Justice Roberts' Ruling Took Guts
Why not just cut open a goat and be done with it?
Fast-forward to chief haruspex
In the majority opinion written by Roberts, the
The upshot is that
To reach this decision, Roberts had to embrace a position denied by the
Let the record show that the sophists were valued defenders of entrail-reading.
Of course, there are substantive arguments in favor of Roberts' reasoning. But as far as I can tell, no one is confident, never mind certain, that Roberts actually believes his own position. And among supporters of ObamaCare, from the
President Obama -- self-praised constitutional scholar -- mocked those who called the fees and penalties under ObamaCare a tax. Now he celebrates a decision that mocks him back.
More sober-eyed liberal legal experts took similar positions. Roberts' opinion was "statesmanlike," they claimed, and, more bizarrely, "apolitical." Some, such as constitutional scholar
Indeed, before and after the ruling, much of the journalistic and legal establishment argued that a 5-4 ruling to overturn ObamaCare would be "political" because the majority would be comprised entirely of Republican appointees. But a 5-4 ruling to uphold ObamaCare would be apolitical because, well, it just would be.
In other words, if five conservative justices rule according to their well-known convictions, it's illegitimate. But if Roberts twists himself like an illustration in the Kama Sutra to find a way to uphold the law, then that amounts to "leadership."
Now, I don't know what's in Roberts' heart, but no court watcher I've heard from puts much weight on the idea that Roberts did anything other than reason backward from the result he wanted in order to buy respect from the court's critics at the expense of his own beliefs.
At least that's one thing both fans and critics of this ruling can largely agree on.
Some of Roberts' defenders claim he's outmaneuvered everyone. By upholding ObamaCare, he's made future conservative decisions unassailable. He's poisoned the well of the commerce clause for liberals. He's removed the court as an election-year issue. He's gift-wrapped for
That's all very interesting, but it leaves aside the real issue: None of those concerns are what was asked of the court. That so few people seem to care augurs poorly for the rule of law and the auspices of our republic.
Read the latest political news.
- The True Meaning of Patriotism
- Year of the Gaffe
- Oh, I Believe in Yesterday
- Super Pacs -- Who Comes Up with Those Names?
- Sabotaging Montana's Campaign Finance Legacy
- Taxing Mitt Romney's Consistency
- Mitt Romney's Worst Enemy
- Conservatives May Want to Think Twice About Repealing Obama/Romneycare
- Symptoms of a Sick Culture
- Why Women Love John Roberts
- Will Young America Come Alive in 2012?
- Voter Apathy is Not a Crime
- Supreme Court Surprise
- Corporations Score Another Supreme Court Victory on Healthcare
- Chief Justice Roberts' Choice
- Supreme Court Hypocrisies
- Health Care Access Shouldn't Require Good Luck
- Health Care Deja Vu
- Justice Roberts' Ruling Took Guts
- Reading Roberts
- The 'Oprahfication' of America
- The NHS: A guide for Americans under Obamacare
- Live Free -- And Uninsured
- Florida Governor's Tenuous Relationship with the Truth
- Bait and Switch on Obamacare
- Legal Illegal Immigration
- Arizona's Immigration Bind
- Justices Uphold Individual Mandate, Set Limits On Medicaid Expansion
- Court's Dissenters Argue That 'Entire Statute Is Inoperative'
- Health Law Decision A 'Victory For People All Over This Country'
- Justice Roberts Says Law's Offer to States on Medicaid 'Is A Gun to the Head'
- Romney: Health Law Bad Policy, No Matter SCOTUS Decision
- The Tea Party Shtick
- How Wall Street is Trying to Avoid Oversight
Justice Roberts' Ruling Took Guts | Politics
Copyright © 2012 Tribune Media Services, Inc.