So wrong in so many ways……I’m in the brackets…the passage is from cbsnews.
But Roberts pays attention to media coverage. As chief justice, he is keenly aware of his leadership role on the court, and he also is sensitive to how the court is perceived by the public. [and that matters to the constitutionality or his job how?]
There were countless news articles in May warning of damage to the court – and to Roberts’ reputation – if the court were to strike down the mandate. Leading politicians, including the president himself, had expressed confidence the mandate would be upheld. [you’re on the court and your first thought is how deciding the rightness or wrongness of a case will affect your press? That is wrong on so many levels.]
Some even suggested that if Roberts struck down the mandate, it would prove he had been deceitful during his confirmation hearings, when he explained a philosophy of judicial restraint. [uh – yep – in opposite world]
It was around this time that it also became clear to the conservative justices that Roberts was, as one put it, “wobbly,” the sources said. [meaning rather than deciding on the merits of the case in front of him, he’s not thinking of his press]
It is not known why Roberts changed his view on the mandate and decided to uphold the law. At least one conservative justice tried to get him to explain it, but was unsatisfied with the response, according to a source with knowledge of the conversation. [meaning his response made little judicial sense]
Some informed observers outside the court flatly reject the idea that Roberts buckled to liberal pressure, or was stared down by the president. They instead believe that Roberts realized the historical consequences of a ruling striking down the landmark health care law. There was no doctrinal background for the Court to fall back on – nothing in prior Supreme Court cases – to say the individual mandate crossed a constitutional line. [except perhaps the constitution itself with, you know, enumerated powers]
The case raised entirely new issues of power. Never before had Congress tried to force Americans to buy a private product; as a result, never before had the court ruled Congress lacked that power. It was completely uncharted waters. [the kind that most people with jobs love to have because it gives them a chance to chart new territory and use their brains a little]
To strike down the mandate as exceeding the Commerce Clause, the court would have to craft a new theory, which could have opened it up to criticism that it reached out to declare the president’ health care law unconstitutional. [no, no new theory required here…just the old one that says the federal government has power over these enumerated things, nothing else]
Roberts was willing to draw that line, but in a way that decided future cases, and not the massive health care case. [and yet which case was on the docks again?]
Here is John Yoo:
The outer limit on the Commerce Clause in Sebelius does not put any other federal law in jeopardy and is undermined by its ruling on the tax power (discussed below)……………….Worse still, Justice Roberts’s opinion provides a constitutional road map for architects of the next great expansion of the welfare state. Congress may not be able to directly force us to buy electric cars, eat organic kale, or replace oil heaters with solar panels. But if it enforces the mandates with a financial penalty then suddenly, thanks to Justice Roberts’s tortured reasoning in Sebelius, the mandate is transformed into a constitutional exercise of Congress’s power to tax.
Which, regarding the bold part above, somehow conservatives are twisting themselves into thinking “Americans won’t stand for all these new taxes”. Ha.
And for those of you thinking (as I was starting to): “We’re revved up now!! No stopping the Mitt Romney train. Here’s some money, let’s take ’em down!!”…..
Linked here is the big GOP plan that they, as in the GOP Minority Leader of the Senate, can’t even muster a single coherent sentence on during a Sunday talk show.
And Boehner…..is he better? Nope. Here’s a tweet.
On @FaceTheNation, Boehner says popular provisions of ObamaCare can be part of comon-sense replacement legislation.
ht Protein Wisdom
whose post starts out thusly:
“WE WILL FIGHT AND FIGHT AND WE WILL REPEAL OBAMACARE!”
…except, you know, for the popular provisions of a centralized, state-run, top-down authoritarian health care system run by bureaucrats.
Somebody buy these people a clue. No wonder Roberts switched sides. The right can’t justify why Obamacare needs to go. They can’t even understand what they would do in place of it. You know you’re in trouble when I can list out a replacement faster than Mitch McConnell can.
And poor Justice Roberts wouldn’t have had a friend in the world if the mandate had been ruled unconstitutional. And don’t we all just want friends?
Now, I’m not his friend, but no worries, he has the entire media complex not only being friendly, but even coming up with why Justice Roberts and I should remain buds.
I don’t think so.