Last month, the first judge ever to consider the issue reached the obviously correct conclusion that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional.  Today, a second federal judge reached the same conclusion.  The lengthy opinion by Judge Norman Moon of the Western District of Virginia gives several reasons why the Act’s provision requiring all Americans to either carry insurance or pay slightly higher income taxes easily fits within Congress’ broad authority to regulate the national economy, including the fact that striking down this provision would make it impossible to prevent insurance companies from denying coverage to persons with preexisting conditions:

The conduct regulated by the individual coverage provision is also within the scope of Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause because it is rational to believe the failure to regulate the uninsured would undercut the Act’s larger regulatory scheme for the interstate health care market. The Act institutes a number of reforms of the interstate insurance market to increase the availability and affordability of health insurance, including the requirement that insurers guarantee coverage for all individuals, even those with preexisting medical conditions. As Congress stated in its findings, the individual coverage provision is “essential” to this larger regulatory scheme because, without it, individuals would postpone health insurance until they need substantial care, at which point the Act would obligate insurers to cover them at the same cost as everyone else. This would increase the cost of health insurance and decrease the number of insured individuals—precisely the harms that Congress sought to address with the Act’s regulatory measures.

Today’s decision is just another nail in the coffin of the many meritless lawsuits challenging health reform.  While conservatives have touted a pair of procedural victories they won in two high-profile lawsuits, the fact remains that every single judge to consider merits of these challenges has upheld the law.  Indeed, even ultra-conservative Justice Antonin Scalia has indicated that he agrees with today’s decision.  As Scalia wrote in Gonzales v. Raich, “where Congress has the authority to enact a regulation of interstate commerce, it possesses every power needed to make that regulation effective.”

Last month, the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery (NPG) unveiled “the first major museum exhibition” exploring gender and sexual identity in American culture. With 105 major works by artists like Georgia O’Keeffe and Andy Warhol, “Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture,” the NPG pioneered a show that “celebrates gay and lesbian art and delineates its place in the history of American painting and photography.”

But it appears that a celebration of anything LGBT-related cannot exist without inciting right-wing backlash. In yesterday’s release of its expose, the conservative CNS News complained that the exhibit featured images of “male genitals, naked brothers kissing, men in chains, [and] Ellen DeGeneres grabbing her breasts.” The report saved particular scorn for a four-minute video exhibit that included a depiction of ants on an image of Jesus. Entitled “A Fire in My Belly,” the exhibit was intended “to depict the suffering of an AIDS victim” but, instead, set off a firestorm of religious indignation and outcry over the Smithsonian’s federal funding.

After the Catholic League deemed the exhibit an “assault on the sensibilities of Christians” and demanded the government defund the NPG, the Republicans were quick to pile-on. Decrying the exhibit as an “in your face perversion paid for by tax dollars,” House Appropriations Committee member Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) demanded a look at the NPG’s budget, advocating for “calling them up in front of the Appropriations Committee, asking for some resignations, auditing all their budget – all their books.” The House GOP leadership seconded the outrage and Kingston’s call for a Congressional probe into the museum’s funding:

And Incoming House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., called it an “outrageous use of taxpayer money and an obvious attempt to offend Christians during the Christmas season.”

“When a museum receives taxpayer money, the taxpayers have a right to expect that the museum will uphold common standards of decency. The museum should pull the exhibit and be prepared for serious questions come budget time,” Cantor said through a spokesman.

Incoming House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said he condemned the use of taxpayer money for the exhibit but would not call for the removal of the exhibit.

“American families have a right to expect better from recipients of taxpayer funds in a tough economy,” Boehner said…”Smithsonian officials should either acknowledge the mistake and correct it, or be prepared to face tough scrutiny beginning in January when the new majority in the House moves to end the job-killing spending spree in Washington.”

In the face of such right-wing brow-beating, the NPG has decided to remove the video exhibit. In a statement released this afternoon, the NPG Director Martin Sullivan said, “I regret that some reports about the exhibit have created an impression that the video is intentionally sacrilegious. In fact, the artist’s intention was to depict the suffering of an AIDS victim. It was not the museum’s intention to offend. We are removing the video today.”

It is important to note that, as is common with recent GOP arguments, Republican bluster over NPG’s federal funding doesn’t actually hold water. While 55 percent of the Smithsonian budget is federally funded, those funds are only used to “pay for the buildings, the care of collections exhibited at Smithsonian venues, and museum staff.” Museum exhibits are funded solely by private donations, including “Hide/Seek.” But regardless these facts, history proves that, despite the NPG’s hope, conservative outrage will lead institutions to remove whatever is deemed offensive, regardless of what it may celebrate.

Three more Republican congressmen are adding their names to the Shutdown Caucus, which is vowing to shut down the federal government rather than raise the debt ceiling and prevent the country from going into default. The new members include Reps. Jerry Lewis (R-CA), Jack Kingston (R-GA), and Ron Paul (R-TX).

Lewis and Kingston, caught in a battle to become the next chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, are each trying to out-conservative the other. Slate’s Dave Weigel notes that both men declared their intentions to oppose an increase in the debt ceiling on a Tea Party Patriots conference call last night. Neither wants to become the next Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI), who is facing a massive Tea Party-fueled uprising against his bid to become the next chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee because he is viewed as insufficiently conservative.

Tea Party Godfather Ron Paul also implored his fellow congressmen to stand firm in an editorial, “Don’t Raise the Debt Ceiling!”:

The upcoming vote will provide an interesting litmus test for the new Republican congressional majority, especially those new members closely identified with Tea Party voters. The debt ceiling law [...] also, however, forces Congress into an open and presumably somewhat shameful vote to approve more borrowing.

If the new Congress gives in to establishment pressure and media alarmism about “shutting down the government” by voting to increase the debt ceiling once again, you will know that the status quo has prevailed. You will know that Congress, despite the rhetoric of the midterm elections, is doing business as usual. You will know that the simple notion of balancing the budget, by limiting federal spending to federal revenue, remains a shallow and laughable campaign platitude. [...]

I have two simple proposals when the new Congress convenes in January. First, refuse to raise the debt ceiling. Find a way, month by month, for Congress to spend only what the Treasury raises in revenue. Second, start over from scratch with the 13 appropriations bills that fund the federal government. Reject any talk of baseline budgets or discretionary spending. It is all discretionary, and members of both parties should vote against any 2012 appropriation bill that is not at least 10% smaller– in nominal dollars– than its 2011 counterpart.

Still, Republican leaders are divided on the issue. While RNC Chairman Michael Steele has vowed, in unequivocal terms, that Republicans were “not going to compromise on raising the debt ceiling,” incoming House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) has promised to hold a clean up-or-down vote on the issue because failing to do so would make Republicans look like a bunch of “yahoos.” Just today, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) admonished Republicans who would play games with the debt ceiling, calling them “naïve” because “you can’t shut down the government.”