Sunday, July 01, 2012

I Sincerely Hope

That this report isn't true:
Because Roberts was the most senior justice in the majority to strike down the mandate, he got to choose which justice would write the Court’s historic decision. He kept it for himself.

Over the next six weeks, as Roberts began to craft the decision striking down the mandate, the external pressure began to grow. Roberts almost certainly was aware of it.

Some of the conservatives, such as Justice Clarence Thomas, deliberately avoid news articles on the Court when issues are pending (and avoid some publications altogether, such as The New York Times). They’ve explained that they don’t want to be influenced by outside opinion or feel pressure from outlets that are perceived as liberal.

But Roberts pays attention to media coverage. As Chief Justice, he is keenly aware of his leadership role on the Court, and he also is sensitive to how the Court is perceived by the public.

There were countless news articles in May warning of damage to the Court – and to Roberts’ reputation – if the Court were to strike down the mandate. Leading politicians, including the President himself, had expressed confidence the mandate would be upheld.

Some even suggested that if Roberts struck down the mandate, it would prove he had been deceitful during his confirmation hearings, when he explained a philosophy of judicial restraint.

It was around this time that it also became clear to the conservative justices that Roberts was, as one put it, “wobbly,” the sources said.

It is not known why Roberts changed his view on the mandate and decided to uphold the law. At least one conservative justice tried to get him to explain it, but was unsatisfied with the response, according to a source with knowledge of the conversation.

We have problems well beyond Obamacare if we have a Chief Justice who lets the media influence his decisions. You don't protect the reputation of the Supreme Court by trying to curry favor with the commentariat. In fact, the opposite might be the case:
Public opinion of the Supreme Court has grown more negative since the highly publicized ruling on the president’s health care law was released. A growing number now believe that the high court is too liberal and that justices pursue their own agenda rather than acting impartially.

A week ago,  36% said the court was doing a good or an excellent job. That’s down to 33% today. However, the big change is a rise in negative perceptions. Today, 28% say the Supreme Court is doing a poor job. That’s up 11 points over the past week.

If it turns out that Roberts changed his vote because he was worried about what the E. J. Dionnes of the world were saying, that will damage the credibility of the Court in a way that will be difficult to repair. If the American people start to understand that you can work the refs on Constitutional matters, the Court really has no credibility at all. And if it's true that Roberts changed his vote because he was afraid of the reaction from the media, he's not fit to be Chief Justice.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

'I sincerely hope
that this report isn't true'

I wish you good luck in finding a better explanation.

Mr. D said...

I wish you good luck in finding a better explanation.

Yep. Have fun stormin' the castle!

Bike Bubba said...

You know,everyone I see writing about this is basically arguing the same thing; that Roberts' decision was more or less about the court's public reputation than the law. The 10th Amendment is eviscerated here.

Brad Carlson said...

My guess is Roberts was ready to strike down the whole law because (and this is pure speculation) the liberal bloc wanted to uphold the individual mandate based on the commerce clause. It was only after the lib justices acquiesced to the I.M. being a "tax" that Roberts was willing to allow it to stand.

Again, that's merely a theory I personally have concocted.