Constitutional Law


Roberts went along with upholding the health care law because he knows that to have overturned it 5-4 would so severely have discredited the Supreme Court that it would have interfered with his ability to obtain policy goals that really matter to the plutocrats he serves (who really don’t give the slightest flying fucke about the health care law per se).

Comments

  1. Chebag says

    How is yet one more 5-4 decision based on political party instead of anything resembling coherent and consistent judicial philosophy going to matter? They’ve been stacking 5-4s up like cordwood in the Roberts Court.

  2. Tx Skeptic says

    Roberts doesn’t give a flip about the courts legitimacy per se. If he did, he would have made a mea culpa in the Citizens United case by voting to uphold the Montana campaign finance law this week. This ruling is the best politically for the GOP whether the blow-hards know it or not.

    A defeat of the ACA would have unleashed a full court press by progressives to replace it with public option/single payer/medicare for all. Even Obama would have jumped on-board this time, especially since he is in his campaign progressive mode. A contrary ruling would have been just what the left needed to rally the base for the election cycle and potentially flip the house back, and get the senate filibuster proof.

    The only reason the right gives a flip about “Obamacare”, is the Obama part. Roberts vote here was the best politically to defuse the situation and may have just saved the GOP’s bacon.

  3. thisisaturingtest says

    Roberts vote here was the best politically to defuse the situation and may have just saved the GOP’s bacon.

    Not to mention the fact that Roberts’ use of the word “tax” gives the “Obama, therefore bad” crowd a new weapon to play with. Witness Sarah Palin and “Obama lied to the American people. Again. He said it wasn’t a tax. Obama lies; freedom dies.” Never mind that the the tax referred to by the President (regular taxes that everybody pays, which will not go up due to the individual mandate, just as he said) is totally different than the purely constitutional construction of the word use by the Court, and which will not apply to the something like 96% of the population who will not face the choice of new insurance or the fine. It’s simple for Simple Sarah to frame it as “OMG!!!!!!111!!1! Massive new tax for all Americans”- even when she may know better (and I’m not sure she’s smart enough to)- and useful to her, because, let’s face it- what percentage of the American people are going to get the difference, if she doesn’t?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>