Friday, June 29, 2012

The Roberts Healthcare Ruling, Patriotic Necrophilia, and Disenfranchising the Archbolds

Cue the AC/DC, because we're back in plaid.

Okay, seriously bad joke, but we are officially back from our inordinately extended hiatus, and just in time to take on yesterday's news about the Supremes upholding "Obamacare." I plan on laying down some serious perspective. I also plan on ripping new ones for the reflexive, moronic hand-wringers like the ladies over at CMR. I know they'll never actually see it, nor would they likely respond if they did, but it will make me feel good - and that's really what having a blog is all about, right?

So, let's get started.

I'm having a really hard time telling who, other than a few people whose business it is to actually comment on judicial matters, has actually read the bloody opinion. I did, and honestly it should be everything the conservatively-minded claim they want. Roberts refuses to expand the Interstate Commerce Clause, going so far as to dig a fairly deep moat around the thing as if to say, "This far, and no farther"; he declares that it is not the province of the Court to make or pass judgment on policy decisions, meaning that if he's going to invalidate the law, he's going to do it because he has no choice; and then he finds a way to not invalidate it by fitting it - through a sequence of reasoned steps - into an existing Constitutional power. This ruling is perhaps the most hilariously honest example of the things I was always raised to believe a Supreme Court should do. Roberts is basically the antithesis of a judicial activist here, saying, "I'm not your gorram babysitter. If you elected these clowns and they passed this law, then go elect clowns who'll change it. Don't come crying to me every time your idiotic pattern of voting results in something you don't like." That is a sentiment, by the way, with which I wholeheartedly agree.

As an aside, I also think that Roberts produced some of the best judicial prose I have ever read. Forget about whether the ruling makes internal and external sense on both the rational and logical levels - which, by the way, it does; go read it - it is a delight to actually move from word to word. As I was moving through the text, my brain kept switching the narrative voice to Samuel L. Jackson. Yup, Roberts is in fact that badass. He cites precedent for every last thing, driving the ruling deep into judicial continuity and making the Commerce Clause reasoning a guaranteed pain for liberals for years to come; yet he's also snarky, as he cites directly out of Ben Franklin's letters that nothing is certain but death and taxes (p. 41) and, in reaffirming that we operate a federal system of government, he yet admonished the states: The States are separate and independent sovereigns. Sometimes they have to act like it." (p. 49)

So, if I'm right about all this - which I am - then why are Matt and Pat indulging in the near-masturbatory wailing about the death of the Republic on the one hand, and how we are all apparently complicit in abortion from now on? We may never know, but personally, I think it's a good, old-school case of hysteria. So let me address myself to the stricken and see what I can do to help:

Girls, girls, girls...You're fucking nuts. The passage of the healthcare law and it's upholding - done, mind you, through an act of objective judicial restraint - by the Court is the end of America? That is the death knell? Not the PATRIOT Act and it's subsequent expansions leading us down the primrose path toward a police state? What about evolution of a plutocratic oligarchy that steers policy, more or less regardless of the party in power? What about the ever-expanding democratization of society that has historically always preceded said societies' collapse? What about decades of legalized abortion creating a body count that makes Hitler look like a rank amateur? You think America's just died, Pat? I say you've been dry humping the corpse of Lady Liberty for a while now; maybe it's that religiously zealous "patriotism" of yours that's kept you from seeing it, but the grand edifice of our national institutions has been mouldering before today.

And Matt, my sweet young thing...If I take your reasoning to its logical conclusion, you've been an abortionist since Roe was issued; you've been an abortionist since the day you were first able to make a decision on the matter, and didn't start organizing a revolution to topple a government that permitted that travesty to happen. The snipers who were picking off abortion providers back in the 90s had the right idea, by your reasoning, because if even passivity in the face of a law that ties you to the practice - albeit by several degrees of removal - counts as support, then the only way to be opposed is to start lobbing bombs and cracking heads. You reaffirm your support for abortion every time you vote for a Republican who again and again fails to act on the lip service he pays to the sacredness of human life. Give me a break. Your religion is Republican and your culture happens to be Catholic. I've read more words of yours over the years spent on defending morally neutral (at best) ideology than on anything else. You and your sibling would make perfect fundraisers for the GOP - your command of raw logic unhindered by reason, coupled with theatrical hyperbole of the rankest sort, makes you a perfect fit in that swamp we call a capital. Although, I'd personally rather disenfranchise you so I know you'll never pollute the target market of eligible voters again. I'd give up my own vote to do it, even.

One last thing, in closing. In spite of my crack regarding Matt Archbold's patriotic necrophilia above, I should clarify that I don't think America is dead just yet. Mostly dead, maybe, but not all dead. Mostly dead, I can work with; and I'm not quite ready to start going through Liberty's pockets for change just yet.

No comments:

Post a Comment