Questions about chief justice's health-care ruling could have lasting impact

[Colin P. Varga]

Questions about chief justice's health-care ruling could have lasting impact - CSMonitor.com

[Naveen]

It's interesting that people are questioning Roberts' political motives, when it's Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Kennedy's political motivations that should be questioned.

The individual mandate was conceived of by a conservative think-tank. It was put into the GOP healthcare bill of the early 90s. It was implemented into law by this year's GOP nominee when he was governor of Massachusetts. Numerous high-profile conservatives supported the individual mandate as late as early 2009, when they thought that Obama was going to try for a single-payer system.

It's only after Obama adopted their idea that it became the greatest threat to freedom in the world. If Obama had an "R" next to his name you wouldn't hear one peep against the mandate from any conservative.

[NickTheCage]

It's interesting that people are questioning Roberts' political motives, when it's Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Kennedy's political motivations that should be questioned.

The individual mandate was conceived of by a conservative think-tank. It was put into the GOP healthcare bill of the early 90s. It was implemented into law by this year's GOP nominee when he was governor of Massachusetts. Numerous high-profile conservatives supported the individual mandate as late as early 2009, when they thought that Obama was going to try for a single-payer system.

It's only after Obama adopted their idea that it became the greatest threat to freedom in the world. If Obama had an "R" next to his name you wouldn't hear one peep against the mandate from any conservative.

What 'conservative' think tank? Heritage .. lulz

What high profile conservatives?

Why are you still under the assumption that someone wearing the team R jersey can't be philosophically liberal?

[raider.adam]

Unless there were 6 or 7 votes in one direction, there would be tons of this type of talk happening no matter how it was ruled.

[Naveen]

I think this is a good take on Roberts' decision.

Roberts’ Rules | TPM Editors Blog

If he’d reached the taxing power conclusion in a straightforward manner, he would have foreclosed on his ability to circumscribe the Commerce Clause in the way he did. Conservatives construe his less-straightforward argument as evidence of politicization, but it is just as plausibly evidence of his desire to wring a consolation prize for conservatives out of a losing health care case.

It's worth reading the whole thing (it's short).

[raider.adam]

I think this is a good take on Roberts' decision.

Roberts’ Rules | TPM Editors Blog



It's worth reading the whole thing (it's short).

Right now the only thing I predict is that when he retires, he is going to make a killing on an autobiography.

As for the article, I don't think it is a good thought experiment. It works on the assumption that if something is Constitutional, it doesn't matter why it is.

As of right now, I take his ruling at face value. He doesn't believe it falls under the Commerce Clause, but it is his job to assume a law is Constitutional and only rule against after exhausting the possibilities.

[NickTheCage]

As usual Mr Sowell gets right to the heart of the matter

Judicial Betrayal - Thomas Sowell - National Review Online

And he gets it as he always does

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Judicial restraint, which underlies this cluster-f of a ruling, is the single most meaningless concepts ever invented.

[Naveen]

As for the article, I don't think it is a good thought experiment. It works on the assumption that if something is Constitutional, it doesn't matter why it is.

I didn't see that at all.

[raider.adam]

I didn't see that at all.

The argument the writer is making that if Roberts really thought it was Constitutional it would have been easier to just say it was under the Commerce Clause, but since he didn't, it must have been for political reasons.

[Naveen]

The argument the writer is making that if Roberts really thought it was Constitutional it would have been easier to just say it was under the Commerce Clause, but since he didn't, it must have been for political reasons.

The assumption I picked up was that something could be Constitutional for more than one reason, and that justices might pick or choose which to go with based on political considerations (either external reasons or personal political biases). I tend to agree with that, particularly in the case of personal biases; but in a case as politically loaded as the healthcare case, I think the former played a role. As someone said to me Thursday morning, this was a make-up call after Bush v. Gore and Citizens United.

[geoffrobinson]

It's interesting that people are questioning Roberts' political motives, when it's Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Kennedy's political motivations that should be questioned.

The individual mandate was conceived of by a conservative think-tank. It was put into the GOP healthcare bill of the early 90s. It was implemented into law by this year's GOP nominee when he was governor of Massachusetts. Numerous high-profile conservatives supported the individual mandate as late as early 2009, when they thought that Obama was going to try for a single-payer system.

It's only after Obama adopted their idea that it became the greatest threat to freedom in the world. If Obama had an "R" next to his name you wouldn't hear one peep against the mandate from any conservative.

You mean someone who is conservative can think something may be a good idea and then have second thoughts upon further reflection ?!?

Put me down in that camp.

Btw, the individual mandate is perfectly Constitutional if states do it under the 10th amendment.

But the real problem with Roberts is not that he has a viewpoint. It's that he had to do mental gymnastics because he didn't want to overturn a law. That makes it blatantly political. The left end of the court reads the Constitution to mean anything they want. I don't consider that political so much as an insane political philosophy that is intellectually incoherent. But Roberts doesn't (yet) go down that route.

And that's what makes this decision political. Roberts wrote something for a political end that doesn't correspond to his true beliefs

[Naveen]

The left end of the court reads the Constitution to mean anything they want. I don't consider that political so much as an insane political philosophy that is intellectually incoherent. But Roberts doesn't (yet) go down that route.

I think you wrote this wrong. Let me fix it for you:

The right end of the court reads the Constitution to mean anything they want. I don't consider that political so much as an insane political philosophy that is intellectually incoherent. But Roberts doesn't (yet) go down that route.

[geoffrobinson]

I think you wrote this wrong. Let me fix it for you:

The right end of the court reads the Constitution to mean anything they want. I don't consider that political so much as an insane political philosophy that is intellectually incoherent. But Roberts doesn't (yet) go down that route.

It's not the right end of legal jurisprudence that believes in a "living Constitution". And it isn't the left end of jurisprudence that cares about the original meaning of the text of Constitution.

[Naveen]

It's not the right end of legal jurisprudence that believes in a "living Constitution". And it isn't the left end of jurisprudence that cares about the original meaning of the text of Constitution.

LOL. You do know these are just meaningless talking points, right?

[darthsinatra]

LOL. You do know these are just meaningless talking points, right?

No I'm pretty sure Justice Sotomayor is actually 2happy4u.