In case any of you entertained any doubts at all that this recent “access to contraceptives” argument was anything other than an orchestrated piece of pathetic political theater by the White House, here’s a new bit of data to process:
President Obama will address the graduates at Barnard College at this year’s commencement, The Hill has confirmed….
The White House called the college in recent days and offered up Obama as the commencement speaker and the college promptly accepted. (Run-on sentence in original.) Originally, New York Times editor Jill Abramson was set to address the graduates before the White House called the college. (Redundancy in original.)
Obviously, the President’s plan is to use Barnard–the women’s college affiliated with Columbia University–as a bully pulpit for denouncing those demanding a religious exemption from the contraception-insurance-coverage mandate as Limbaugh-fuelled women-haters who want to keep the ladies barefoot and pregnant. Equally obviously, the academy is eager to play along, as evidenced by Barnard’s readiness to disinvite its previously scheduled speaker. This is pretty clear, as are all of Obama’s pathetic political tactics. But in this case I see Obama pursuing not one, but two goals.
Most obviously, he’s trying to reclaim the support of ditzy women* that propelled him to victory in 2008, by trying to claim–however absurdly–that the Republicans are coming after their birth-control pills.
But I think there’s a second, more heinous objective in all this. Six of the nine Supreme Court justices are Roman Catholics: Alito, Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, Sotomayor, and Thomas. Of these six, four seem likely votes against the constitutionality of Obamacare, one is a likely vote in favor of its constitutionality, and Kennedy seems likely to cast the deciding vote (with non-Catholics Breyer, Ginsberg, and Kagan lining up with Sotomayor).
If there is one thing we know for sure about Barack Obama it is that he is an adept demagogue, so there is no reason at all to suppose that he would hesitate for one moment to implicitly threaten the Court with anti-Catholic demagoguery if it should rule his monstrous health-insurance “reforms” unconstitutional either in part (the individual mandate to purchase insurance) or in its entirety (on the grounds that the mandate is inseparable from the rest of the Act). And it is only necessary that Anthony Kennedy alone be susceptible to this sort of political extortion in order for it to work.
Yes, I am making the very serious charge that this feckless president is signalling his readiness to impugn the integrity of the Supreme Court, stirring the old embers of anti-Catholic bigotry in the process, if his massive restructuring of the health-care industry is not upheld in its entirety. I believe he is just that devoid of principles, like every other politician who’s ever slithered onto the national stage from the cesspool that is the Chicago machine. Like every leftist, Obama is not merely willing to exploit social division as a means to power, he is eager to do so.
The only unanswered question is, how will Justice Kennedy respond to Obama’s bloody shirt-waving?
*Who did you think I was going to link to?