“This could be a huge day in the evolution of Chief Justice Roberts as a great chief justice”
Many scholars have said that Chief Justice Roberts sought to balance his own conservatism with his desire to build faith in the law and the nation’s legal institutions. But it was still striking to hear Mr. Roberts, who arrived on the court in 2005 appointed by George W. Bush, announce the upholding of the central legislative pillar of the Obama administration. He did arrive on the bench asserting the desire to restore the court’s reputation and reduce partisan rhetoric. But he was seen by many, at least on the left, as a right-winger more devoted to conservative politics than the purity of the law. That could change.
“This could be a huge day in the evolution of Chief Justice Roberts as a great chief justice,” Laurence H. Tribe, the liberal Harvard law professor, said. 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 charged. “I have some sense of gratification,” he said.
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 Next »
And if the decision had gone the other way, he’d be the new Hitler and there’d be talk of dismantling the Court.
changer1701 on June 28, 2012 at 4:18 PM
Until he rules against the libs.
Rich on June 28, 2012 at 4:18 PM
By “great,” I guess Tribe means “liberal.”
If the GOP does not strike down this monstrosity, the party deserves to go the way of the Whigs.
Laura Curtis on June 28, 2012 at 4:19 PM
He’s not there to “evolve” he’s there to uphold the constitution.
Blake on June 28, 2012 at 4:19 PM
Happy John? You will now get all the adulation from the liberal media that you’ve ever wanted.
The Count on June 28, 2012 at 4:19 PM
These people are so damn predictable.
Kataklysmic on June 28, 2012 at 4:21 PM
This is simply proof that someone has pictures of him with underage boys.
To say he’s some sort of brilliant mind that transcends politics is just fooling yourself.
CycloneCDB on June 28, 2012 at 4:21 PM
Barf.
Bouncing Beatnik on June 28, 2012 at 4:21 PM
Obama/Roberts ’12!
inthemiddle on June 28, 2012 at 4:22 PM
Krauthammer’s take, as there’s not a link on HA yet: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/roberts-saved-obamacare-article-1.1104128
Tacitus on June 28, 2012 at 4:24 PM
This is so funny because they would have killed him in the press if he would have done the right thing. But since he rolled over he will be lavished. This is why Robert’s did what he did. He didn’t want to deal with all the attention he would get from the press. He is a coward and he betrayed his country.
magicbeans on June 28, 2012 at 4:24 PM
A+++++++
Would laugh at again.
tetriskid on June 28, 2012 at 4:24 PM
The NYT is a Fluke.
Schadenfreude on June 28, 2012 at 4:26 PM
In other words, they will keep making sure he toes the liberal line before they pronounce him for real.
Difficultas_Est_Imperium on June 28, 2012 at 4:26 PM
Classic carrot and stick. They think they’ve found a greater traitor than Souter.
tommyboy on June 28, 2012 at 4:27 PM
“Roberts, yo, you a weak ass n$*%# yo. You shoulda stay out in the country, yo”
JamesSeanMcKeane on June 28, 2012 at 4:27 PM
May all the Leftists spontaneously suffocate of their own hypocrisy.
Schadenfreude on June 28, 2012 at 4:27 PM
Roberts just turned the Affordable Healthcare Act into the Unaffordable Healthcare Tax.
And liberals are praising him for it.
That’s one smart man, there.
The Resolute Desk on June 28, 2012 at 4:28 PM
Probably exactly what the SOB is hoping for. Like Bush or Obama, he wants a legacy, regardless of what that means for the “little guy”.
rickv404 on June 28, 2012 at 4:28 PM
When MSNBC and CNN didn’t yet know what happened they thought he was a Nazzi.
Schadenfreude on June 28, 2012 at 4:28 PM
Hysterical. This is the same guy who upheld Citizens United just a week ago.
Just shows you how nothing matters to the NYT except saving Obama’s ass. Which this ruling doesn’t even do, though of course the morons at the NYT are too stupid to figure that out.
rockmom on June 28, 2012 at 4:28 PM
According to Gallup, north of 72% of the public thought the law was unconstitutional. This is not a restorative moment.
theperfecteconomist on June 28, 2012 at 4:28 PM
Ah, “evolution.” Isn’t it always “evolution” when a liberal outs himself to become a prouder liberal?
Well, I am a creationist. I don’t believe in evolution.
Although de-evolution is a fair concept. For instance how the USA de-evolved from a Constitutional Republic to a Fascist Dictatorship.
Gingotts on June 28, 2012 at 4:29 PM
72% of the public hasn’t even read the Constitution. They wanted the Court to overturn a law because they don’t like it. And guess what, now they are going to dislike it EVEN MORE because they are going to find out IT’S A TAX!!!
rockmom on June 28, 2012 at 4:30 PM
Funny, what happend to all the screaming that a 5-4 decision would damage the reputation of the court, showing it’s true political nature?
WisRich on June 28, 2012 at 4:31 PM
Underlying presumption: these two cannot exist together in absolutes.
Meric1837 on June 28, 2012 at 4:37 PM
Roberts decided he liked being the toast of the liberal Washington social scene more than defending the constitution he swore to protect. And he isn’t the first Justice to be co-opted thusly.
tommyboy on June 28, 2012 at 4:37 PM
My first reaction was this also…
Difficultas_Est_Imperium on June 28, 2012 at 4:38 PM
Carville is delusional
Schadenfreude on June 28, 2012 at 4:38 PM
Always great for liberals when Republican-appointees “evolve” towards there positions. As for liberals evolving to the conservative side of the aisle? Don’t hold your breath.
