Laurence Tribe: I think my former student, John Roberts, will vote to uphold ObamaCare

posted at 9:26 pm on June 26, 2012 by Allahpundit

Via the Examiner, I’ve been looking for tea leaves for you all day but this, unfortunately, is the best I can do. I don’t even regard it as tea leaves: I think Tribe is just pre-spinning the outcome so that, if the mandate is struck down, he can call Roberts a disappointment who betrayed his education in a fit of ideological pique, etc etc etc. But we’re starving for insight and this is, in its own lame way, an insight into Roberts’s thinking. As is this:

Eastman, a critic of the health care law, said he wouldn’t be surprised to see Roberts side with the Obama administration and uphold the law. “He’s a creature of the Washington administrative state. That’s his background,” the professor said, noting that Roberts has spent almost his entire professional life in Washington.

Scalia’s background is Beltway-heavy too yet his vote against ObamaCare seems a fait accompli.

More unconvincing tea leaves? Okay, how about the idea that Roberts’s vote in the Arizona case with Kennedy and the liberals presages a similar outcome on ObamaCare?

What the Arizona compromise will augur for the most closely watched case of the term is anyone’s guess. Yet the justices’ evident search for common ground in the immigration ruling and a few other cases this term could portend a healthcare decision that does not predictably cleave along political lines…

Overall, the judgment was modest, the tone cautious. It underscored the federal role in regulating immigration and largely rejected the effort by Arizona – and, by extension, several other states – to institute sweeping measures to stop people from illegally crossing the border.

The justices’ regard for national authority on dilemmas that cut across state boundaries could end up echoing in the healthcare ruling.

“Both problems transcend states’ borders and are too big for the states to solve on their own,” Duke University law professor Neil Siegel said, stressing that he did not want to predict how the court would rule on Thursday.

Jeffrey Rosen is pushing this line too over at TNR but you could just as easily argue that Roberts and Kennedy threw the left a bone in the Arizona ruling because they’re ready to tear their hearts out with O-Care. A party-line conservative majority on immigration on top of a party-line conservative majority on ObamaCare would have handed liberals a double-barreled weapon in arguing that the Roberts Court is hopelessly politicized. They’ll still argue that if they lose on O-Care, of course, but their point will be weakened because of the Arizona case.

Exit tea leaf: Even at this late date, Obama’s still warning his fundraising audiences about ObamaCare being struck down. How come?

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Walker I need evidence of this, he sided with the libs on Arizona, and he was open to mandates in the oral arguments was he not?

Conservative4ev on June 26, 2012 at 10:34 PM

He didn’t side with the libs, he sided with a strict constructionist view of the Constitution.

As Resist we Much pointed out,

Article I, Section 8: “The Congress shall have power…To establish a uniform rule of naturalization…To repel invasions…”

OK, so Naturalisation/Immigration are specifically mentioned, but let me look for anything pertaining to “problems (that) transcend states’ borders and are too big for the states to solve on their own”….hold on…

Article I, Section 10: No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.

No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.”

Conservative Credentials:
Arguably the most conservative Justice in recent US Supreme Court history, Clarence Thomas is well-known for his conservative/libertarian leanings. He strongly supports state’s rights and takes a strict constructivist approach to interpreting the US Constitution. He has consistently taken political conservative positions in decisions dealing with executive power, free speech, the death penalty and affirmative action. Thomas is unafraid of voicing his dissent with the majority, even when it is politically unpopular.

SWalker on June 26, 2012 at 10:43 PM

An interesting thought: give only ONE choice, would you rather see Indiv Mandate tossed (rest remains) or the complete docs. regarding Fast & Furious be released before the elections?

After Thurs., Mr. Issa’s stock could soar.

hillsoftx on June 26, 2012 at 10:37 PM

Gotta go with the mandate getting tossed. The citizen-to-government relationship hangs in the balance.

Bitter Clinger on June 26, 2012 at 10:44 PM

Swalker

I am sorry I was mixed up with Roberts, I am not worried about Thomas, Roberts scares me

Conservative4ev on June 26, 2012 at 10:48 PM

Rational Thought on June 26, 2012 at 10:24 PM

Bless you Mom’s heart…I hope at 75 I am still able to keep up…LOL. I do seriously worry about people no longer participating in the process. If ObamaCare is upheld there are going to be some that may simply give up. I hope not but I fear so.

d1carter on June 26, 2012 at 10:48 PM

6-3 uphold the whole thing……..I hope I’m wrong.

Roberts has already been pretty much threatened with being a pariah by the Progressive Gods that run DC…….

……and frankly has’nt he matured/evolved into a big gov lover?

And couldn’t he be on the court for another 25/30 years?

God help us survive the fools that rule us.

PappyD61 on June 26, 2012 at 10:49 PM

Commie Care is the progressive marxists crowing achievement and they have already made sure that it will get thru SCOTUS. This has been going on for generations and they are not about lose out now. The progressive marxists in both parties have set this up and they already know how it will come out. It will be 6-3 to uphold. I hate it, despise it, but that’s what it will be. Roberts will write the majority opinion as he and Kennedy join with the 4 marxists. Political solutions are no longer possible. Eventually most will realize that, lets just hope it’s not too late.

bgibbs1000 on June 26, 2012 at 10:51 PM

Del Dolemonte on June 26, 2012 at 10:42 PM

Ordinarily, recusals are announced sometime before opinions are delivered and, very often, the recused justice doesn’t even sit for oral arguments. Kagan will most assuredly be part of the decisions on Thursday.

