Gone is the myth that they don their pants two legs at a time.
The four (five?) conservative U.S, Supreme Court Justices pretend to wear the intellectual mantel of legal theoreticians, deeply furrowing their brows, as they descend from the Mount to solemnly deliver the constitutional word.
But, they're merely politicians, moved by the party whose elected President appointed them.
That's the way it is with this court, so there should be no surprise in their attitude towards the health care law. The challenge of the conservitive members was not to decide whether Obamacare was unconstitutional--that was a pre-conceived given. The question was the grounds upon which to rely in striking it down. They chose a tortuous reasoning of the Commerce Clause. If the gloves don't fit, make 'em fit.
Justice Scalia and company assume the rolls of the founding fathers and, like Lamont Cranston ("The Shadow", to you young'uns), trumpet their ability to read men's minds. The fact that the constitution was signed two hundred and twenty-five years ago, and that things have mightily changed in our society, is arrogantly dismissed.They promulgate in accordance with their own beliefs and in the spirit of "you don't like what we say? Then appeal."
They champion staes' rights but conveniently ignore this principle when it is inconsistent with their political end-game. They grabbed center stage, in a 5-4 ultimate overreach decision, and decided the outcome of the 2000 presidential election, with the final vote tally yet to be determined.
The liberal Court members are also politically aligned, but there's a difference. They identify with the national social agenda. They care about the welfare of society. If an uninsured man lay bleeding in the street, they believe that helping him is preferable to letting him die as a punishment for not paying premiums.
This subject has, by now, been vented ad nauseam. Please see my prior post re the applicability of the congressional power to tax in the interest of the general welfare, as the legal validation of the the health care reform act. To fine those who don't obtain insurance is, of course a "tax", within the meaning of that authority, but the word is a political plague and was avoided by the Solicitor General in his argument before the Court. But it walks and talks like a duck. (See Social Security)
The infallible interpretation of history shall drape the "Conservative Five" with a cloak of shame.
But don't exhale just yet. There are other social issues which they breathlessly await to decimate.
In the words of Justice Austin Powers, "Yeah Baby! They're just politicians."
And this is an election year. 'Nuff said.