Separated at Birth: John Roberts and ...?

John Roberts

David Frum

Guaranteed to get invited to the best cocktail parties this summer!  It is not personal guys, it is just the law!

Update:  Per McGehee's suggestion (now that you mention it I do see the resemblance...):

John Roberts

Earl Warren

Update:  Instapundit is more sanguine about this ruling:

JUNE 28, 2012

FOLLOWING UP ON MY MARBURY OBSERVATION FROM THIS MORNING: Obama Wins the Battle, Roberts Wins the War: The chief justice’s canny move to uphold the Affordable Care Act while gutting the Commerce Clause. “By ruling that the individual mandate was permissible as a tax, he joined the Democratic appointees to uphold the law—while joining the Republican wing to gut the Commerce Clause (and push back against the necessary-and-proper clause as well). . . . Roberts’ genius was in pushing this health care decision through without attaching it to the coattails of an ugly, narrow partisan victory. Obama wins on policy, this time. And Roberts rewrites Congress’ power to regulate, opening the door for countless future challenges. In the long term, supporters of curtailing the federal government should be glad to have made that trade.” We’ll see.
More from the Anchoress.

Posted by Glenn Reynolds at 2:53 pm

I get that is what Roberts was trying to do.  That does not mean I like this ruling (and I still think it has a Frum Punch quality to it).  But I guess we will see over time.  Update:  But if this is so good, why do I feel like the Gimp in Pulp Fiction today?  Professor Jacobson advises us to stop the self delusion.  It is as bad as it looks.  Jeff Goldstein is right on this too...


There are these good points about it being a "tax":  

JUNE 28, 2012

LARRY SOLUM: The Decision to Uphold the Mandate as Tax Represents a Gestalt Shift in Constitutional Law. Those who wondered what I meant by my Lopez reference below should read this post.
Related: Chief Justice Roberts writes an opinion limiting the commerce power and the spending power.
UPDATE: Rand Simberg: If the mandate’s a tax, how can it be valid if it originated in the Senate? I thought it originated in the House, but I could be wrong.
Also, a tax repeal can’t be filibustered.
“Don’t call it a ‘mandate,’ it’s a tax!”
ANOTHER UPDATE: Justin Binik-Thomas writes: “The Senate replaced an old house bill in its entirety with what is now Obamacare. So technically it started in the house but another example of cheating.” Yes, that’s what I remembered.

But that still means to reverse we need to have 51 votes in the Senate and the White House to sign it (or 50 votes and Mitt Romeny's Veep gets to break the tie).  

Breaking: John Roberts is outside my window holding a boom box over his head.
— Brian Phillips (@runofplay) June 28, 2012

John Roberts is the Severus Snape of SCOTUS.
— Michael Foss (@Fossphate) June 28, 2012

Imagine if SCOTUS hadn't handed the election to Bush in 2000. There would have been no John Roberts on the Court to save Ocamacare.
— radleybalko (@radleybalko) June 28, 2012

Chief Justice John Roberts upholds #Obamacare & millions of GOPs finally decide there's a reason to blame Bush.
— John Fugelsang (@JohnFugelsang) June 28, 2012

Update:
The most arrogant man in the world, part II.
More hints John Roberts changed his vote...

“This could be a huge day in the evolution of Chief Justice Roberts as a great chief justice,” said Laurence H. Tribe, a liberal law professor from Harvard. Mr. Tribe, who taught Mr. Roberts, said he had not opposed his nomination because he believed Mr. Roberts was less of an ideologue than many had charged. “I have some sense of gratification,” he said.

Gag