Resist We Much on June 26, 2012 at 10:51 PM

6-3 uphold the whole thing……..I hope I’m wrong.

Roberts has already been pretty much threatened with being a pariah by the Progressive Gods that run DC…….

……and frankly has’nt he matured/evolved into a big gov lover?

And couldn’t he be on the court for another 25/30 years?

God help us survive the fools that rule us.

PappyD61 on June 26, 2012 at 10:49 PM

You’re probably going to be right. The constitution has been dying for awhile, and as more statist come into politicaloqer is commoners are their stooges. I will probably be with the 75 year old mom after Thursday if it is held up. No reason for me to go vote any longer nor anyone else. The ruling class will rule by mandate and all of us will be their subjects

Conservative4ev on June 26, 2012 at 10:53 PM

If I were in Tribe’s position, I’d keep my mouth shut. Making predictions of this sort hurts his credibility. There is no point to make by saying something like this. Sure, he can be “disappointed” when the law is struck down in whole or in part. But the fact remains he made a public statement that was wrong. That is bad judgment. Being disappointed isn’t going to undo the decision. On the other hand, knowing something we don’t, he might be right.

If, as many expect, the Court strikes Obamacare down, the karma for Democrats will have returned to them in kind. They rammed it through congress, and they will look silly claiming a partisan Court.

I don’t know what will happen. We all find out Thursday morning. I’m hoping for a full overturn of the whole law, and a stake through the heart of Wickard v Filburne.

zonataman on June 26, 2012 at 10:54 PM

Exit tea leaf: Even at this late date, Obama’s still warning his fundraising audiences about ObamaCare being struck down. How come?

Because, like all cult leaders, he herds followers and undecideds over the cliff of reason with fatalism, threats of ‘total destruction’ if and only if he is not kept in the tower, and demands for more of theirs, ever more, because it’s his destiny and theirs to submit all to him for his “challenges” against “challengers”.

Obama is herding more money his way because he’ll either have it in January for more luxuries or he’ll have it in January for a savings account for more luxuries. He needs the public to send him cash so he and the wife can live out their forties in perfect party-dom.

Lourdes on June 26, 2012 at 10:55 PM

so he and the wife can live out their forties in perfect party-dom.

Lourdes on June 26, 2012 at 10:55 PM

Don’t you mean their fifties??

SWalker on June 26, 2012 at 10:57 PM

Lourdes on June 26, 2012 at 10:55 PM

Even though Presidents typically become quite wealthy after leaving office, it will take quite an income to keep the Obamas living in the style to which they have become accustomed for the rest of their lives – they being so much younger than the average former Presidential couple. (Their daughters are going to be quite expensive as well.)

Even the Clintons weren’t so profligate. And they are smart with their money.

It’ll be interesting to see how the Obamas fare post-WH.

Missy on June 26, 2012 at 11:01 PM

Exit tea leaf: Even at this late date, Obama’s still warning his fundraising audiences about ObamaCare being struck down. How come?

If Kagan didn’t have the integrity to recuse herself, then I don’t see how she would have the integrity to keep the lid on this.

INC on June 26, 2012 at 9:37 PM

What I think, too (what INC wrote).

I’ve been wondering if Kagan refused to recuse herself because she wanted to lend as much instability, unreliability to the Court’s presumed decision (to strike the mandate). And I don’t know upon what context she bases her ability to remain involved in hearing OCare — never been explained, why she did NOT recuse herself.

Lourdes on June 26, 2012 at 11:02 PM

Lourdes on June 26, 2012 at 10:55 PM

Even though Presidents typically become quite wealthy after leaving office, it will take quite an income to keep the Obamas living in the style to which they have become accustomed for the rest of their lives – they being so much younger than the average former Presidential couple. (Their daughters are going to be quite expensive as well.)

Even the Clintons weren’t so profligate. And they are smart with their money.

It’ll be interesting to see how the Obamas fare post-WH.

Missy on June 26, 2012 at 11:01 PM

Candidates get to keep a lot of the campaign cash that isn’t spent. Which explains why Obama is pushing so desperately for “more caassh.”

Lourdes on June 26, 2012 at 11:03 PM

I’m not sure I’m the only one who believes this, but I do believe Laurence Tribe is an embarassment to the law. He’s one of the guys who helped draft the democrats court strategy with President George W. Bush. If you remember what it took to finally get judges appointed, the Democrats were filibustering and stopping appointments like crazy until finally, after 4 years, the Republicans called for the nuclear option.

If you want to talk about a strategy that throw the constitution out the window, in favor of partisan roles where the Senate does not allow a president to get his judicial nominees, not that they’re vetting them and doing a proper function, but they’re officially telling a president that he’s not going to get his appointments because they’re not Democrats and they’re not Liberal.

I believe that action, by the Democrats, doubled down on Borking and made the courts their line of defense for all those things they can’t pass by legislation.

This is Laurence Tribe and some day I hope he’s held responsible for dividing the country like he did.

bflat879 on June 26, 2012 at 11:04 PM

Lourdes on June 26, 2012 at 10:55 PM

Don’t you mean their fifties??

SWalker on June 26, 2012 at 10:57 PM

Whatever they’re in now. “Live out…” that. Just not in the White House, is my prayer.

Lourdes on June 26, 2012 at 11:05 PM

Just wait until 0bamacare gets a hold of ya.

