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.”
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.
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?