Fools and Knaves

By way of Jonah Goldberg, Dahlia Lithwick at Slate argues for the constitutionality of Obamacare in an essay published last Thursday.  I haven't read many pro-Obamacare arguments, so I was curious to read what she came up with.  The following sums up the main thrust of her argument:

But amid all the throat-clearing, odds-making, and curtain-raising that surrounds next week’s health care case, it seems worth noting what is in dispute and what’s not. So let’s start by setting forth two uncontroversial propositions.

The first proposition is that the health care law is constitutional. The second is that the court could strike it down anyway. Linda Greenhouse makes the first point more eloquently than I can. That the law is constitutional is best illustrated by the fact that—until recently—the Obama administration expended almost no energy defending it. Back when the bill passed Nancy Pelosi famously reacted to questions about its constitutionality with the words, “Are you serious?” And the fact that the Obama administration rushed the case to the Supreme Court in an election year is all the evidence you need to understand that they remain confident in their prospects. The law is a completely valid exercise of Congress’ Commerce Clause power, and all the conservative longing for the good old days of the pre-New Deal courts won’t put us back in those days as if by magic. Nor does it amount to much of an argument.

Let's unpackage this "argument."  Since Obamacare was passed into law, it is therefore constitutional.  Lithwick obviously believes her "argument" is self-evident and leaves it at that.  But simply stating a truism and actually attempting to make an argument are two entirely different things.   Notice that she never goes beyond the circumstantial, e.i., the "energy" expended in defending the law.  Because the Obama Administration did not feel the need to expend much "energy" means that the case is airtight.  But the energy expended tells us nothing about what that energy is directed towards.  Wouldn't a member of the KKK spend lots of "energy" defending the position that the world was made for the benefit of the white man only?  And since when is confidence equated to rightness or goodness?  Surely that same KKK member is confident in his opinions. 

But, as Jonah points out, Lithwick's ultimate logic boils down to this:  "George Soros has spent zero energy defending the view that all of his money actually belongs to me. Therefore it's mine."

And if that wasn't enough, here is the real howler:  Obamacare must constitutional because of Nancy Pelosi's incredulous response at being asked if it was constitutional.  Only a fool or a knave would even question the wit and wisdom of the great constitutionalist Nancy Pelosi...