White House: We'll find a way around SCOTUS's Hobby Lobby ruling

Ha. You think a ruling by the Supreme Court is going to stop Barack Obama from using the force of the federal government to mandate what people do? Well then you don't know Barack Obama, buddy. He may not be a competent executive. He may be completely ignorant about basic concepts of economics. He may be feckless on the international scene. He may be disinterested in the day-to-day functions of governance.

But try to take one iota of his power away, and look out. So no one should be surprised that Obama is already looking for a way to get around the Supreme Court's ruling yesterday in favor of the liberty of Hobby Lobby and other closely held businesses who don't want the federal government forcing them to pay for employee benefits to which they object on religious grounds. We can't have these troublesome individuals complicating the efforts of the collective to bring everyone into conformity:

---

The administration, he added, will “respect” the high court’s ruling but “will continue to look for ways to improve Americans’ health by helping women have more, not less, say over the personal health decisions that affect them and their families” and is looking to Congress to take action. “There is an opportunity for Congress to take the kinds of steps that will mitigate” the ruling, Earnest said, declining to elaborate on exactly what those steps would look like. As it continues to examine the ruling, the White House will also “consider whether there is an opportunity for the president to take some other action that could mitigate,” Earnest said.

Actually there is only one appropriate action the president can take in response to a Supreme Court ruling, and that's to respect it. A co-equal branch of government has just informed him that he overstepped his constitutional authority in trying to force employers to pay for something that conflicts with their values, as informed by their faith. But when you're Barack Obama, or any other left-wing collectivist, that simply will not do. Liberals think the ideal society is crafted when government designs "systems" in which everyone has a proscribed role and everyone does what liberals think they should do. Individuals (including those who own corporations and employ people) may have their own ideas about certain things, and that's nice and all, but it has to give way to the design of the collective. Otherwise the system won't work as it's supposed to. Why, imagine if you had a machine shop, and you designed it so all the gears were supposed to turn clockwise. But one gear had a mind of its own and wanted to turn counter-clockwise! The whole system wouldn't operate correctly! You need to get that gear turning clockwise! No individual gear's preference is more important than the smooth functioning of the system! Liberals really do think people are like gears, and society is like a machine shop. They really do think it's their job to make everyone function in accordance with their system design. So when the system design says employers pay for contraceptives, the objection of a company like Hobby Lobby is a mere irritation. You can have your opinion and all, but what you think is trumped by what the system requires. So when the Supreme Court steps in and protects the rights of the individuals who own Hobby Lobby, the committed collectivist that is Barack Obama cannot accept it. To do so would be to not only accept a glitch in the vaunted system, but also to accept that there are limits to the power of the federal government (and to his executive authority). People who are in the business of enforcing systemic mandates cannot accept such a notion. After all, they've already got a lot of the people trained. That explains the nationwide meltdown that sees people screeching that their "access to birth control" has been denied because they will have to go to Target and spend their own $9 a month instead of getting a freebie from their boss (whose business their birth control decisions is not, they will be sure to inform you). America has constructed a system in which people think they can't get certain things unless a third party provides it to them. People who accept this fail to understand that this does not empower them, but rather it enslaves them because when you can't get what you need apart from someone else's beneficence, you make yourself subservient to that benefactor, who can now petition the government for the protection of its own rights, possibly at your expense. An America that really wanted to empower its people would deconstruct such a system and make it easier for people to use their own resources to get the things they need. But that will never happen when the Democratic Party is in control, because the entire agenda of the Democratic Party is to make people dependent either on the government, or on other third parties who will be forced to provide things to them at the behest of an all-powerful government. That's why you will keep voting for the party who will enforce such mandates, because they've got you convinced you can only get what you need with their help. And don't worry: Even when the Supreme Court decides such government is exceeding its constitutional authority, you have a president who will not be slowed down in the slightest. Your need to receive things for free is more important than the Constitution. You elected Barack Obama not just because he believes that, but because deep down, you believe it too.