SouthernGent on June 26, 2012 at 9:52 PM

Ha!

katy on June 26, 2012 at 11:05 PM

There should be a hot air poll tomorrow of predictions for Thursday’s ruling

Conservative4ev on June 26, 2012 at 11:07 PM

After Thurs., Mr. Issa’s stock could soar.

hillsoftx on June 26, 2012 at 10:37 PM

…depending upon how much of 0′care gets overturned, stocks will soar on Thursday (if done early enough in the day).

freedomfirst on June 26, 2012 at 11:08 PM

Candidates get to keep a lot of the campaign cash that isn’t spent. Which explains why Obama is pushing so desperately for “more caassh.”

Lourdes on June 26, 2012 at 11:03 PM

Maybe. I think he’ll come out in the red if his reported burn rate is accurate.

Of course they’ll be able to vacation and dine out on others’ dimes for a long time to come no matter what. But that doesn’t pay the bills.

Missy on June 26, 2012 at 11:08 PM

Gawd, what a bunch of debbie downers here. I am not that pessimistic, but I will cry my eyes out if the Supreme Court upholds this monstrosity because that will mean our republic is dead.

karenhasfreedom on June 26, 2012 at 11:09 PM

Lourdes on June 26, 2012 at 10:55 PM

Don’t you mean their fifties??

SWalker on June 26, 2012 at 10:57 PM

I was also implying a sarcastic reference there to their “oh, we work so haaard,” “we’re so put upon” “we deserve all these vacations and parties and we neeeed them/lobsters/luxuries/etc.”…

Once they’re out in January 2013, they can “live out” their (for lack of a better term for it) “retirement” in their forties/you say fifties because they “work so haard” and all the rest.

I, along with a lot of the public from what I read, is really at wit’s end with Obama and wife and all their complaints about how martyred they are due to all their hard labor while they wine and dine and flip everyone else off from their wealthy enclaves.

Never have two people illustrated greed, gluttony, self-absorbtion and vanity so completely as the two Obamas.

Lourdes on June 26, 2012 at 11:10 PM

Gawd, what a bunch of debbie downers here. ..

karenhasfreedom on June 26, 2012 at 11:09 PM

I see you caught a bit of the bug, too. Sorry.

freedomfirst on June 26, 2012 at 11:11 PM

Missy, I was talking about Obama’s post presidency with a relative this week. I explained to him how much Clinton made when he got out of office and why I don’t think Obama will rake in as much cash. I really believe that once obama is out of office, his mystique will be gone because he will no longer be a useful idiot to the powers behind him. He is not as popular as Clinton, thus he won’t get as many speaking engagements and I doubt if his books will sell that much.

karenhasfreedom on June 26, 2012 at 11:13 PM

Lourdes on June 26, 2012 at 11:03 PM

Maybe. I think he’ll come out in the red if his reported burn rate is accurate.

Of course they’ll be able to vacation and dine out on others’ dimes for a long time to come no matter what. But that doesn’t pay the bills.

Missy on June 26, 2012 at 11:08 PM

I’d bet that Obama has applied (already) considerable strong-arming to certain people with cash or with access to a lot of cash. He’s undoubtedly got certain “pay back” indebtedness lined up for his “after the White House” years, or perhaps an ongoing salary from Soros or a few Hollywood moguls or whatnot. Seriously, I doubt Barack has not already applied pressure in these regards, such as “you OWE me…”

Lourdes on June 26, 2012 at 11:13 PM

He is not as popular as Clinton, thus he won’t get as many speaking engagements and I doubt if his books will sell that much.

karenhasfreedom on June 26, 2012 at 11:13 PM

I’m betting Obama has a talk show lined up. Seriously.

Lourdes on June 26, 2012 at 11:14 PM

Gawd, what a bunch of debbie downers here. ..

karenhasfreedom on June 26, 2012 at 11:09 PM

I see you caught a bit of the bug, too. Sorry.

freedomfirst on June 26, 2012 at 11:11 PM

It’s hard not to. I just look back at something’s and when you think the right thing will happen, it doesn’t. Like everyone thought Casey would go to jail, she didn’t, oj didn’t. Eric holder will never be convicted, sandy burger was just sloppy. But firing a bunch of lawyers who work on behalf of the President, look out Bush needs impeachment and rove needs to go to jail.

If or when this mandate is upheld, will you be suprised? My answer is no, I will be depressed for my children that they will never know what freedom is, but we the people let this happen, well 53% of the American people let it happen by putting a Freedom hater in the WH.

It was a good run,

Conservative4ev on June 26, 2012 at 11:18 PM

Tribe should stop smoking the tea leaves.

MikeinPRCA on June 26, 2012 at 11:20 PM

If Kennedy and Roberts voted that you aren’t allowed to defend the country against a massive blend-in civilian-clothed military invasion from one or more hostile nations unless you catch the blenders in the commission of a crime, then I don’t expect any rational vote from either. Not that it’s clear that ObamaCare is unconstitutional. It should be unconstitutional, and an amendment to that end if ObamaCare is upheld will be of greater value to the Republicans than for the court to overthrow it. Do you know how painful it will be to implement this thing after all the hoopla?

Buddahpundit on June 26, 2012 at 11:23 PM

Tribe should stop smoking the tea leaves.

MikeinPRCA on June 26, 2012 at 11:20 PM

I don’t know what it is be he is smoking something.

The Rock on June 26, 2012 at 11:27 PM

I’m betting Obama has a talk show lined up. Seriously.

Lourdes on June 26, 2012 at 11:14 PM

Yeah, it’s called Neptune All Night.

