Fail: Liberal SCOTUS Justices Resort to Helping Obama's Solicitor General Argue in Favor of Obamacare

The four liberal members of the Supreme Court should recuse themselves from the ACA (aka Obamacare) case. Instead of asking questions to force President Obama's Solicitor General to defend the administration's position, they are actively helping him make it! Can you imagine a Judge in a criminal trial presenting arguments exonerating the defendant?

Here are some samples via Slate:

Ruth Bader Ginsberg:

Mr. Verrilli, I thought that your main point is that, unlike food or any other market, when you made the choice not to buy insurance, even though you have every intent in the world to self-insure, to save for it, when disaster strikes, you may not have the money.

Stephen Breyer:

Justice Kennedy asked, can you, under the Commerce Clause, Congress create commerce where previously none existed. Well, yes, I thought the answer to that was, since McCulloch versus Maryland, when the Court said Congress could create the Bank of the United States which did not previously exist, which job was to create commerce that did not previously exist, since that time the answer has been, yes.

Breyer, again.

Your question is whether or not there are any limits on the Commerce Clause. Can you identify for us some limits on the Commerce Clause?

There has never been any question in any Supreme Court analysts mind about how the four liberal Justices will vote on this case.  Their minds were made up before the law was passed. Two of them, Sotomayer and Kagan, owe Obama their jobs. Breyer and Ginsberg are judicial activists who never met a liberal idea they didn't like.