David Harsanyi: “[T]he pending Supreme Court challenge over the Affordable Care Act via King v. Burwell is the most significant decision since Hobby Lobby or perhaps Citizens United – or whenever the most recent time was when the world was going to come tumbling down around us. … We’ve reached a point where liberals argue not only that empathy (well, selective empathy, as you might imagine) should play a leading role in legal decisions but also that the court should avoid disrupting any laws that are driven by progressive notions of compassion. You know, because of the ‘consequences.’ And seeing as progressives treat all their reforms as consecrated acts of charity, this would create a rather convenient legal environment for them. But of course, they don’t really want justices to use their own moral discretion. What if, for instance, the majority of justices believed that it is Obamacare that is the most disruptive force in the country today? What if they believed ridding America of the ACA would benefit most Americans? If the justices defused Obamacare, think of all the disrupting taxes and regulations they would be saving citizens from. What if justices reasoned that killing Obamacare would be the most compassionate thing to do? Would the left still argue that they should worry about consequences – or would their position become ‘political’? Incidentally, where were all these concerns about disruptions and consequences when a fleeting majority unilaterally stuffed a major reform down the throats of all Americans?”