Del Dolemonte on June 26, 2012 at 11:28 PM

Even at this late date, Obama’s still warning his fundraising audiences about ObamaCare being struck down.

This is the same guy who thinks you should forego gifts for momentous events in your life in lieu of donations to him. If Obamacare is upheld, he will fund raise on that also. I think it’s safe to say that he has all possibilities for fundraising covered.

Cindy Munford on June 26, 2012 at 11:38 PM

When has any of the 4 libs ever, ever taken a surprising conservative stand? I can’t recall any. When has a demo appointed lefty got to the court and gone full righty? Yet there are a myriad of examples where a judge from the right side of the court goes lefty either temporarily or full bloom. Not sure why that is, but it seems to be that way.

If Roberts cannot find the intestinal fortitude and Constitutional wisdom to come down on the correct side of this decision, then the conservative movement if full-well boned from a judicial standpoint and political victories for the executive and legislative branches will cease to matter.

The Hammer on June 26, 2012 at 11:47 PM

Absolutely correct, no sense of voting ever at that point

Conservative4ev on June 26, 2012 at 11:52 PM

We will find out soon. No use at speculating, although it is fun.

terryannonline on June 26, 2012 at 9:43 PM

I’m not so sure about ‘fun’. These are very trying times.

We, as a country, are around the bend already where ‘rule of law’ is concerned.

Troubling. diktat does not end well.

Levin, always keeps my lid from boiling over.
And, of course, the comments here.
Simmer…

mickytx on June 27, 2012 at 12:09 AM

I’m betting Obama has a talk show lined up. Seriously.

Lourdes on June 26, 2012 at 11:14 PM

Who would watch it?

karenhasfreedom on June 27, 2012 at 12:11 AM

I have thought since yesterday that if Roberts et al cannot decide for America in this immigration decision, then it is a portent of what is to come on Thursday! I fully expect the court to cave on Obamacare. They have been warned by the prez and surely don’t want to be called racist now do they?

AnnaS on June 27, 2012 at 12:12 AM

Levin, always keeps my lid from boiling over.
And, of course, the comments here.
Simmer…

mickytx on June 27, 2012 at 12:09 AM

Sometimes I think Levin is the only voice of reason in the wilderness. His rants on the immigration ruling yesterday and his rants on the EPA ruling today just got me all stirred up and I doubled down on my hatred of the ruling GOP class in Congress who seem to lose their “nads” when they get to the Capitol Building.

Sarah Palin said it right in Madison over a year ago – “FIGHT LIKE A GIRL”

Seriously, we need to more “mama grizzlies” (male or female) elected in November at all levels of government and begin the hard work of unraveling the destruction that progressivism has brought to this country over the past 100 years.

Why would ANYONE think it is a good idea for an unelected panel of politically connected nobodies to decide whether or not grandma or even THEM gets a medical procedure that is needed? How could 53% of the people be so willing to surrender their liberty?

I JUST DON’T GET IT!!!!!!!

karenhasfreedom on June 27, 2012 at 12:17 AM

karenhasfreedom on June 26, 2012 at 11:09 PM

Twice.
Never give up. Like you need that from the likes of me.
I never give up. I’ll never give up.

mickytx on June 27, 2012 at 12:18 AM

I still think 6-3 the mandate goes but 5-4 the bill stays stripped of mandate. Rationale? Something weird happens to ambulance chasers once they don the black bathrobes of judgeship. They start thinking they are “statesmen” (LOL). But even “statesmen” want to leave some kind of legacy-and the mandate is so blatantly anti-democratic (small d) that anyone voting for it would henceforth be branded in perpetuity with the imprimatur “POLITICAL HACK”-not what they want on their historical resumes. Also, there is at least a 50-50 chance that a presidential successor will undo executively what was accomplished legislatively and approved judicially.

But these “statesmen” can have their cake and eat it. They can soothe their consciences-but voting 5-4 for a “toothless lion” of a bill, sans mandate, they can state unequivocally WE UPHELD THE BILL!!!-but of course now a bill totally emasculated and hence doomed to failure.

I pray that this or a similar scenario play out–but who can say for sure with “statesmen” aka ball-less liberal cowards.

MaiDee on June 27, 2012 at 12:22 AM

Why do none of the talking heads consider the idea that one or more of the ‘liberals’ will vote against the mandate? All the coverage has been on if a ‘conservative’ will flip and how the ‘conservatives’ will vote. These include the same talking heads that couldn’t comprehend the law could be considered unconstitutional just a few months ago.

MechanicalBill on June 27, 2012 at 12:22 AM

In the Arizona case Roberts was on firmer constitutional ground – defending the borders is traditionally federal responsibility, even if that’s no longer taken seriously.

This is true. It’s the job of the voter to change the government if they don’t like it. They can’t do it from the bench. True it would help if they ruled Arizona’s way. But that’s not their job.

MechanicalBill on June 27, 2012 at 12:31 AM

I’m betting Obama has a talk show lined up. Seriously.

Lourdes on June 26, 2012 at 11:14 PM

Who would watch it?

karenhasfreedom on June 27, 2012 at 12:11 AM

Chrissy Matthews and Larry O’Doughnut ?

viking01 on June 27, 2012 at 12:32 AM

Mechanicalbill it is because conservatives always cave! They are afraid of being called mean or worse yet-racist! The Dems NEVER ever cave!

