According to left-wing pundits, the pending Supreme Court challenge over the Affordable Care Act via King v. Burwell is the most significant decision since Hobby Lobby or perhaps Citizens United—or whenever the most recent time was when the world was going to come tumbling down around us. And while pretending that the legal challenge is laughably weak—a politically motivated charade that has absolutely no chance of success—many feel oddly compelled to urge SCOTUS to contemplate a whole host of factors that have nothing to do with the law.
The left doesn't even bother pretending that the Constitution is more important than acts of progressive righteousness, writes David Harsanyi. We've reached a point where liberals argue not only that empathy (well, selective empathy) should play a leading role in legal decisions but also that the court should avoid disrupting any laws that are driven by progressive notions of compassion. You know, because of the "consequences." And seeing as progressives treat all their reforms as consecrated acts of charity, this would create a rather convenient legal environment for them.