President Obama's two statements pressuring the Supreme Court to uphold the Affordable Care Act came just days after the vote on ObamaCare's fate was likely taken by the justices in conference. Since then, there have been endless pleas from liberal politicians, professors, and talking heads urging the Court -- especially Chief Justice Roberts -- to uphold the Act for "non legal" reasons.
Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post
wrote an in depth response to many of these left-leaning critics in her post "What would a change of vote on Obamacare cost"?
"The Obama-Leahy-Rosen tag team would ask that Roberts subscribe to some alternate political reality in which Obamacare is very popular and the public would be shocked and rise up in anger that the Supreme Court would overturn the 'popular will.' (They must assume Roberts isn’t aware more than 70 percent of the public think the law is unconstitutional.)
"The pleaders would ask Roberts to adopt the left’s contention that conservative justices who adhere to the meaning and text of the Constitution can’t all vote one way for fear it will 'look bad,' but liberal justices are free to march uniformly as they see fit.
"In essence, the left asks Roberts, knowing he believes the law to be unconstitutional, to nevertheless switch sides and thereby violate his oath of office. That’s the one where he swore to 'administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich.' And without regard to which side whines the loudest."
Despite all the talk and difference of opinion, the fate of ObamaCare has yet to be formally decided. One hopes the Supreme Court will weigh in on ObamaCare solely based on its Constitutional merits -- separate from ideology and political motives.