AnnaS on June 27, 2012 at 12:48 AM

Well, Larry. If he does Roberts must be as crazy as you are.
I am sure you do not feel yourself crazy. In fact I believe that you perceive anyone that would call you crazy as being the same. But that is because you have devolved into nothing but a useless hack who will do anything to support your precious Democrats. To maintain the illusion that you are a real scholar rather than a plagiarist and a has been, who would sellout the nation to maintain airtime and kudos from the press, who always agree with you. To have positive comments about the latest useless Law Review article you have the undergraduates pen for you. You are a disgrace.
Why not reread the Federalist Papers again, rather than practice the pretend law you have been engaged in for the last 20 years.

pat on June 27, 2012 at 12:58 AM

I believe that Obama already knows the outcome. And if he knew the outcome was in his favor he would already be doing victory laps and spiking the ball. He couldn’t help himself. The fact he’s not doing that gives me hope that the outcome is in the favor of “We The People”.

mpthompson on June 27, 2012 at 1:35 AM

Roberts and Kennedy threw the left a bone in the Arizona ruling because they’re ready to tear their hearts out with O-Care

If you say stuff like this, do me a favor. Shut. Up. You do not know the practice of law. You have never been in judicial chambers. You are just talking out your ass.

Nobody throws bones at the appellate level.

Nobody says “I’m going to violate my view of the law or constitution for the sake of some other law.”

They may believe what they believe for dumb reasons, but they most certainly mean it. People who believe that Justices trace “favors” have so little sense of the court that they should be in the same category as people at CNN who admonish us to not be “nosy” about certain things.

chapman on June 27, 2012 at 1:37 AM

All the comments about throwing the libs a bone here so they can vote this way there or changing a vote in order to write the opinion. Is that really the way judges should decide a case?

AndrewsDad on June 27, 2012 at 1:40 AM

I guess the supremes must have thick skins, but if I were one, I would rule against obama on everything until he learns not to threaten me.

Bambi on June 27, 2012 at 1:41 AM

We must remember that Kagan already told Obama the score. Sotomayer at least tries. I don’t think Kagan can.

pat on June 27, 2012 at 1:54 AM

Here a question I have about ObamaCare:

Assuming it stays intact, including the mandate (I think the whole thing will be thrown out on Thursday, but we’ll see), how will it affect ex-pats? I live in the Philippines and I was able to opt out of Medicare because I can’t receive services here. Will they make me pay for ObamaCare, even though I can’t receive services? I obtain and pay for my own healthcare here (out of my SSDI benefits) – will that be enough for them or will they tell me to “pay up or get fined”?

Another question: isn’t the funding for ObamaCare dependent on the mandate? If the mandate is shot down, doesn’t the funding for ObamaCare disappear?

Timothy S. Carlson on June 27, 2012 at 1:57 AM

It was IMO obvious Obama got a heads up when he threw his first hissy fit..I don’t think that has changed. Second I think the judges who will rule against this will do so because they see a diminishing in power of their branch if they allow this kind of change between the government and the citizens as Kennedy said. I mean basically if it’s upheld there isn’t much left to quibble about. The other two branches can do just about any d**n thing they please. It would contribute to their own irrelevance. Obama’s posture continues to imply he knows at least the mandate is gone.

bluesdoc70 on June 27, 2012 at 2:21 AM

Tribe is the quintessential liberal. He doesn’t regard the words of the Constitution as having any more meaning than the current SCOTUS wants to lend it. In other words, the Constitution has no protections of individual rights.

theCork on June 27, 2012 at 3:14 AM

This post is a bunch of mulch.

Sherman1864 on June 27, 2012 at 4:41 AM

This is wishful thinking by liberal analysts.

Immigration is in the Federal Constitution as a responsibility of the Federal government.

Expanding the Commerce Clause to require individuals to buy medical insurance is not.

slp on June 27, 2012 at 5:19 AM

How silly we are to place our freedom in the hands of a few lawyers -all of whom are political appointments.

None have the authority to overrule Nature’s God and take away our fundamental rights.
He who lives by the law(yer), dies by the law(yer)

Don L on June 27, 2012 at 5:58 AM

nother question: isn’t the funding for ObamaCare dependent on the mandate? If the mandate is shot down, doesn’t the funding for ObamaCare disappear?

Timothy S. Carlson on June 27, 2012 at 1:57 AM

Watch for that $500 billion he stole from medicare to disappear down some socialist rat-hole also, if “O-Care” gets its just due.

Don L on June 27, 2012 at 6:05 AM

The mandate will get struck down 5-4. Who knows what the rest of the decision will contain?

MJBrutus on June 27, 2012 at 6:08 AM

Ah, the liberal academia, so out of touch with reality they live in a make believe world. So of course Tribe believes Robers will uphold that horrible legislation.

sadatoni on June 27, 2012 at 6:32 AM

Tribe is the hack who told Robert Bork that the Constitution isn’t actually law, it’s just a guideline. Let us hope that Roberts did not learn anything from Tribe.

eyedoc on June 27, 2012 at 6:38 AM

I expect it all to be upheld. All these pictures of Ginsburg have her smiling. Pelosi knows whats going on I am sure.

JellyToast on June 27, 2012 at 6:45 AM

5-4 The whole act is struck down. This entire argument hinges on the mandate; you take the mandate out, they’d be arguing the leftovers for years…maybe decades. The Justices don’t have the time or inclination for that. A 5-4 overturn is also a political win-win. Conservatives claim victory in (rightfully) saving the Republic once again, and Liberals can use this to stoke the re-election hopes of the boy king. …everyone goes home in a limo. (Except for people who still have no jobs, and probably by extension, no health care.)

