Thursday, June 28, 2012

Krauthamer on Roberts

I always feel like I am on firm ground when my political read of a situation lines up with Krauthamer's, and in this case it does, almost completely.  While he's more measured and understanding of the CJ's predicament than I am, he sees the same tension between his judicial philosophy and insitutional prerogatives (fears?).

But in the end, he agrees it was a welch, a cop-out, a bad choice, or in CK's language, "a dodge":
Law upheld, Supreme Court’s reputation for neutrality maintained. Commerce clause contained, constitutional principle of enumerated powers reaffirmed.
That’s not how I would have ruled. I think the “mandate is merely a tax” argument is a dodge, and a flimsy one at that. (The “tax” is obviously punitive, regulatory and intended to compel.) Perhaps that’s not how Roberts would have ruled had he been just an associate justice and not the chief. But that’s how he did rule.
Obamacare is now essentially upheld. There’s only one way it can be overturned. The same way it was passed — elect a new president and a new Congress. That’s undoubtedly what Roberts is saying: Your job, not mine. I won’t make it easy for you.

0 comments:

AddThis

Bookmark and Share

Always sniffing for the truth

Always sniffing for the truth

Blog Archive

Follow by Email