Everyone stay calm — the world isn’t ending

The Constitution died. Freedom's last stand. The 21st century's Dred Scott decision.

Those were just a few of the conservative head explosions in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision Thursday in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Good thing nobody overreacted, huh?

There is plenty for conservatives to like in this ruling, even if it upheld the fact that everybody in America must buy and maintain health insurance or pay a penalty to the IRS.

First, conservatives railed against the idea that the federal government could require people to buy health-care insurance under the Commerce Clause. They said that, far from regulating commerce, the law required people to engage in commerce.

And the Supreme Court agreed, saving us from future similar mandates.

Second, conservatives objected to the idea that a state could lose its entire Medicaid funding if it failed to opt in to the new health-care provisions. They said that amounted to coercion.

And the Supreme Court agreed, setting a key limit on the ability of Congress to force states to bend to their will.

Third, conservatives have often objected when an "activist" Supreme Court strikes down duly passed laws, claiming the unelected court was undermining the role of the legislative and executive branches. (These complaints generally come when Republican-backed laws are invalidated.)

But Chief Justice John Roberts, in his majority opinion, outlined a rational scheme of constitutional interpretation that conservatives should love, inasmuch as it gives great deference to the legislative branch.

"When a court confronts an unconstitutional statute, its endeavor must be to conserve, not destroy, the legislation," Roberts wrote. Later, he added, "Our permissive reading of these powers is explained in part by a general reticence to invalidate the acts of the nation's elected leaders. 'Proper respect for a co-ordinate branch of the government' requires that we strike down an act of Congress only if 'the lack of constitutional authority to pass [the] act in question is clearly demonstrated.'"

That's actually the opposite of judicial activism.

Mark Hutchison, the attorney who acted on behalf of Nevada in suing to overturn the health-care law, nonetheless defended Roberts from anticipated criticism. "He is a conservative. He has tremendous respect for the co-equal branches of government," said Hutchison, now a candidate for Nevada state Senate. "No one can accuse Chief Justice John Roberts of being a screaming liberal."

No one with any credibility, that is. Even a casual reading of Roberts' ruling makes it clear the case was carefully considered and soundly decided.

But Republicans - within an hour of the ruling's release - vowed to schedule an impotent repeal vote for July 9. Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney - who signed a very similar bill into law as governor of Massachusetts - vowed to seek repeal as well should he be elected. Democrats, by and large, reacted with timidity and timorousness, perhaps owing to polls that show the law unpopular with many. (You can read a host of Nevada-related reactions on my blog at SlashPolitics.com.)

Not so President Obama and Nevada Sen. Harry Reid, who reminded the nation of the benefits of the law. Millions of people who will have potentially life-saving health-insurance coverage who did not before. No lifetime limits on coverage. No ending coverage at the moment you need it most, when you get sick. No denials for pre-existing conditions. More preventative care that can help stave off more serious (and more costly) diseases down the line. Young people able to stay on their parent's insurance as they start out in life.

The health-care law may not be a political winner, as the president frankly acknowledged, but it will help millions.

Steve Sebelius is a Review-Journal political columnist and author of the blog SlashPolitics.com. Follow him on Twitter (@SteveSebelius) or reach him at 387-5276 or SSebelius@reviewjournal.com.