Perhaps if the Boy King was really interested in Health Care for everyone…he’d work on the economy instead. Because chances are, if you have a JOB you have health care coverage.

a5minmajor on June 27, 2012 at 7:06 AM

This post is a bunch of mulch.

Sherman1864 on June 27, 2012 at 4:41 AM

I agree.

insidiator on June 27, 2012 at 7:32 AM

Ridiculous post.

Haunches on June 27, 2012 at 7:58 AM

If you say stuff like this, do me a favor. Shut. Up. You do not know the practice of law. You have never been in judicial chambers. You are just talking out your ass.

Wait, what? Did I hallucinate reading that AP is in fact a practicing lawyer?

mrsknightley on June 27, 2012 at 8:19 AM

Pelosi would not have made her comment regarding 6-3 if she did not know. Ginsberg was referring to the majority who thought the mandate would be struck down. I believe it will be upheld 6-3. If it is upheld the constitution is dead and we become subjects rather than citizens. There will be nothing an all powerful federal government cannot make you do. If this happens I am going to significantly change the way I live. If they think I am going to play by the rules when they have none they are mistaken. Jail me because I will cancel all my current insurance and I WILL NOT be forced to buy any, period!

Doomsday on June 27, 2012 at 8:26 AM

To quote Robert Bork, “Tribe’s constitutional theory is protean, and takes whatever form is necessary to justify a given result.”

I expect that’s his basis for hoping that Roberts will want to uphold the health care fiasco.

morganfrost on June 27, 2012 at 8:35 AM

I would not be surprised to see Sotaoayor vote to strike down the mandate. I am surprised that in all this discussion of Roberts vote on the Arizona case as an indicator that he will support Obamacare nobody has noted that the wise Latina voted in favor of the Arizona Law. It may turn out that Sotomayor is to the libs what Justice Souter was to conservatives. So I will play the outsider game an go against conventional wisdom. The mandate will go down 6-3 with Sotomayor voting with the majority. If I am right I become an expert. If I am wrong nobody will remember

jerryofva on June 27, 2012 at 8:58 AM

Unfortunately, Tribe may be correct. Roberts doesn’t seem to be as rock ribbed conservative as he has been touted to be. No one seems to have our backs in this or anything else. We can’t even keep our light bulbs so why should we expect to be able to keep our doctors.

Kissmygrits on June 27, 2012 at 9:03 AM

Soooo, we lose in the courts, we’d best get our rears in gear to elect a Republican Senate and President. Which brings up something I heard on the radio this morning: Republicans taking the Senate is an almost impossible heavy lift? Why aren’t we talking about that?

AND–I can’t believe this one, I really can’t—Arizona and TEXAS are in Obama’s BLUE column?! Someone from those states please explain.

Portia46 on June 27, 2012 at 9:04 AM

scared at even the thought of SCOTUS giving the US government this much power.

katablog.com on June 27, 2012 at 9:19 AM

It’ll be interesting to see how the Obamas fare post-WH.

Missy on June 26, 2012 at 11:01 PM

It’s hard to spend when you’re in Leavenworth.

Mr. Arrogant on June 27, 2012 at 9:19 AM

Larry Tribe was right about the 2nd Amendment being a personal right and told his fellow progressives that if they didn’t like it they should amend the constitution.

Nexialist on June 27, 2012 at 9:26 AM

Jeffrey Rosen is pushing this line too over at TNR but you could just as easily argue that Roberts and Kennedy threw the left a bone in the Arizona ruling because they’re ready to tear their hearts out with O-Care.

If you believe this, then you are saying that ‘yes, Roberts *is* a craptastic judge’. “Throwing them a bone?” When did that become a consideration in legal deliberation for a judge? Wouldn’t that be up there with consulting Scottish law while you’re at it?

WTF are you smoking over there, AP?

Midas on June 27, 2012 at 9:30 AM

Pelosi would not have made her comment regarding 6-3 if she did not know. Ginsberg was referring to the majority who thought the mandate would be struck down. I believe it will be upheld 6-3. If it is upheld the constitution is dead and we become subjects rather than citizens. There will be nothing an all powerful federal government cannot make you do. If this happens I am going to significantly change the way I live. If they think I am going to play by the rules when they have none they are mistaken. Jail me because I will cancel all my current insurance and I WILL NOT be forced to buy any, period!

Doomsday on June 27, 2012 at 8:26 AM

You may not have noticed, but the Constitution is already dead, and we’re already being treated as subjects. Most of us just haven’t realized it yet.

Midas on June 27, 2012 at 9:32 AM

I have a bad feeling on this one. I cannot figure out why they would wait for the last minute on it. Oh well, I guess we will know by this time tomorrow. If they uphold this monstrosity I will have lost faith. Maybe I will quit my job, see what free stuff I can qualify for and tell the grandkids they are on their own!

shar61 on June 27, 2012 at 10:19 AM

Some people have predicted that Roberts and Kennedy will uphold this mandate, but write the opinion in such a way that it casts doubt on other mandates. However, there is no logical way to draw such a line, at least in the health area. I will be deeply disappointed if they embrace such nonsense. I want it to be found unconstitutional, but if it is upheld, they need t accept the logical result of their decision.

McDuck on June 27, 2012 at 10:26 AM

The EPA decision was not exactly reassuring. WTH?

Kenosha Kid on June 27, 2012 at 10:28 AM

A party-line conservative majority on immigration on top of a party-line conservative majority on ObamaCare would have handed liberals a double-barreled weapon in arguing that the Roberts Court is hopelessly politicized.

