A confident Roberts 'steers his own path here'

  • Article by: DAN EGGEN , Washington Post
  • Updated: June 29, 2012 - 12:35 AM

Some observers likened the chief justice to one of his heroes, John Marshall in the landmark Marbury vs. Madison case.

  • 18
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
rat618Jun. 28, 1210:32 PM

Funny how two years ago you had to look hard and long to find any constitutional lawyer who thought Obamacare could be overturned. Since then the never ceasing attacks on anything Obama, both personal and political, embodied the Republicans to get the case to the Supreme Court where they were sure "their judges" would over turn Obamacare. But Roberts surprised them (funny a 5-4 decision for Citizens United is a mandate but a 5-4 against Obamacare is a travesty) and voted I think in part based on constitutional arguments and maybe in part so that his stewardship over the Court couldn't be seen in strictly political votes (Gore, Citizens United). Personally I am thrilled of a number of levels for the decision but can't help but think the Republicans (who are already trying to think of ways to impeach Roberts) of Jack Warden's line in Used Cars about how it used to be when you bought a politician he stayed bought, which ironically was first attributed to steel baron Henry Frick about President Theodore Roosevelt after massive donations to the Republican party by big business helped Roosevelt's reelection and Roosevelt subsequently began proposing legislation to increase regulation of steel mills and railroads. Funny how some things Republican never change.

11
8
arielbenderJun. 29, 1212:09 AM

rat618, anyone that quotes, much less remembers one of the most underrated movies ever (Used Cars) is alright in my book.

8
4
notadumdemJun. 29, 12 6:45 AM

The Supreme Court does NOT write or rewrite laws. Roberts was wrong in changing the individual mandate from a penalty to a tax, especially when Obama repeatedly sold it to the country as a penalty, not a tax (for those of you who will deny it, it's on video). It's a sad day when the Chief Justice of the highest court in the country and it's partisan liberals don't act according to the laws they were appointed to uphold. The only saving grace of Roberts action is it's going to be 2010 all over again for Obama and the Democrats. They have to go. Now libs, start denying and clicking the thumbs down.

8
13
tonyrozyckiJun. 29, 12 6:46 AM

Now Obama is going to have to reexplain his campaign promises not to raise taxes.

8
10
EleanoreJun. 29, 12 7:33 AM

He certainly did steer his own path, because he absolutely didn't follow the written words in the constitution with his lawless decision. And as for being chief" justice, he needs to hold Kegan accountable for not recusing herself and creating a totalitarian state hon her own path steering. Whata degenerate and unethical group we have here.

5
8
gimbelJun. 29, 12 7:37 AM

"Roberts may have sided with liberals to save the signature domestic achievement of Obama's presidency, but he also gave conservatives important legal beachheads that could pay off down the road."

The guy is brilliant, was first in his class at Harvard (and lets face it, Harvard only admits the best and the brightest) and he has that quality so common to religious cons of being absolutely convinced he is right about everything. I am afraid in some way, with this decision, Roberts has done the progressive cause more harm than good.

He is NOT a friend of Obama (remember how he messed up the inaugural oath of office, so that he had to do it over again privately?) and he despises all things progressive. He has wreaked havoc on us in some way, I'm just not sure how quite yet.

3
4
Truckman182Jun. 29, 12 7:40 AM

He followed his own path and stuck a knife right in the back of the Republic.

2
8
kivirl4Jun. 29, 12 8:17 AM

if he woudl have simply said, teh mandate fails, a tax would work, I woudl be OK with that, but he essentially rewrote the law, That is not being restrainful.

1
6
thatisright1Jun. 29, 12 8:20 AM

I also think the decision by Roberts will restrict the role of government in the future and, ultimately, stymie the progressive agenda. I'm starting to reluctantly consider the possibility that this was a stroke of genius by Roberts. He was able to placate the petty liberal media and politicians by upholding Obamacare, thus avoiding a partisan label for the Supreme Court, while simultaneously injecting a ruling precedence limiting the future role of government.

0
6
BVMannJun. 29, 12 8:31 AM

I agree that this is a punitive cost, not an established tax (taxes do not require preconditions of choices). The real question to me was whether health insurance is interstate commerce, which congress clearly has the constitutional right to regulate. If our courts were not so politicized, this would have been the focus. In my view, insurance companies that sell insurance in more than one state are subject to federal regulation, when promulgated, just like this law says.

2
0

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT