Some, like Weigel, are relieved that the Court hasn't taken upon itself too much power. After all, this is the institution who gave us unrestricted abortion - therefore, the chorus grows, we must trust the people rather than nine robed lawyers. I can certainly see that, but at the same time I see how the Founding Fathers never intended a pure democracy. The system of checks and balances was implemented for a reason, and if sometimes judges error and sometimes the people (or president) error, the idea is that hopefully we'll err less with three branches of government. And if even Justice Kennedy, for heaven sakes, saw the Obama bill as overreach then, well...
Pure democracy is much less than it's cracked up to be. California, of state governments, has arguably the purest form of democracy and look where that got them. Bring back the smoke-filled room in CA I say. Give me a representative republic, not a democracy. If you don't like the elites, then change the education system that produces them, don't try to write them out of the Constitution.
Jay Nordlinger shoots and scores with his post at National Review:
Let me try something out on you: People say, “Wait for the next election. Settle this thing — settle health care — in the political arena, where it belongs.” I have used this kind of language myself, about various issues. But, you know? Every branch has its duty. We have separation of powers in this country. We have checks and balances.
The executive doesn’t have carte blanche for four years; Congress doesn’t have carte blanche, for any period....If a bill is unconstitutional, it is the duty of the Supreme Court to say so. Every branch has a role, every officer has a part to play.