Video: Krauthammer on Why Chief Justice Roberts Did It

A lot of people are speculating about what John Robert was up to with his ObamaCare decision, today.

Mark Levin is stunned, calling the decision “lawless”, and “a brutal assault on individual sovereignty….We had four justices, including Kennedy who wanted to throw the entire thing out. The Chief Justice saved it. We can repeal ObamaCare, but how do we fix the Constitution now that it’s been abused….again!”

Charles on Fox News’ Special Report with Bret Baier thinks he knows why Roberts did it:

He cranked out a lengthier explanation for his Washington Post column:

National health care has been a liberal dream for a hundred years. It is clearly the most significant piece of social legislation in decades. Roberts’s concern was that the court do everything it could to avoid being seen, rightly or wrongly, as high-handedly overturning sweeping legislation passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the president.

How to reconcile the two imperatives — one philosophical and the other institutional? Assign yourself the task of writing the majority opinion. Find the ultimate finesse that manages to uphold the law, but only on the most narrow of grounds — interpreting the individual mandate as merely a tax, something generally within the power of Congress.

Result? The law stands, thus obviating any charge that a partisan court overturned duly passed legislation. And yet at the same time the commerce clause is reined in. By denying that it could justify the imposition of an individual mandate, Roberts draws the line against the inexorable decades-old expansion of congressional power under the commerce clause fig leaf.

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.

Some other Roberts friendly musings here, here and here, and especially here.

About these ads

5 Responses to “Video: Krauthammer on Why Chief Justice Roberts Did It”

  1. Geo Says:

    Mark Levin has always been my favorite Talk Show Host. He quickly caught my eye during the “squirter in chief” impeachment debacle, when he would appear as a talking head. He was destined to become a major influence among the conservative crowd from that point on.

    The man is nothing short of brilliant and last night he was never better. His analysis of the ruling and the twisted logic that Chief Justice Roberts used is spot on. It is well worth listening to the entire piece, which is available at his website.

    “Where do we go to get our Constitution back”?

    Like

  2. Mark Levin’s “Friend of the Court” Brief on Obamacare’s Individual Mandate [Document] – John Malcolm Says:

    [...] Video: Krauthammer on Why Chief Justice Roberts Did It (nicedeb.wordpress.com) [...]

    Like

  3. The Morning Links (7/2/12) | Lady Liberty 1885 Says:

    [...] Video: Krauthammer on Why Chief Justice Roberts Did It  [...]

    Like

  4. A Man For All Reasons « Nice Deb Says:

    [...] Practically everyone with a blog has weighed in with an opinion on why John Roberts ruled on Obamacare as he did. Some pundits have been very down on Roberts, looking at his decision in the worst possible light – “perhaps Justice Roberts yearned to be the cool guy at D.C. cocktail parties” while others have deemed his ruling pure genius – even payback for Obama’s “numerous, ill-advised and childish insults directed toward SCOTUS.” One school of thought, as voiced by Charles Krauhammer is that John Roberts, concerned that the Supreme Court would be perceived as partisan and political if it struck down the entire law in a 5 to 4 decision, upheld it, but on the most narrow of grounds; “Supreme Court’s reputation for neutrality maintained. Commerce clause contained, constituti… [...]

    Like

  5. A Man For All Reasons | FavStocks Says:

    [...] Another school of thought, as voiced by Charles Krauhammer is that John Roberts, concerned that the Supreme Court would be perceived as partisan and political if it struck down the entire law in a 5 to 4 decision, upheld it, but on the most narrow of grounds; “Supreme Court’s reputation for neutrality maintained. Commerce clause contained, constituti… [...]

    Like


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  • Blog Stats

    • 4,628,712 hits
  • free counters
  • Is your cat plotting to kill you?
  • Follow

    Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

    Join 522 other followers

    %d bloggers like this: