How Low Can You Go: NeoCon Whinge
One difference between progressives and conservatives, it seems to WC, is that conservatives whine like petulant children – or worse – when something doesn’t go their way. Consider the following examples:
The collective editorial board of the The National Review, the conservative journal founded by William F. Buckley puled:
[The Court] then pretended that this requirement is constitutional anyway, because it is merely an application of the taxing authority.
“Pretended”? Excuse me? “Pretended”? When the Supreme Court decided corporations were “persons” in Citizens United did it “pretend” that was so?
Then there’s Senator Rand Paul (R., Ky), who said,
Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be ‘constitutional’ does not make it so. The whole thing remains unconstitutional. While the court may have erroneously come to the conclusion that the law is allowable, it certainly does nothing to make this mandate or government takeover of our health care right.
Actually, Senator Paul, it does. You can disagree with the Court’s reasoning, but when you became a U.S. Senator, you took an oath to uphold the Constitution. Which says the U.S. Supreme Court gets to make the call. You uphold the whole Constitution, you know, not the bits you like.
But the prize, if there were such a thing, for grotesque response goes to right wing nut job Michael Savage, who set a new low point in political commentary. You might think that it couldn’t go any lower than it has. You’d be wrong. Here’s Savage:
Let’s talk about Roberts. I’m going to tell you something that you’re not going to hear anywhere else, that you must pay attention to. It’s well known that Roberts, unfortunately for him, has suffered from epileptic seizures. Therefore he has been on medication. Therefore neurologists will tell you that medication used for seizure disorders, such as epilepsy, can introduce mental slowing, forgetfulness and other cognitive problems. And if you look at Roberts’ writings you can see the cognitive dissociation in what he is saying.
WC is no fan of Chief Justice John Roberts. He’s intellectually dishonest. But blaming a purported, unproven claim of a disability for the Chief Justice’s decision on the health care act? Disgusting. But consider this: if the right wing will do this to their own, what will they say about those who oppose them as we move into the Silly Season leading up to the presidential election?
Nearly as offensive to WC is the implication that any liberal or progressive suffers from “cognitive dissociation,” Mr. Savage’s diagnosis of the Chief Justice. But that’s just the usual ad hominem clap trap from the Right.
The Affordable Care Act barely survived. Medicare was wounded. The Commerce Clause powers may have taken a mortal wound. But that’s not enough for our Neocon friends.
Sore losers doesn’t begin to describe it.

Just a little pet peeve of mine, but the power of the Supreme Court to rule on Constitutionality, while grounded in Article III, was actually established in Marbury v. Madison in 1803.
Rand Paul is still a douche though.
Lonnie Spath (@lonnie_spath)
June 30, 2012 at 6:49 am
“whinge” = whine (??)
The Sen. Paul comment may be a reflection of a tendency that may strengthen, especially in light of the disappointment that a presumably reliable Chief Justice did not decide as he would have preferred. That tendency is the notion that became so disfavored during the Civil Rights movement, interposition and nullification. That’s also a feature of Joe Miller’s reported legal overview, it seems to me. In at least one news account, he was reported as holding the position that virtually all Supreme Court decisions since at least the New Deal are illegitimate. (perhaps even farther back than that). That is because they don’t conform to his “constitutional conservatism,” the term that is never fleshed out to any extent that enables critical consideration. The Rand Pauls and the Joe Millers, if they gain ascendancy and wider-spread support, would bring about utter confusion to constitutional adjudication, presumably with each person deciding for himself/herself what will be recognized as legitimate.
Paul Eaglin
Fairbanks
paul2eaglin
June 30, 2012 at 9:08 am
Savage’s intellectual dishonesty is second to none. He is terrible.
CEight
June 30, 2012 at 9:27 am
He’s not Savage…he’s Weiner…lest we forget who’s talking here
.
Lynne
June 30, 2012 at 10:16 am
Thanks to this post, my neck will need some TLC, R&R and whatever else I provide to make peace with it.
First, I found myself wildly shaking my head from side to side at the horrors in the quotes from the far-right sources. Then, I was vigorously nodding in agreement with the points WC made. Lastly, my head was whipping about in laughter as my mind merged the absurdities of the right with WC’s sane observations that made the horror transform into absurdity (hence, the laughter) just before my head snapped forward as I contemplated WC’s concluding paragraph. We did not escape this process unscathed. WC nailed that, though I hopes he believes that the negatives are not here to stay.
I believe we do not have to be uneasy with our victory by worry about the route by which it came to us. We can heal Medicare – hopefully merging it into a single payer system that will not be subject to the whims of radical funders/defunders. The commerce clause of the Constitution may regain its luster as a more moderate (or perhaps even a progressive) court of the future revisits the muddled thinking of Chief Justice Roberts in future cases through dicta or decisions that better understand and address the differences between and purposes of the taxing versus the commerce powers of Congress. Throughout our history, Justices often have reached correct outcomes through muddled thinking. Somehow, with time, most muddling has been clarified and our course straightened to more accurate, stable reasoning. I trust time to make things right.
Even the Medicaid problems created by this case will, hopefully, settle out to the benefit of the poor and needy. States were free to opt into Medicaid and some resisted at first. It is my understanding that now all states have adopted some form of Medicaid. It is my hope that all states will opt in for the generous funding by federal dollars for the expansion of Medicaid this Act provides.
Thanks, WC, for a thoughtful post – even if it caused some havoc with my neck. It is always a pleasure to read your analysis because it resonates with what I perceive as truth.
kssunflower
June 30, 2012 at 1:34 pm
The right-wing mouthpieces like Savage, Limbaugh, and Rand Paul show just how politicized the Supreme Court has become. Their hissy fits indicate that they think they should be able to use the Supreme Court to push their political agenda. I’m old enough to remember the Warren Court. Although Warren was a member of the Republican Party, he was more dedicated to upholding the ideals of the Constitution as Chief Justice than Roberts will probably ever be. Roberts may not admit it, but the Citizens United decision damaged the image of the Court in the eyes of most Americans. I don’t know whether Roberts sided with the liberals on the Court to restore some of Americans’ lost faith in the Court, or whether he suddenly had a moment when his conscience simply would not allow him to deny that affordable health care is a problem in the U.S. The decision favored the ACA, with certain restrictions, and this has driven many on the Right over the cliff’s edge. The primary RW goal now is to repeal the ACA. Romney has a new sign he displays on every podium he uses that says “Repeal and Replace Obamacare.” The problem that republicans have is that they only want to repeal the ACA and have nothing they are willing to replace it with. I don’t think Romney is willing to tell the American people that he’d replace it with Romneycare because Romneycare and the ACA are very similar. I’ll be watching Romney and the republicans in Congress as they try to sell Americans on the idea that a return to pre-existing conditions, lifetime caps, higher insurance rates for women, etc., are excellent ideas.
majiir
June 30, 2012 at 3:11 pm
from your quote of Michael Savage:
It’s well known that Roberts, unfortunately for him, has suffered from epileptic seizures. Therefore he has been on medication. Therefore neurologists will tell you that medication used for seizure disorders, such as epilepsy, can introduce mental slowing, forgetfulness and other cognitive problems. And if you look at Roberts’ writings you can see the cognitive dissociation in what he is saying.
But – this is magnificent! Fantastic! Splendiferous! That must mean, Mr Savage, that we can disown ANYTHING – nay EVERYTHING – upon which our Chief Justice ever has deliberated!
Oh, the possibilities……
alaskaranger
June 30, 2012 at 6:15 pm