Pundits Putting Lipstick on a Pig

Pundits Putting Lipstick on a Pig

           

Putting lipstick on a pig isn't very good for the pig, as Charles Krauthammer and other right-wing pundits and assorted Romney-ites have been doing to Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts’ ruling on Obamacare. According to them, Roberts didn't really give the Obama administration a critical strategic victory. Rather, they say, he masterfully circumcised the commerce clause rationale from the mandate provision and replaced it with a taxation explanation, thereby preserving the integrity and reputation of an impartial Supreme Court, not susceptible to political considerations.

Say it ain't so, Joe, I mean Chuck. Are you saying that rather than using the constitutionality of the law and  the validity of its opponents' arguments as a basis for a Supreme Court decision, Roberts instead made his decision based on what was in his best interests for the history books? Don't they realize that were it true, he would be making a mockery out of the Supreme Court, leaving a far worse legacy, and establishing doubt about the validity of future rulings by the Supremes? Don’t the pig-prettying pundits realize that, in offering up that line of reasoning and conjecture, they're making a mockery of themselves?