John Yoo: Chief Justice Roberts and His Apologists

[Valin]

WSJ: JOHN YOO

6/29/12

 

White House judge-pickers sometimes ask prospective nominees about their favorite Supreme Court justice. The answers can reveal a potential judge's ideological leanings without resorting to litmus tests. Republican presidential candidates similarly promise to appoint more judges like so-and-so to reassure the conservative base.

 

Since his appointment to the high court in 2005, the most popular answer was Chief Justice John Roberts. But that won't remain true after his ruling on Thursday in NFIB v. Sebelius, which upheld President Barack Obama's signature health-care law.

 

(Snip)

 

All this is a hollow hope. 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). The limits on congressional coercion in the case of Medicaid may apply only because the amount of federal funds at risk in that program's expansion—more than 20% of most state budgets—was so great. If Congress threatens to cut off 5%-10% to force states to obey future federal mandates, will the court strike that down too? Doubtful.

 

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.

(Snip)

[Pepper]

@Valin

 

Comments are as good as the article.

[Valin]

@Valin

 

Comments are as good as the article.

 

 

Join the Fun. And as a plus (at least IMO) because it costs to join, this keeps the riff raff out.

 

 

This shameless Plug has been brought to you be the American Society of Steve's.

[Draggingtree]

I’m Not Down on John Roberts

 

Posted by Erick Erickson (Diary)

Thursday, June 28th at 11:35AM EDT

476 Comments

 

Having gone through the opinion, I am not going to beat up on John Roberts. I am disappointed, but I want to make a few points.

First, I get the strong sense from a few anecdotal stories about Roberts over the past few months and the way he has written this opinion that he very, very much was concerned about keeping the Supreme Court above the partisan fray and damaging the reputation of the Court long term. It seems to me the left was smart to make a full frontal assault on the Court as it persuaded Roberts.

Second, in writing his case, Roberts forces everyone to deal with the issue as a political, not a legal issue. In the past twenty years, Republicans have punted a number of issues to the Supreme Court asking the Court to save us from ourselves. They can’t do that with Roberts. They tried with McCain-Feingold, which was originally upheld. This case is a timely reminder to the GOP that five votes are not a sure thing.

Third, while Roberts has expanded the taxation power, which I don’t really think is a massive expansion from what it was, Roberts has curtailed the commerce clause as an avenue for Congressional overreach. In so doing, he has affirmed the Democrats are massive taxers. In fact, I would argue that this may prevent future mandates in that no one is going to go around campaigning on new massive tax increases. On the upside, I guess we can tax the hell out of abortion now. Likewise, in a 7 to 2 decision, the Court shows a strong majority still recognize the concept of federalism and the restrains of Congress in forcing states to adhere to the whims of the federal government.

Fourth, in forcing us to deal with this politically, the Read More

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/06/28/im-not-down-on-john-roberts/

[Valin]

@Draggingtree

 

That's a very small club Eric belongs to.

[Draggingtree]

@Draggingtree

 

That's a very small club Eric belongs to.

 

Well the only person I hear was Michael Savage warning us about C. J. Roberts that he predicted that after the Arizona ruling he thought HE would be the one that went with the libs on Obama care, Like I said in another posting that Holder was held in contempt by the Congress and Robert is held in contempt by the American people and me !!!

[Draggingtree]

@Draggingtree

 

That's a very small club Eric belongs to.

 

Pat Buchanan: ‘We’re Headed for Gettysburg’ After the ObamaTax Decision

 

Appearing on America’s Morning News today, America’s leading populist Pat Buchanan had strong words for the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the health care law’s individual mandate as a tax. Calling for “absolute unity” behind Mitt Romney as the GOP’s presidential nominee, Buchanan assailed Chief Justice John Roberts for making America “safe for socialism.”

“This is truly historic,” Buchanan said. “I can see what Chief Justice Roberts wants. He wants the Supreme Court to step up and away and outside all of these partisan battles they’ve had…the Read More http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/06/29/pat-buchanan-were-headed-for-gettysburg-after-the-obamatax-decision/

[Pepper]

@Draggintree

@Valin

 

A recent comment recommended 10 times so far

 

One hour ago Gilbert Zimmerman, Jr. Wrote:

 

I believe this is, without question, the most dangerous precedent ever established by the Supreme Court in modern history and I do not have any idea why it was that Roberts thought it necessary. I will speculate that apparently the politics of intimidation has now seeped into the Supreme Court. This is a tactical specialty of Obama and those who support him. This article should be run on the front page of the Journal and other similarly inclined publications every day until the election.

[Valin]

@Pepper

 

Thanks. Over the last couple of days I've seen this idea. What I am interested in, is John Roberts thought process in changing his mind. Why he thought it was his job to basically rewrite ACA.