and fear mongering...

...and the solution to what's going on in the American people's heads has nothing to do with Congress, the president or the Supreme Court.