“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: « Previous 1 2
We went through that when the bill was passed, it was stuffed into a bill that had already passed the House as a giant substitute. There were other more explicit taxes in the bill, such as the tax on medical devices, and they have not been challenged on this ground.
rockmom on June 28, 2012 at 5:15 PM
Agree with a liberal = evolved
Disagree with a liberal = a right wing ideologue
It’s comical.
Paul-Cincy on June 28, 2012 at 5:19 PM
It doesn’t matter what the court said. It only matters how the MSM spins it to our American Idol electorate. We can’t even trust a Bush appointed chief justice to do the right thing yet we’re supposed to put our trust in a bunch of yahoos most of whom probably can’t name the vice president? Pipe dream. This thing is over.
Kataklysmic on June 28, 2012 at 5:21 PM
rockmom, the failure to challenge the ridiculous, transparent, bad-faith violation of the constitutional rule on laws raising revenue is just item #zillion on the list of unbelievable nonsense that is passing without challenge – doesn’t change that it was a ridiculous, transparent, bad-faith violation of the constitution.
There are a pile of House Joint Resolutions sitting, dead, in a pile in the Senate (even normally – of course in today’s orwellian situation that pile is very large). To take the bill number and wholesale substitute an unrelated matter and then pretend that this meets the House-origination rule – let’s see, nah, actually, that’s just about average for today’s standards of seriousness and lawlessness.
To the new, updated, actually intelligent saying:
“It’s not just the economy, IDIOT”
Must now be added a new one:
“Elections have consequences – though fewer and fewer, as the rule of law, language, and the constitution are rendered moot”
IceCold on June 28, 2012 at 5:26 PM
ahh – yes, it will make Barry more popular. It won’t be reported as a tax increase at all – do you ever watch the network news ?
Roberts has confirmed we are all slaves to the state now .
DeweyWins on June 28, 2012 at 5:30 PM
If true he doesn’t even know his job.
CW on June 28, 2012 at 5:32 PM
THIS
cmsinaz on June 28, 2012 at 5:49 PM
Evidently they didn’t get the memo that Roberts gutted the Commerce Clause.
ButterflyDragon on June 28, 2012 at 5:53 PM
I like how Mike Mukasey, during his discussion with Megyn Kelly, labeled the cigar 0bamessiah received today, “an exploding” one!
Bizarro No. 1 on June 28, 2012 at 6:05 PM
I thought Obama was the only one evolving.
Bitter Clinger on June 28, 2012 at 6:15 PM
Evidently you didn’t get the memo that Roberts pretty much made the commerce clause unnecessary.
xblade on June 28, 2012 at 6:18 PM
Roberts didn’t make it unnecessary. It was always unnecessary. Congress has always been the authority that taxes.
I for one welcome the reasoning on his decision (though, I loathe his decision) because it will remind everyone that ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES!
This may very well be the defining moment when people start paying attention to our government.
ButterflyDragon on June 28, 2012 at 6:25 PM
There is always an upside.
Bmore on June 28, 2012 at 6:25 PM
He failed, epically.
He rubber stamped a lie.
farsighted on June 28, 2012 at 6:32 PM
I doubt it. As far as I can tell, Robers did the apolitical thing. As bad as the tax angle is, its an inevitable conclusion when you consider all of the spending the government does under the cover of the tax code.
Count to 10 on June 28, 2012 at 6:42 PM
No — he brought attention to the fact that our tax code is an uncontrolled mess. Obamacare, as catastrophic as it is, fits right into it.
Count to 10 on June 28, 2012 at 6:44 PM
Clearly, we should have let Bush appoint Harriet Miers instead
Dollayo on June 28, 2012 at 7:26 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2