Feelings v. Constitution
It's no secret that the Left has long regarded the constitution">constitution">Constitution as an inconvenience or worse, as a barrier, to their effort to reshape America. Fresh evidence of this discontent can be seen in the run-up to the Supreme Court hearing in King v. Burwell, a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the obamacare">Obamacare health insurance exchanges. The Left is incensed that the Court might upend the exchanges and effectively gut Obamacare. Their reaction? Don't argue the law. Argue the emotions:
Most bothersome, though, is the fact that the left doesn't even bother pretending that the Constitution is more important than acts of progressive righteousness. We see it with left-wing groups openly pushing for more executive actions that directly circumvent legislative process. We see it with King v. Burwell, as well. Chief Justice John Roberts will have blood on his hands if he undermines progress; never mind the case. That this is the sort of reasoning that "may figure heavily in the government's strategy for winning the case" is a depressing commentary on the administration's contempt for the court.
We've reached a point where liberals argue not only that empathy (well, selective empathy, as you might imagine) should play a leading role in legal decisions but also that the court should avoid disrupting any laws that are driven by progressive notions of compassion. You know, because of the "consequences." And seeing as progressives treat all their reforms as consecrated acts of charity, this would create a rather convenient legal environment for them.
The Constitution contains no clause about "feelings." It has no section regarding "compassion." Rather, it's a document that outlines the proper (and limited) role of government. That might make it unpopular in some circles. But that's irrelevant. The Court's decision should turn solely on the constitutionality of the Obamacare exchanges. Nothing else (we're looking at you, Chief Justice Roberts).