Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
I remain neutral on the law...as I don't think we have enough info on which to know its real impact. But I really like Roberts approach also...refreshing. Here's a take on that:
Legal scholars unsurprised by Roberts
By Tom Watkins, CNN
Legal scholars expressed little surprise Thursday that the conservative chief justice of the United States -- John G. Roberts Jr. -- proved to be the key vote in upholding the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act.
"Had the court ruled as the four dissenters would have had it -- in a 5-4 decision, red versus blue -- that the signature act of a Democratic administration was unconstitutional, I think that would have been a very serious threat to the legitimacy of the court," said Timothy S. Jost, a professor at Washington and Lee University School of Law in Washington.
"I think Americans are already very skeptical about the rule of law in the United States and believe that the court is essentially a third political branch," he said in a telephone interview. The 57-year-old Roberts may have been thinking about the court's perceived legitimacy and about his own legacy when he crafted the decision, which couldn't have been an easy one, Jost said.
In 2005, when then-President George W. Bush tapped Roberts to be the 17th chief justice of the United States, then-Sen. Barack Obama voted against his confirmation. During his confirmation hearing, Roberts said he saw his role as a potential justice to make rulings based on the Constitution and not to set policy -- or, as he described it, "to call balls and strikes, not pitch or bat."
"I come before this committee with no agenda, no platform," he told the Senate Judiciary Committee at the time. "I will approach every case with an open mind." Since then, Roberts' stances on campaign finance and affirmative action had led some observers to brand him a judicial activist.
But Neal Katyal, a professor of law at Georgetown University in Washington, said that Roberts, "more than almost any justice on the court today, appreciates the institutional role of the Supreme Court and American democracy. He's a student of history, and I think today's decision was a really resounding reflection of the chief justice's values, which are (that) law is not just politics and the Constitution is not just politics, and we should think about decisions impartially and dispassionately and come to the right ones."
I remain neutral on the law...as I don't think we have enough info on which to know its real impact. But I really like Roberts approach also...refreshing. Here's a take on that:
Legal scholars unsurprised by Roberts
By Tom Watkins, CNN
Legal scholars expressed little surprise Thursday that the conservative chief justice of the United States -- John G. Roberts Jr. -- proved to be the key vote in upholding the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act.
"Had the court ruled as the four dissenters would have had it -- in a 5-4 decision, red versus blue -- that the signature act of a Democratic administration was unconstitutional, I think that would have been a very serious threat to the legitimacy of the court," said Timothy S. Jost, a professor at Washington and Lee University School of Law in Washington.
"I think Americans are already very skeptical about the rule of law in the United States and believe that the court is essentially a third political branch," he said in a telephone interview. The 57-year-old Roberts may have been thinking about the court's perceived legitimacy and about his own legacy when he crafted the decision, which couldn't have been an easy one, Jost said.
In 2005, when then-President George W. Bush tapped Roberts to be the 17th chief justice of the United States, then-Sen. Barack Obama voted against his confirmation. During his confirmation hearing, Roberts said he saw his role as a potential justice to make rulings based on the Constitution and not to set policy -- or, as he described it, "to call balls and strikes, not pitch or bat."
"I come before this committee with no agenda, no platform," he told the Senate Judiciary Committee at the time. "I will approach every case with an open mind." Since then, Roberts' stances on campaign finance and affirmative action had led some observers to brand him a judicial activist.
But Neal Katyal, a professor of law at Georgetown University in Washington, said that Roberts, "more than almost any justice on the court today, appreciates the institutional role of the Supreme Court and American democracy. He's a student of history, and I think today's decision was a really resounding reflection of the chief justice's values, which are (that) law is not just politics and the Constitution is not just politics, and we should think about decisions impartially and dispassionately and come to the right ones."
