If you think liberal totalitarianism is bad now...

...just wait till the Supreme Court constitutionalizes Gay marriage on the grounds of a "constitutional right to dignity."

//If dignity is defined so elastically, then conservatives judges might invoke it to strike down not only gun-control laws, but also other progressive legislation. Libertarian groups invoked the “sweet-mystery-of-life” my language in Casey to argue that the Obamacare healthcare mandate unconstitutionally violated the dignity and autonomy of Americans by forcing them to buy health insurance. In the future, cigarette smokers might argue that anti-smoking bans violate their ability to create an individual identity. And conservative Christian wedding photographers could claim that anti-discrimination laws compelling them to photograph gay weddings violate their dignity and ability to define themselves as conservative Christians. What courts would do when confronted with the clashing dignitary rights of the religious wedding photographer and the gay couple, or the hunter and the victim of gun violence, is anyone’s guess, because dignity is such an abstract concept that its boundaries are difficult to discern.

In suggesting that the expansion of the right to dignity is something that liberals may come to regret, I’m not arguing that same-sex marriage bans can or should easily be upheld in light of the Supreme Court precedents on the books. In the same-sex marriage arguments, the liberal justices seemed drawn to the idea that marriage is a fundamental right that must be expanded to all citizens on equal terms. A decision along those lines—although broader in some respects than a ruling based on dignity—might be easier to confine to cases involving marriage. And given Justice Kennedy’s previous opinions for the Court ruling out of bounds moral disapproval and the preservation of tradition for its own sake, it’s hard to think of any other plausible reasons for upholding the marriage bans that don’t rely on what the Court has defined as animus. Still, if the Court strikes down same-sex marriage bans on the grounds that they violate a right to dignity, liberals may have second thoughts about empowering judges to decide whose dignity trumps when the interests of citizens with very different conceptions of dignity clash.//

So, dignity for liberal me and not for conservative thee?

Expect dignity rulings that find "bad speech" - "racist" or "sexist" speech, i.e., the kind to which activist requires "trigger warnings" - to be justified, but the vilification of "bad groups," such as Catholics by the City of San Francisco to be ignored.

Liberal Fascism.

Anne Althouse takes on Jeff Rosen's argument that a majority of the Supreme Court would support the authority of the President to borrow money, even though the text of the Constitution says that only the Congress has that authority:

[Quoting Rosen]Of these five justices, Thomas is the only one whose judicial philosophy might lead him to side with Congress over Obama. As someone who believes that Congressional power over the purse should be construed strictly, Thomas might conclude that Article I gives Congress, and not the president, the power “to borrow money on the credit of the United States”—a power that it has exercised by establishing a debt ceiling. The debt ceiling doesn’t repudiate the debt or question its validity, Thomas might hold; it simply threatens default by prohibiting the president from assuming extra debt beyond what Congress has authorized. According to this argument, Obama’s unilateral decision to take on additional debt to avoid a government default would not represent debt “authorized by law,” as the Fourteenth Amendment requires, and therefore wouldn’t be justified by the Amendment.

Isn't it funny how this "tea party" philosophy just sounds like a fair reading of the text? But only Clarence Thomas is crackpot enough to do that! I added the boldface to highlight what to me seems like the obvious interpretation: No one is talking about questioning the validity of the debt! When you fail to pay debts, you're not claiming they aren't valid. Why wouldn't all the Justices say that? Why would that inapt clause take precedence over the specific and clear clause in Article I, listing among Congress's powers the power "To borrow Money on the credit of the United States"?

Forget for a moment the plain text of the Constitution, how about separation of powers?  The Congress has the power of the purse.  That's all it has to control the President.  It can't arrest the President since the executive powers are located in the Executive branch, but it can vote to withhold money from the executive.

Unless Rosen is right and the President can just borrow money without Congressional approval.

How does Rosen not recognize his argument as an argument for fascism?

The principles of the Constitution grew out of the conflict between Parliament and the Monarchy out of this very issue.  King Charles thought that he could govern without the Parliament, so he dissolved Parliament and he found all kinds of unusual ways to raise money for himself (See "Ship Money Controversy," 1634 - 1639), until he learned that he really needed Parliament.  Parliament decided not to allow itself to be dissolved again, particulalry after Charles attempted to prorogue it (See "The Long Parliament," 1640 - 1666).  From there it was off to the races as the legislature fought the English Civil War against the King, and eventually executed King Charles.

That's the history our founders were working against, and why they devised a separation of powers.

Is Rosen entirely ignorant?  If not, why would he want to recreate that bit of history?