Huffpost Politics
The Blog

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors

Judge H. Lee Sarokin Headshot

Conservative Hypocrisy Is Alive and Well in Respect to Same-Sex Marriage Decision

Posted: Updated:

Both the House of Representatives and the Senate have passed health care legislation
(The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) and the President of the United States has signed it in to law -- it is the will of the people, the voice of the majority of elected representatives, the duly enacted law of the land. Conservatives have instituted a number of law suits (mostly emanating from Republican controlled states) to have the law declared unconstitutional. On the assumption that some federal judge may come along and do just that, I wonder if the judge and the decision will be challenged by the conservatives in the same way that they have challenged Judge Walker's decision in the same-sex marriage case.

Will the judge who declares the statute unconstitutional be described as Judge Walker was by
Rush Limbaugh as "a political activist wearing a black robe"? Will he also say that "The federal courts have absolutely no role in reversing the vote of the people" in the United States, as he claimed in respect to California? Will there be the same general cries of "thwarting the will of the majority" and the creation of a judicial tyranny?

Will they investigate the background of the judge as to his existing insurance coverage, his health history, his past employment with or representing insurance companies or his investments in them? Will he be charged with "bias" as a woman did on Fox News asking where was the evidence to support the Judge's made-up factual findings about the equality of child-rearing between heterosexual and same sex couples? (For starters, I would suggest she might consider looking at the evidence that was adduced at trial).

No. There will be no charges by conservatives of thwarting the will of the majority, decrying judicial activism, searching the private life of the judge to discredit him or impugn his integrity. Crowds will not take to the streets with obscene signs and dire warnings of the death of democracy. Rather the judge will be praised for his fairness and commitment to the Constitution and the goals of the Framers as they were envisioned at the moment the last signature was inked on the parchment.

Why would all of the usual labels spew out over the same-sex marriage decision and not one declaring health care legislation unconstitutional? The answer is simple: Conservatives hate the first and love the second. Plain and simple. It is activism if they do not agree; it is upholding the Constitution if they do. A reminder: Courts have the right and duty to declare a law invalid when it conflicts with the Constitution. There is no proviso stating "so long as the Conservatives agree with the decision". That language appears nowhere in the great document.

Register To Vote