As I wrote yesterday, I was utterly unsurprised by the ruling on ObamaCare (well, OK, I was a little pleasantly surprised at its scope in basically shutting down the entire enterprise). We had, after all, been telling these totalitarians for many months that what they proposed was clearly far beyond the reach of the Commerce Clause. But Jen Rubin notes that apparently the left had been paying no attention to us (“Are you serious? Are you serious?!“) and was very surprised, to the point that they are incoherent and have no actual arguments against it:

The ruling is. . . um. . . thinking of a case liberals hate. . . um. . . just like Bush v. Gore! (Except it has nothing to do with the Equal Protection Clause or any other aspect of that case.) It is, we are told, “curious,” “odd,” or “unconventional.”

These are complaints, not legal arguments. And they suggest that the left was totally unprepared for the constitutional attack on their beloved handiwork. After all, the recent mocking by the left of conservatives’ reverence for the Constitution suggests they are mystified that a 200-year old document could get in the way of their historic achievement. They are truly nonplussed, and so they vamp, not with reasoned analysis but with an outpouring of adjectives.

Once again, we see that the beliefs of the left are hot-house plants. They are nurtured in the protective cocoons of academia, the leftstream media and Manhattan and DC salons, where they are never challenged, and thus never develop proper defenses against the day that they must confront the real world. Non-leftists, on the other hand, must continually make their cases and hone their arguments, which makes the inevitable confrontation all the bloodier when they are ultimately exposed to harsh reality. And of course, some of the most exsanguinatory encounters occur on Fox News, because it’s the only place that puts them both in the same room.

[Update a while later]

The Constitutional moment: ObamaCare meets Madison and Marshall.

This crowd has needed a “constitutional moment” for about century.

I wish that the court would overturn Wickard, but that may have to await some new Justices from a Republican president who actually believes in originalism.

[Update a while later]

As for those on the left who are accusing Judge Vinson of “judicial activism,” they only demonstrate their ignorance of the meaning of that phrase. Simply put, “judicial activism” is the making of new law out of whole cloth via judicial ruling (Roe v Wade being almost a canonical example), not declaring a law unconstitutional.

A first-hand report from Ann Althouse. It really is appalling that people who teach law are so wilfully ignorant of the intent of the Founders and purpose of the Constitution.

…doubles down on defending the indefensible Frances Fox Piven. There may be more worthless and socially harmful fields of study than sociology, but there can’t be many.

A depressing essay:

I detect no lack of seriousness or ambition in these students. They believe they are exceptionally well-educated. They have jumped expertly through every hoop put in front of them to be the top of their classes in our country’s best universities, and they have been lavishly praised for doing so. They seem so surprised when asked simple direct questions that they have never considered.

They’re not educated — they’re indoctrinated, and have been, for the most part, since they were five years old. They don’t know what they don’t know, and yet this is where our country’s political leadership comes from. Fortunately, this is why the collapse of the mainstream media is such a disaster for the left. Their ideas are hothouse plants that can only stand up in a debate-free environment. Once they come out of the academic/media cocoon, they quickly collapse, because they don’t even know how to intelligently defend them. Because they’re mostly indefensible.