Translate

Monday, July 2, 2012

More on the ObamaCare Decision

This Wall Street Journal op-ed raises a couple issues concerning the recent decision that are troubling.

First:
The Justices may never confirm this informed speculation [that Roberts changed his vote]. But if it is true, this is far more damaging to the Court's institutional integrity that the Chief Justice is known to revere than any ruling against ObamaCare. The political class and legal left conducted an extraordinary campaign to define such a decision as partisan and illegitimate. If the Chief Justice capitulated to this pressure, it shows the Court can be intimidated and swayed from its constitutional duties. If this was a play to compete with John Marshall's legacy, the result is closer to William Brennan's.
And then there is this:
But this and even the five votes limiting Congress under the Commerce Clause pale against the Chief Justice's infinitely elastic and dangerous interpretation of the taxing power. Nancy Pelosi famously said we need to pass ObamaCare to find out what's in it. It turns out we also needed John Roberts to write his appendix.
(Italics mine). I have discussed this issue before here and here.

No comments:

Post a Comment