 |
| Bill Dunne on how the Roberts Trap Was Sprung... |
Orin Kerr at the Volokh Conspiracy made the point back when the opinion came out it was actually more conservative than many were acknowledging.
Update:
Sister Toldjah: Happy 2014! #ObamaCare and a stagnant economy loom large for Democrats...
Is Roberts one of those "white southern radical" conservatives who doomed ObamaCare? More from Ace.
Michael Moore admits ObamaCare is awful.
Making Lemonade from Lemons: TOM: Target-ting Democrats with "ObamaCare Does Not Work" Ads.
Someone is having fun--> RT @SenTedCruz: Retweet if you agree! http://t.co/xJag4pbckF pic.twitter.com/ZslohbCEgW
— Amanda Carpenter (@amandacarpenter) January 2, 2014
Nah, Roberts is still being Roberts. Not vindicated. h/t: Wombat-Socho
Given that BarryCare will taint the image of the Welfare State and government as a whole for generations, it may have been the best outcome.
ReplyDeleteNo, not vindicated. The Court has an obligation to uphold the Constitution. Any unconstitutional law enacted by Congress is immediate harm to every U.S. citizen; any unconstitutional or even merely illegal executive action is immediate harm to every U.S. citizen; any court ruling that upholds the unconstitutional is immediate harm to every U.S. citizen.
ReplyDeleteThe Constitution is not a chessboard for high officials to play on at our expense for the title of Smartest Guy in the Room.
I agree with that. But the comment Roberts made that "It is not our job...to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices." is one that was already part of Constitutional jurisprudence. I would have preferred the Democrat Fuck Up Healthcare Act/ObamaCare was terminated back in 2012, and it hasn't fallen yet. We will see what happens.
DeleteIANA Constitutional scholar, but that Roberts "not our job" quote seems completely wrongheaded to me. Is it not in fact the job of the SCOTUS to protect some of the people from the consequences of those political choices made by other people that would restrict their constitutional rights?
DeleteAnd if not, then WTF is the SCOTUS for, exactly?
I'm deeply skeptical about all these "fumble forward" theories.
Yes I agree it is the job of SCOTUS to interpret constitutionality and project the minority from the majority. But that quote is not originally Roberts (I think Oliver Wendell Homes, Jr. said something similar in the past on judicial restraint in overturning laws). I would have preferred ObamaCare was killed the cradle, but I am pretty sure Roberts intended his ruling to play out like this (but it is still a bad precedent and it could back fire badly).
DeleteWhile Roberts congratulates himself on his super strategic skill, millions of people are being totally fucked by "their" government.
ReplyDeleteHe's no Holmes, but he may well be a pawn of Moriarty.
I agree, it was the wrong call--if the law is unconstitutional it should be put down. But the question is whether the outcome matches his intent. In that sense will he be vindicated (a partial one at best).
DeleteMy point is that if Roberts actually understood the consequences of the law AND thought it was unconstitutional (as indicated by his original draft of a decision), then his "let it burn" strategy is immoral. The massive damage done to Americans by his game-playing precludes its vindication by people like me, who disapprove of letting millions of people suffer in order to improve the electoral prospects of the Republicans in the next election cycle. Besides, I happen to think that a SCOTUS reversal of Obamacare would've hurt the preezy's reelection chances (idiot "const. law prof" can't figure out that his signature law violates the const.), so I don't even think Roberts' alleged strategy was all that brilliant.
DeleteThis sort of "one must break a few eggs to make an omelet" thinking is something I generally associate with marxists, not Supreme Court justices. And for all the outrage that's now out there, it's still very difficult to unmake an omelet.