JDF123 on June 28, 2012 at 4:39 PM
This writeup is the carrot to the stick that swayed him. Not every justice has the courage of their convictions. In the words of an observer whom I forget, the atmosphere on the Supreme Court is rarefied air. These justices don’t sit in coffins most of the year. They’re feted in the most elite settings around the world. Republican presidents prove to be guileless fools in choosing nominees.
Closing thought: this is why cons burned down a Republican White House to get Alito. Could you imagine if we *hadn’t*? If we listened to the same sort as this NYT writer? “John Roberts and Harriet Miers” is the sort of legacy G W Bush deserves.
HitNRun on June 28, 2012 at 4:40 PM
THIS.
Bitter Clinger on June 28, 2012 at 4:40 PM
Activist judges are ok, all of a sudden.
They are not stupid, just intoxicated from what they eat, Obama’s caca, which they mistake for Beluga caviar.
Schadenfreude on June 28, 2012 at 4:41 PM
So not only is Obama an egomaniac, his favorite professor at Harvard was one.
radjah shelduck on June 28, 2012 at 4:41 PM
If Willard wins in november, lets get some oppo research on Roberts and impeach him if we find something. For some reason Im feelin kinda petty towards the CJ today….
Valkyriepundit on June 28, 2012 at 4:41 PM
When you are on the extreme,it is easy…. On both sides.
Can.I.be.in.the.middle on June 28, 2012 at 4:41 PM
Not to mention Sackett and Hosanna-Tabor. Hosanna should make a good precedent for the challenge to the contraceptive mandate, and the “religious organizations are just another kind of non-profit corporation, and we can regulate corporations” argument.
Wethal on June 28, 2012 at 4:41 PM
5:4 the other way would have been Nazziism.
Schadenfreude on June 28, 2012 at 4:41 PM
So are the fools you’re voting for. Ya know? The ones that NOMINATED Roberts in the first place?
HondaV65 on June 28, 2012 at 4:41 PM
Yesterday the proggies wanted to pack the Supreme Court, today Roberts is the new Earl Warren. Good grief, what whores.
slickwillie2001 on June 28, 2012 at 4:41 PM
Bush supposedly wanted Gonzales after Miers. Conservatives pushing back at least got us Roberts and Alito.
Ginsberg is old and sickly. Replacing her with someone like Janice Rogers Brown would be a goal for cons to shoot for. Obama would push for Kamala Harris.
Wethal on June 28, 2012 at 4:44 PM
Well, AG Holder just devolved into the first AG to be held in contempt of Congress. 255 aye, 66 no, 1 present, if I caught it correctly. 1 present? Does Obama have a House vote? And about 17 Dems voted with the Republicans, only 1 of whom voted against the resolution.
Look, find comfort where you can today.
de rigueur on June 28, 2012 at 4:46 PM
scotus decision … it’s a sad day for the republic.
ORrighty on June 28, 2012 at 4:49 PM
Indeed. It’s just too bad that this case could not make it before the Court before this election. I think it will be moot by the time it can get to SCOTUS, because the law will be repealed.
rockmom on June 28, 2012 at 4:49 PM
O.T. Follow up to resolution finding Holder in contempt of Congress. Debate now on H.R. 706: resolution allowing Issa’s committee to take this to court for declaratory judgement to enforce its subpoenas. 15 minutes of debate underway.
de rigueur on June 28, 2012 at 4:51 PM
Rebuild respect for the court? With a farcical, indefensible “ruling” that non-activity can be “taxed”, and that the clear language, intent, and repeatedly formally expressed position of the government that a provision is NOT a tax – IS a tax?
More folks ought to actually look at the rulings and work of the court (and the district courts). We are far, far into the realm of arbitrary lawless behavior from the courts, including the SCOTUS. Roberts’ idiotic and embarrassing ruling here is just the latest, and most disastrous, example.
Quick budget question: why does the taxapayer pay for 3 branches of government, when there appears to be only one? If Congress cannot pass a serious, coherent, or constitutional law, and the executive branch that signs it cannot explain or defend it in a serious manner under legal challenge, then the SCOTUS has to step in and play BOTH roles to “save” the garbage in question? Instead of, you know, playing its constitutional role and reviewing it?
It might be just making the rubble bounce to have such a lightweight chief justice with many pernicious years ahead of him, but it sure does add a giant black mark to a horizon already just about pitch black ……
IceCold on June 28, 2012 at 4:53 PM
ObamaCare is going to rebound in the polls and you guys can drop the “70 percent opposed” nonsense.
Get off Fantasy Island. Joe and Jane Public today think the Supreme Court legitimized it. Kiss your 70 percent goodbye. It will never be repealed. Never.
Marcus on June 28, 2012 at 4:57 PM
Yep.
Kataklysmic on June 28, 2012 at 5:00 PM
Roberts made an INVALID AND ILLEGITIMATE decision by declaring a confused law- Obamacare- that did not begin in the House, but in the Senate, to be a tax, when all tax laws must begin in the House.
EPIC CONSTITUTIONAL Fail.
profitsbeard on June 28, 2012 at 5:11 PM
Are you kidding me? Ther Supreme Court just said “This President Is A Liar, this is a huge tax increase!” You think THAT is going to make the law, or the President, more popular?
rockmom on June 28, 2012 at 5:12 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »