Not to steal a line from McDonalds, but...

I'm loving it !
Jennifer Rubin in the WaPo:

Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, as many commentators have remarked, had a terrible time of it today. He was, from a human standpoint, nervous at the onset. But it is wrong to personalize this. His argument was inadequate, as the Obama administration’s legal justification has been from the beginning. The government could have had a much more experienced solicitor general up there, and the result would have been exactly the same.

It’s not surprising that liberals, most of whom have not read or shown interest in the arguments of the challengers, were stunned to learn that there really is a constitutional difference between taxing and regulating and between inducing one into commerce and regulating commerce that already exists. It is this failure to understand, let alone imagine that constitutional text has meaning and there are actual limitations on federal power, that explains the stunned reaction of the liberal elite. Like puppies smacked on the nose by a rolled-up copy of the Constitution, they are flabbergasted.

Love that image -- puppy-dog smackdown.

Speaking of puppies,
Lil Ez, of Journolist echo chamber fame, demonstrates ... he still doesn't get it.

As Lyle Denniston writes, this still looks like Justice Anthony Kennedy’s case to decide. But however he decides it, it’s worth keeping in mind what an oddly narrow principle is actually being debated.

According to tax economists, there’s no economic difference between the individual mandate and the policies leading Republicans support to give large tax credits to Americans who purchase health-care insurance and deny them to those who don’t. But while the mandate might get overturned, everyone agrees that discriminatory tax credits are constitutional.

Principle, precedent ... it matters, kiddo. You don't get to skirt the rules just because you think you know better, you well-meaning "elite".

If you're not brave enough to call something a tax when you're advocating for it, if you're not brave enough to campaign for a mandate when you're running for the job, perhaps -- we'll wait and see how this thing shakes out, legally -- you're not bright enough to be crafting legislation. What a waste of time and money, all because somebody was afraid to advocate raising "taxes" and tried to jam this in through the backdoor (on the eve of Christmas Eve, nonetheless) with zero bipartisan support.

Rubin again:

In response to relatively ineffective questioning by the liberal justices, Clement patiently explained again and again that prior Commerce Clause cases didn’t force individuals into a web of regulation, and that if Congress could have approached the problem differently — well, then that would be another case for another day. The liberal justices seemed disadvantaged by a failure to understand that markets exist for all sort of goods and services.

(Clement, with unintentional hilarity, gravely explained to Justice Elena Kagan: “My unwillingness to buy an electric car is forcing up the price of an electric car. If only more people demanded an electric car, there would be economies of scale, and the price would go down.” Ouch.)

Hey now -- let's not give the "I can't live without this product, thus neither can you" libs any ideas. Mandated cell phones, mandated little cars, mandated arugula -- where would it end? Remember -- they only want the best for us in telling us what we must buy...

Only up to 2.5% of our incomes. (That appears to be the only limiting principle here.) After all, Ez knows what's best ... for all of us. Scary thoughts, indeed.