How about “who cares what the leftest freaks say who say and do anything they think is necessary to gain, maintain, or increase their power over us?”? Are the laws constitutional based on the founders intent?

yhxqqsn on June 27, 2012 at 10:33 AM

When has any of the 4 libs ever, ever taken a surprising conservative stand? I can’t recall any. When has a demo appointed lefty got to the court and gone full righty? Yet there are a myriad of examples where a judge from the right side of the court goes lefty either temporarily or full bloom. Not sure why that is, but it seems to be that way.

If Roberts cannot find the intestinal fortitude and Constitutional wisdom to come down on the correct side of this decision, then the conservative movement if full-well boned from a judicial standpoint and political victories for the executive and legislative branches will cease to matter.

The Hammer on June 26, 2012 at 11:47 PM

The 9-0 decisions in the Sackett (EPA wetlands) case and the religious employment case suprised a lot of Court-watchers. And don’t forget that the essential part of Bush v. Gore, the finding that the selective recount in Florida violated equal protection, was a 7-2 decision. The Court also recently ruled 9-0 in a more obscure mortgage lending case in which the Obama Administration filed a brief for the losing side. So the Administration actually is having a very bad year in the Court and many decisions are not coming down 5-4.

rockmom on June 27, 2012 at 10:37 AM

Some people have predicted that Roberts and Kennedy will uphold this mandate, but write the opinion in such a way that it casts doubt on other mandates. However, there is no logical way to draw such a line, at least in the health area. I will be deeply disappointed if they embrace such nonsense. I want it to be found unconstitutional, but if it is upheld, they need t accept the logical result of their decision.

McDuck on June 27, 2012 at 10:26 AM

I’m guessing that one of the reasons this opinion has taken so long to write is that Kennedy wanted to uphold this mandate but couldn’t find any way to limit such an expansion of the Commerce Clause. He asked repeatedly for the government to give him a limit, and Verrilli failed to do so.

The government’s case for the mandate was extremely weak, and was demolished in briefs and in oral arguments.

rockmom on June 27, 2012 at 10:41 AM

They passed it via reconciliation, we erase it in Jan. with the same process, presuming we take Cong+Pres.

hillsoftx on June 26, 2012 at 10:37 PM

Interesting. Can the House repeal Obamacare through reconciliation without the Senate, simply reversing the process, as long as the President signs on? Do legislative rules permit this?

I suppose the House could simply refuse to fund it and dare the Dems in the Senate to block that.

Meanwhile President Romney could issue an executive order instructing the Executive branch to cease and desist implementing Obamacare, pending votes in Congress. King Obama has set a precedent for ignoring laws he doesn’t like — “because it’s the right thing to do” — and issuing EOs to not enforce them. Let the minority Dems scream and yell. Romney would have public opinion behind him, as Obama seems to think he does for selectively ignoring immigration laws nationally and in AZ.

farsighted on June 27, 2012 at 10:48 AM

Wow – whenever I need a good stiff shot of despair I’ll know to come here! ;-)

Does everyone really think that NO judicial consideration will be given to the way this bill was passed? It is a nearly 3,000 page monstrosity with authors unknown. It changed and morphed on a daily basis, sometimes behind closed doors in the dead of night, to the point that no one ever really knew which version they were voting on. It was passed by such dubious practices as “deeming”, kickbacks, bribes, back room deals and widespread promises of exemption. It is packed with a rat’s nest of crap that has absolutely nothing to do with health care. For a supposedly “duly passed” piece of legislation, it was never “duly read”, let alone “duly understood.” It’s so-called promise of “not adding a dime” to the deficit is an out-and-out lie based on accounting deception and trickery. The Witch-Speaker of the House cackled that we have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it – and many of the juiciest poison apples won’t take effect until well after future elections.

Honestly, if Roberts really does uphold this bill, I will take to drinking heavily and wait until the Death Panel denies my liver transplant on the basis of both my alcoholism and my conservatism.

Logic on June 27, 2012 at 10:53 AM

You may not have noticed, but the Constitution is already dead, and we’re already being treated as subjects. Most of us just haven’t realized it yet.

Midas on June 27, 2012 at 9:32 AM

^^ This … and it’s not just Obama and Dimmocrit’s fault – it was enabled every step of the way by a lying and corrupt Republican Party that expanded government at every turn while promising to cut it – and by refusing to execute their role of Congressional oversight against a dictator.

Eff ‘em all.

HondaV65 on June 27, 2012 at 10:53 AM

Even though Presidents typically become quite wealthy after leaving office, it will take quite an income to keep the Obamas living in the style to which they have become accustomed for the rest of their lives – they being so much younger than the average former Presidential couple. (Their daughters are going to be quite expensive as well.)

Missy on June 26, 2012 at 11:01 PM

The Obamas will be treated like royalty in Chicagoland for the rest of their lives. And that includes their children. The will be lionized like the Kennedys have been in Boston.

Anyone living in Chicagoland will be hearing about the Obamas on a weekly basis for the rest of their lives, if they follow local news.

I suspect liberal United states will do much the same, but not quite to the extent Obamaland will.

Jimmah has been marginalized and most Dems want little to do with him, but he was not the First Black President of the United States of America.

It will be worse if he is re-elected.

farsighted on June 27, 2012 at 10:56 AM

If the SCOTUS doesn’t strike this law down – then it will be devastating for conservatives. First – it will be spun as … “Well there you go Conservatives, you were wrong all the time and, silly yous! The vote wasn’t even close!! LOL!!”

