Today EJ Dionne wrote an article long on whining and short on logic about the conflicting decisions regarding Obamacare:
By effectively gutting the Affordable Care Act on Tuesday, two members of a three-judge panel on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals showed how far right-leaning jurists have strayed from such impartiality. We are confronted with a conservative judiciary that will use any argument it can muster to win ideological victories that elude their side in the elected branches of our government.
Strayed from impartiality? Say what? Then Dionne jumps off the cliff:
The extreme judicial activism here is obvious when you consider, as the 4th Circuit did, that even if you accept that there is ambiguity in the law, the Supreme Court’s 30-year-old precedent in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council held that in instances of uncertainty, the court defers to federal agencies rather than concocting textual clarity when it doesn’t exist.
No, sir. It is NOT activism to insist the law be respected as written. It is ACTIVISM to interpret it otherwise. The law is very clear, and this is highly likely to get to the Supreme Court.
And now let me summon the prophetic words of John Roberts.
“We do not consider whether the Act embodies sound policies. That judgment is entrusted to the Nation’s elected leaders.”
“Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”
Remember those words.
They said we had to pass it to find out what was in it. I am beginning to think John Roberts plays a mean game of chess.