Kamal Saleem’s Tall Tales »« Paterno, Penn St. Officials Engaged in Cover Up

Wingnut Plays Pretend With SCOTUS Ruling

Wingnut Frank Turek has a column at Townhall in which he conspicuously prefers fantasy to reality when discussing the Supreme Court’s recent ruling upholding the individual mandate to purchase health insurance. I have no idea what he thinks this might actually do:

What if we all simply decided to interpret the 5-4 Supreme Court decision to uphold Obamacare as a 9-0 vote to overturn Obamacare?

Hey, knock yourself out. Interpret it any way you want. But of course, the actual ruling remains the law no matter how tightly you shut your eyes and scream “is not, is not, is not.”

I have a couple of questions: 1) If everyday Americans have no problem properly understanding what these Supreme Court justices mean in their opinions, why do these Supreme Court justices have such a hard time understanding what the Constitution means? And 2) If the Supreme Court can interpret the law and the Constitution anyway they want, then why can’t we interpret their opinions anyway we want?

Ah, right wing populism. Well yes, Frank, some people think the Supreme Court got it wrong. Others think they got it right. All of those people are “everyday Americans.” Of course, the vast majority of “everyday Americans” are, like Turek, completely ignorant of the subject, so I can’t imagine why this is relevant to anything at all. Let me translate his argument: “I think they’re wrong and some people agree with me. Therefore they’re wrong.” How compelling.

Comments

  1. says

    If the Supreme Court can interpret the law and the Constitution anyway they want, then why can’t we interpret their opinions anyway we want?

    Because the Constitution says so? Was that really so hard?

  2. birgerjohansson says

    But…the constitution says what I want it to say. It’s my interpretation that counts, not some commie nigg… er, welfare queens and “experts”. (sarcasm)

  3. d cwilson says

    The level of meltdown on the right over the ACA ruling has been hilarious. They had to spin on a dime from being ready to praise the SCOTUS for its “wisdom” in overturning the law to castigating it, and Roberts in particular, as being in the pocket of the scary black man.

    This needs to be said more often:

    A republican chief justice who was appointed by a republican president voted to uphold a law written by a republican think tank and first implemented by a republican governor, and republicans are furious about it.

  4. says

    “A republican chief justice who was appointed by a republican president voted to uphold a law written by a republican think tank and first implemented by a republican governor, and republicans are furious about it.”

    True, but now it’s got Democrat cooties, and worse that that black Democrat cooties!

  5. cafeeineaddicted says

    Aw that Turek… He thinks that the constitution is like the Bible, that it can mean whatever you realily want it to, and anyone who disagrees with you can be deemed a heretic.

  6. gshelley says

    The comments seem a mix of standard right wing tropes from people who repeat things but give no thought to what they actually mean (not including the one that insists that the civil war was not about slavery, but states rights)
    1) The Supreme Court should not interpret the law. How they think they can make any ruling on anything that is not explicitly outlined in the constitution without interpreting it is beyond me
    2) Judges are giving people rights not mentioned in the constitution. Apart from the common wish that the 9th did not exist and the confusion over whether the constitution grants rights or limits government powers, the “right not to be forced to buy healthcare” is not one of the rights in the constitution. So by their logic, it doesn’t exist

  7. jamessweet says

    It seems that what he is arguing is that if an overwhelming majority of the population disagrees with a SCOTUS ruling, potentially we could just choose to ignore the ruling, and then what are they gonna do about it?

    It’s a potentially interesting scenario to discuss — in the context of a ruling that is actually that wildly unpopular! Which the ACA is not. So this is very silly. You’d need somewhere north of 90% disagreement with a ruling for there to even be a prayer of ignoring it, I would think.

  8. DaveL says

    It seems that what he is arguing is that if an overwhelming majority of the population disagrees with a SCOTUS ruling, potentially we could just choose to ignore the ruling, and then what are they gonna do about it?

    If an overwhelming majority of the population disagreed with the ruling, they could amend the constitution to specifically disallow that interpretation.

    Clearly Turek does not have such an overwhelming majority on his side.

  9. Larry says

    What if we all decided that we could eat cheeseburgers all day long, drink microbrews all night, and have chocolate easter eggs for breakfast every morning. What is the USDA gonna do with its pyramid of healthly eating then?

  10. thisisaturingtest says

    If everyday Americans have no problem properly understanding what these Supreme Court justices mean in their opinions, why do these Supreme Court justices have such a hard time understanding what the Constitution means?

    “If-then” propositions only work when the “if” premise is sound. Here- well, there’s the problem, isn’t it? Most “everyday Americans” don’t, in fact, properly understand the ruling here. But, of course, that’s easy enough to get around when you can
    a) substitute your own misunderstanding for an actual proper understanding, then
    b) based on other people’s ignorance, claim that they share the same misunderstanding you have arrived at (or force it on them).
    Sounds a lot like creationist argument tactics to me.

  11. scott says

    What if we all simply decided to interpret the 5-4 Supreme Court decision to uphold Obamacare as a 9-0 vote to overturn Obamacare?

    We’ll send the National Guard to straighten you out, like we did last time you tried this crap. Or the Union Army like the time before that.

  12. Michael Heath says

    While this yahoo fantasizes obstructing implementation of Obamacare, some Republican governors are purposefully refusing to move forward, which means millions of Americans will not gain access to health insurance in those states. Even those who qualify for Medicaid under the new expanded rules where the feds will initially fund 95% of the money necessary; which benefit state economies in these states.

    These Republican governors’ past justification for procrastinating was their waiting for SCOTUS to rule on Obamacare, now it’s the presidential election given Mitt Romney’s campaign promise to sign executive orders effectively ending Obamacare (where conservatives ignore how this violates constitutional principles they claim to slavishly worship). If Mr. Romney loses the election I’m sure these conservative Republican leaders will go to Plan C, which is probably pressuring Republican Senators to obstruct funding the necessary programs. Plan D is their hope they’ll gain more seats in the next Congress. MI’s Republican governor has been pushing the state to prepare for Obamacare, revealing once again Gov. Rick Snyder is not a standard-issue conservative.

    VA Gov. McConnell, a classic example of a conservative Christian, made the argument recently that it would be an abuse of taxpayer funds to set-up a state exchange in VA and expand Medicaid in his state if a President Romney where to strike Obamacare down several months from now. The Republicans are now not merely obstructing progress even when it harms those in their own state while also failing to address threats like climate change, the federal debt, and weakness of the labor market, they’re now seeking out novel ways to fuck average Americans, even those in their own state, and even if it doesn’t help out their financial constituents. Texas, Virginia, and Louisiana’s governors all seem particularly eager to make Americans suffer.

  13. d cwilson says

    True, but now it’s got Democrat cooties, and worse that that black Democrat cooties!

    Even worse: Atheist-Muslim black democrat cooties!

  14. dingojack says

    Soooo if over 50% of the American population support Marriage Equality then clearly, by this ‘logic’….
    Dingo

  15. says

    “What if we all decided that we could eat cheeseburgers all day long, drink microbrews all night, and have chocolate easter eggs for breakfast every morning.”

    So sorry. You obviously were not “copied” on the memo. Our bad, we regret the error! /s

  16. dogmeat says

    Jamessweet@8,

    James, technically all it would take to ignore a USSC ruling would be an executive willing to do so, and a simple majority in both houses. That’s what happened with the Cherokee.

Leave a Reply