| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Did Roberts Pull a Fast One? |
| 2012-06-30 |
| Some liberals were making a 24-hour pivot from praising Roberts' statesmanship to wondering whether the victory for Obama and congressional Democrats was delivered in a Trojan horse. Did anyone notice Karl Rove sneaking into the Court? In the opinion that stirred this week's controversy, Roberts wrote that it was the duty of the court to avoid rejecting an act of Congress if there is a plausible reason for saving it. "It is well established that if a statute has two possible meanings, one of which violates the Constitution, courts should adopt the meaning that does not do so," Roberts wrote. So he rejected the government's argument that requiring most Americans to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty was justified under the Constitution's commerce clause, which gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. But, joined by the court's four liberals, he said the penalty operated as a tax, and thus was proper under the taxing clause. Followed by some wild guessing, suggesting Roberts changed at the last minute, looking for clues amongst the differing opinions. There is nothing improper about a justice changing his or her mind on a case before the decision is delivered. But the insinuation was that Roberts may have been motivated by a desire to spare recriminations from the image of the court's five justices appointed by Republican presidents overturning a landmark bill passed by congressional Democrats and signed by Obama. A silver lining - his decision made it look much less like a political one. Others thought it unlikely that Roberts had changed his mind. "There are some loose ends in the opinions, to be sure, but it might just be because they were pressed for time," George Washington University law professor Orin Kerr wrote on the Volokh Conspiracy, a Web site on legal issues where much of the speculation found a home. And it was also clear during the first hour of the lengthy oral arguments that Roberts was exploring the theory he later adopted: that the penalty served as a way to satisfy the government's requirement, making the mandate less of a command. My way or pay is better than my way or die. Stanford University constitutional law professor Pamela Karlan said liberals should see the decision as strategic. "Is that man clever or what?" she said, adding that Roberts learned a lesson from his predecessor and mentor William H. Rehnquist about when to look for compromise. "He knows he's going to be on the court for years." While the decision has the immediate effect of saving the health-care law, Karlan said, the opinion contained what could be important and long-lasting principles. The strict reading of the commerce clause is something conservatives have wanted for years. And the court said the law's attempt to force states to expand Medicaid rolls by threatening to withhold federal funds was improperly coercive. "That truly breaks new ground," said Richard Fallon, a Harvard law professor. "It's the first time since the 1930s that the Supreme Court has invalidated a federal spending statute that gives money to states and attaches strings. A number of other federal spending programs that attach strings will now be attacked as coercive." Job security for the Supremes! |
| Posted by:Bobby |
| #11 There still may be hope - a variety of Catholic institutions have filed suit based on religious liberty concerns. Obamacare requires all employers, except churches and religious institutions like convents, to cover birth control pills (with no co-pay) for everyone. Catholic colleges and hospitals are not exempt. So they have sued, saying Obamacare forces them to go against their core religious principles. Of course, it will take years for this to reach the Supreme Court, if it ever does. Hopefully, by then, President Romney and the newly elected Republican majorities in the House and Senate will have repealed this monstrosity. |
| Posted by: Rambler in Virginia 2012-06-30 21:29 |
| #10 Submitted for your approval, an interesting analysis: http://www.ijreview.com/2012/06/9398-why-chief-justice-roberts-made-the-right-long-term-decision-with-obamacare/ |
| Posted by: Uncle Phester 2012-06-30 20:39 |
| #9 Ginsberg did, with bitterness. She should be a replacement project by President Romney. F*&k their "this was a liberal seat, you need to nominate a liberal". |
| Posted by: Frank G 2012-06-30 19:23 |
| #8 I still say, it could have been a lot worse. Roberts left only one problem outstanding, properly to be dealt with by the elected branches. What's surprising is not that he joined the left wing of the court, but that they joined him. |
| Posted by: RandomJD 2012-06-30 18:56 |
| #7 notice that it's always the conservatives and centrist (Kennedy) whose votes are in play. Nobody questions the leftwing maggots who vote in lockstep. |
| Posted by: Frank G 2012-06-30 16:34 |
| #6 The entire Republic is history. We are now ruled by mandates set forth by a Dictator formed by infatuation of his third world father and extreme leftist mother. A host of appointed Czars that have replaced Congress and a faltering Judicial Branch that is caving from the top down. The options are a struggle for the restoration of Liberty or toiling under mandates that run counter to general consensus. |
| Posted by: Lemuel Glinemble7700 2012-06-30 16:32 |
| #5 Dr. Krauthammer had it correct last evening. Roberts actions this week were all about the external "perceptions" of the court, not about jurisprudence. Most of the older members appeared to follow a strict interpretation of the law. The younger and more left leaning members went with the emotion centered egalitarianism which is the hallmark of our education system today. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2012-06-30 16:00 |
| #4 I do not buy all this narrow interpretation stuff. The law forced you to do something or face a fine, in this case, health care. Other things can be added later in the same way, calling it a tax. Roberts should have struck this POS law down just for that. SCOTUS needed to send a message that this law was unconstitutional and that Congress needed to fix it. It is NOT the job of SCOTUS to rewrite the law. That is up to Congress. They need a good smack down. Writing 2000+ pages of sh*t written by staffers that will cost this country trillions of dollars that the country does not have is unconscionable. And what is worse is that few congress critters read the text in detail. The issue is rather simple, it is an issue of liberty, but lawyers make the core issue too complicated, thus ducking the issue. Roberts did not need to pull a fast one. He needed to write his opinion and keep the law or throw it out. He is not in the legislative branch of the US. That's it. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2012-06-30 15:25 |
| #3 I got a better idea, John - humiliate them. Vote them out of office! |
| Posted by: Bobby 2012-06-30 15:25 |
| #2 Seems like a torturous stretch to arrive at the conclusion that the mandate is a tax. Obama said that ObamaCare would bring no new taxes for people making $200K or couples making $250K. He said that people could keep their doctors and their insurance. Both are lies. The entire legislation was premised on a lie. It was rammed down our throats and we were told to shut up, you will like it. Nancy Pelosi otherwise known as "Detestable" told us it had to be passed to read it. These people should all be arrested for fraud or impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2012-06-30 14:07 |
| #1 He's inserted an constitution-upholding worm into the legal system. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2012-06-30 12:34 |