|This is what happens, Larry, when you're a partisan hack!|
"What the hell are you talking about, Jack? The Supreme Court ruled on Obamacare. What is this PPACA crap you're talking about?" Well, hypothetical nay-sayer, that was obviously a very purposeful choice of words on my part, because I believe that jives with the spirit of this post. I refuse to call it Obamacare in this article because I'm not a partisan hack.
"But Jack, Obamacare is terrible!" Sure, it might be terrible, but that doesn't mean that we have to buy into the politics of the matter. I don't like the idea of an individual mandate as much as the next person, but calling the PPACA "Obamacare" is simply a tactic designed to further polarize people. Just as thoughtcrime had a very specific connotation in Nineteen Eighty-Four (required reading, in my opinion, for anyone with half a brain) Obamacare carries with it not just a simple idea.
It's not just meant to identify the Healthcare Reform Bill that Obama touted, but it is charged with very specific attitudes. When the word is mentioned in the presence of most Conservatives, it immediately sparks less than amorous feelings in them. Just as NEWSPEAK was a tool for control in Orwell's fictitious Oceania, these political buzzwords are tools for control in America. Don't believe it? Walk into a room full of Republicans, say "Obamacare," and see what happens.
|Guess which one represents Roberts.|
In some circles, free thought amounts to betrayal I guess.
He was right to do what he did because he proved that the Supreme Court doesn't have to be some ridiculous game of partisan rock-paper-scissors. The Supreme Court should be filled with people who will rule according to the law, not according to how they personally feel.
I realize that they all say that, and we can say that they rule according to their interpretation of the law. But John Roberts proved that interpretation of the law doesn't have to fall down strict partisan lines. There's a reason that the Justices serve for life and are appointed rather than elected: so that they can judge the laws based on the Constitution, not based on how the people want them to judge. The nature of their office allows them to make the unpopular choices.
The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing when they created the Supreme Court, because they realized that not all parts of the government should be susceptible to the whims of the people. "The People," are often functionally retarded and easily swayed by demagoguery and unicorn dust, so it's easy to divide them amongst themselves along partisan lines. John Roberts demonstrated why the Supreme Court exists: to be a counterbalance to popuar opinion.
You can be mad all you want that his decision didn't fall in line with your beliefs, but the only thing he betrayed was partisan hackery. That's a *good* thing. Yes, it sucks that we have to put up with the prospect of an individual mandate and all that stuff, but we'll manage. Here's a thought: maybe instead of just whining about it we engage in meaningful discussion and debate on how to make this work?
Fat chance, I know.