You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Government
Obamacare threatens to end John Roberts's dream of a nonpartisan Supreme Court
2015-03-01
[WAPO] The first time the Affordable Care Act came before the Supreme Court, its constitutional foundation under attack, John G. Roberts Jr. was its unlikely savior. In a spectacular display of spot-welding, the chief justice joined fellow conservatives on some points and brought liberals on board for others. Roberts was the only member of the court to endorse the entire jerry-rigged thing, and even he made sure to distance himself from the substance of the law. ("It is," he wrote, "not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.") Still, his efforts rescued President Obama's signature achievement on grounds that many had dismissed as an afterthought.

As long as Justice Anthony M. Kennedy is on the court, he will most often be the decider when the justices split along their familiar ideological fault lines. But, slowly and quietly, Roberts is the one trying to build its legacy. He sees it as somehow exempt from the partisan fugue that long ago enveloped Washington. Justice Stephen G. Breyer has worried that the public might see him and his colleagues as "nine junior-varsity politicians"; public approval of the Supreme Court is falling. But while all of the justices bristle at the notion of a political court, the eponymous head of the Roberts court has the most to lose. After all, its decisions cannot be respected if the court is not respected. "It is a very serious threat to the independence and integrity of the courts to politicize them," Roberts said at his 2005 confirmation hearings.

Roberts, 60, jokes about the "odd historical quirk" that gives the chief justice only one vote. But he has learned to use the tools that come with the job: He shapes the discussion at conference; he writes the court's opinion, or assigns it strategically, when he is in the majority; he's happy to settle for nonthreatening, incremental changes that may bloom later into something more. And last term, what Roberts has described as the chief justice's "particular obligation to try to achieve consensus" paid off. The share of unanimous decisions soared to 66 percent, a level not seen since the 1940s. The share of 5-to-4 decisions, high during Roberts's tenure compared with those of other chief justices, fell to 14 percent, the lowest since he joined the court.

And then here comes Obamacare II. In King v. Burwell , to be argued Wednesday, plaintiffs say the text of the law must be interpreted in a way that would neuter it, canceling health insurance subsidies for about 7.5 million Americans in at least 34 states. Can Roberts's portrayal of the Supreme Court as above politics survive another round with the most partisan issue of the decade?
Nonpartisan Supreme Court...? A bit late for that I'd say.
Posted by:Besoeker

#4  Dream is the right word. Appointments these days are made based on ideological consistency. Asking reliable partisans to act nonpartisan is about as futile a task as the human mind has ever conceived.
Posted by: Iblis   2015-03-01 18:09  

#3  This is a key ruling. Does the law mean what it says -- and what was said about it during the drafting (Thanks to Gruber's inadvertent admissions that it was designed to exclude states without exchanges as an incentive, which are part of the congressional record) -- or does it mean whatever the Democrats and executive branch want to twist it into after it was passed to find out whats in it?

Justice Roberts, which is is: does the law mean what it says, or is it OK to ignore the words and go with whatever you want?
Posted by: OldSpook   2015-03-01 14:07  

#2  ...the migration toward activist judicial system the new aristocracy.

FIFY. When you sit for life and are unaccountable to the people, it cannot be in any way a republic or democracy. They crossed that line when they unilaterally suspended the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment decades ago (rationalized as rectifying a wrong only to perpetuate a new wrong against the majority).
Posted by: Procopius2k   2015-03-01 08:47  

#1  The Supreme Court jumped the shark a long time ago. They clearly stopped being the best interest of America and the constitution and now support the migration toward activist judicial system.
Posted by: airandee   2015-03-01 07:17  

00:00