Also – if Roberts goes with the libs – that is the BEST “cover” for the establishment Ayatollahs in the GOP to stop talking about repeal of O-Care and start talking about embracing it. In their heart of hearts – this is what they wish to do. The only thing they don’t like is Obama has his name on it – and they wish it were theirs.

If Willy McDole is elected – I suspect the law will be “tweeked” just enough to remove the stink of Obama’s name on it – but it will still be a budget busting leviathan. Only thing is – it will be the GOP Ayatollah’s budget busting leviathan which means the Conservative Slaves on HotAir will embrace in completely!

LOL

HondaV65 on June 27, 2012 at 10:59 AM

LOL

HondaV65 on June 27, 2012 at 10:59 AM

^My response to the first three paragraphs of your post.

Mr. Prodigy on June 27, 2012 at 11:04 AM

Well, tomorrow we’ll find out whether the expression “it’s a free country” no longer applies around these parts.

I’m sick with worry.

ElectricPhase on June 27, 2012 at 11:09 AM

A couple of points – I think Roberts is pretty much as comfortable with himself as anyone can be – having spoken to a number of lawyers who have worked with him they say he is just about as unassuming and down to earth as they get. He will rule how he thinks the Constitution demands him to. He is a man of integrity and honor – even the dem lawyers in that group agree.

Obama will not be loved in Chicago unless he wants to come back in the Jesse mode. Radical black politicians in Chicago are tolerated in the running of the city machine – nothing more. Once Obama is no longer useful to them (and Michelle my belle is actually pretty much despised by most of the machine movers and shakers) it will be difficult for him to generate the funds to live the lifestyle to which he has become accustomed.

He will do fine, he will have been a president of the US, and none of them want for much of anything I can imagine. But Chicago will grow weary of a thin skinned narcissist who no longer has any clout. Remember, he talks to almost no one in Washington, so he isn’t building up alot of chits and contacts that can be helpful to others later on.

Zomcon JEM on June 27, 2012 at 11:14 AM

I guess I still do not understand why the complete lack of anything resembling a severibility clause in ObambiCareless would allow the law to stand if ANY portion of it is overturned.

PJ Emeritus on June 27, 2012 at 11:31 AM

People have been way too quick to get cocky about what is supposedly going to happen tomorrow.

Better to let it actually happen first.

Moesart on June 27, 2012 at 11:33 AM

It is interesting that I heard on Fox just a few minutes ago that if Kennedy is writing the decision it would mean that it will go much farther than if Roberts is writing it. It is because Roberts does not like the SCOTUS to re-write law voted by Congress. However, 24 hours from now we may know.

Voter from WA State on June 27, 2012 at 10:53 AM

I think that’s right. Roberts is not a fan of Kennedy’s expansive jurisprudence. Kennedy is much more concerned about outcomes, while Roberts is more inclined to look at the law and let the policymakers worry about the outcomes. I think a Roberts opinion is more likely to gain a broad consensus and not have many separate concurrences and dissents, which will also be helpful in this case. Kennedy always seems to be on an island by himself, and that’s the last thing anyone wants in this case.

rockmom on June 27, 2012 at 11:34 AM

I have a bad feeling on this one. I cannot figure out why they would wait for the last minute on it. Oh well, I guess we will know by this time tomorrow. If they uphold this monstrosity I will have lost faith. Maybe I will quit my job, see what free stuff I can qualify for and tell the grandkids they are on their own!

shar61 on June 27, 2012 at 10:19 AM | Delete | Delete and Ban

1. Roberts will try to swing one of the libs over.
2. It’s giant bill and the libs will want to save any part they can
3. They need to be out of town when it is released, so it has to be the last one.

pedestrian on June 27, 2012 at 11:36 AM

I think Obama will cash in on his bogus nobel peace prize and go for some international role possibly with the UN. He thinks the being POTUS is holding him back. He will never shut up and neither will Michelle. I have no clue what will happen with Obamacare but Im praying the entire thing goes and we can just start over.

ldbgcoleman on June 27, 2012 at 11:42 AM

Zomcon JEM on June 27, 2012 at 11:14 AM

We shall see about how Chicago treats Obama once he is no longer President. A lot depends on how Obama conducts himself.

A buddy of his is the sitting the mayor, probably for life if he chooses. The local media is currently in constant non-stop swoon mode, is totally supportive of his Presidency, and is unabashedly and completely biased in his favor. Chicago has historically voted about 80-85% Dem in Presidential elections. Local Republican opposition is so non-existent there is no longer a general election for mayor — the Democratic primary IS the mayoral election. Obama’s Chicago based long time big money financial supporters are unlikely to abandon him. As the former First Black President Obama could make himself into a money making machine if he chooses.

farsighted on June 27, 2012 at 11:47 AM

He is not as popular as Clinton, thus he won’t get as many speaking engagements and I doubt if his books will sell that much.

karenhasfreedom on June 26, 2012 at 11:13 PM

I agree with you on all of this. Sure, he will try to cash in, but can he really make enough money to maintain his current lifestyle “burn rate” for the next 30 plus years? And pay for clothes and vacays for Michelle and the girls at the same time? So much of what he gets now is paid for by the taxpayer, and aside from his security, most of that goes away when he leaves the WH.

I just don’t see it. Some rich people love him a lot, but many of them are going to be done with him after investing so much in a loser.

I wouldn’t be surprised if Obama left the country more or less permanently. His style of corruption would fit in quite well in many parts of the world.

Missy on June 27, 2012 at 11:55 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3