Skip to comments.Laurence Tribe: I think my former student, John Roberts, will vote to uphold ObamaCare
Posted on 06/27/2012 8:28:06 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Via the Examiner, I've been looking for tea leaves for you all day but this, unfortunately, is the best I can do. I don't even regard it as tea leaves: I think Tribe is just pre-spinning the outcome so that, if the mandate is struck down, he can call Roberts a disappointment who betrayed his education in a fit of ideological pique, etc etc etc. But we're starving for insight and this is, in its own lame way, an insight into Roberts' thinking. As is this:
Eastman, a critic of the health care law, said he wouldnt be surprised to see Roberts side with the Obama administration and uphold the law. Hes a creature of the Washington administrative state. Thats his background, the professor said, noting that Roberts has spent almost his entire professional life in Washington.
Scalia’s background is Beltway-heavy too yet his vote against ObamaCare seems a fait accompli.
More unconvincing tea leaves? Okay, how about the idea that Roberts' vote in the Arizona case with Kennedy and the liberals presages a similar outcome on ObamaCare?
What the Arizona compromise will augur for the most closely watched case of the term is anyone's guess. Yet the justices' evident search for common ground in the immigration ruling and a few other cases this term could portend a healthcare decision that does not predictably cleave along political lines…
Overall, the judgment was modest, the tone cautious. It underscored the federal role in regulating immigration and largely rejected the effort by Arizona – and, by extension, several other states – to institute sweeping measures to stop people from illegally crossing the border.
The justices’ regard for national authority on dilemmas that cut across state boundaries could end up echoing in the healthcare ruling.
“Both problems transcend states’ borders and are too big for the states to solve on their own,” Duke University law professor Neil Siegel said, stressing that he did not want to predict how the court would rule on Thursday.
Jeffrey Rosen is pushing this line too over at TNR but you could just as easily argue that Roberts and Kennedy threw the left a bone in the Arizona ruling because they’re ready to tear their hearts out with O-Care. A party-line conservative majority on immigration on top of a party-line conservative majority on ObamaCare would have handed liberals a double-barreled weapon in arguing that the Roberts Court is hopelessly politicized. They’ll still argue that if they lose on O-Care, of course, but their point will be weakened because of the Arizona case.
Exit tea leaf: Even at this late date, Obama's still warning his fundraising audiences about ObamaCare being struck down. How come?
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
I agree with him and think the result leaked to the dems as soon as they voted after oral argument. Hope I’m wrong.
Preparing for a possible slapdown.
Oh, STFU, Laurence.
I agree, especially because of Robert’s vote against the sovereignty of Arizona.
Limbaugh said yesterday, that he was not surprised by Robert’s vote in regards to Arizona, then started to mention something about obamaCare and Robert’s vote, after pausing he said no can’t go there (or something to that effect).
Limbaugh knows many influential people with great knowledge about the courts workings. Personally, I think Limbaugh already knows the outcome. Which is another reason he said several times yesterday, he was scared.
Does the limited and enumerated power given to Congress entail an unlimited and unenumerated basis of power?
Is the power to regulate interstate commerce the power to regulate EVERYTHING that may have any effect - however tangential - upon interstate commerce.
At its heart - do we live in a Republic with a government of limited and defined powers?
Well, that pretty much sums it all up right there - we're from the gov't and we're here to help you. Because, you know, the problems are just too big for you little fly-over morons to handle on your own.
Could be some of the law will stay and some will go. But if the Court allows the law to stand in its entirety, then we will know that the Supremes don’t have the balls to stand up to Obama. Since Congress has already rolled over and played dead, we can kiss the separation of powers goodbye. What will stop Obama from cancelling the elections and appointing himself dictator?
No wonder people are stocking up on guns and ammo. If we want protection from this tyrant for ourselves and our loved ones, we will have to do it ourselves.
LOL, if there was a leak and I simply KNOW there was not, it would have been all over the news in a matter of minutes. There is no way anyone in Washington could have kept this secret for this long and when I say no chance I mean NO CHANCE.
I am not predicting an outcome because i do not know the outcome and neither does anyone else with the exception of the Justices and the clerks. The clerks would never release the info IMO because having the job of clerk to a USSC Justice is a huge feather in their cap and to lose the job would be a disgrace they would never be able to live down.
I believe so, too, especially in light of Pelosi's prediction of a 6-3 vote to uphold. I suspect Kagan tipped off the regime, who in turn briefed Reid and Pelosi.
Very true and bad for our Constitution.
Does anyone know Robert's wife's political beliefs? That may be a factor.
Roberts defecting on this one would be an unmitigated disaster.
Robert’s performance on the Arizona case indicates that he sees himself as the new Earl Warren.
I think events of the past 3.5 years have already answered that question.
I heard the show and you are misrepresenting what Limbaugh said. His being afraid was with regard to the feds abandoning cooperation with AZ in the rounding up of reported illegal aliens and had nothing to do with the pending decision on Obamacare.
In fact he clearly said he had no information on the outcome of the pending decision.
The focus was on only 4 points of a far larger piece of law. He managed to get through the only really important part ~ check status of people stopped ~ and avoided having the whole law chucked into the crick ~ which one of the Leftwingtards would have done.
If he did the same thing here, look for a sort of reversal of the process in AZ. Let's say Roberts wrote the decision in ObamaKKKare by voting with the/a majority that agreed on maybe only 1 thing, e.g. meddicaid eligibility.
So he takes that and hedges it in a bit, still satisfactory to the working majority.
He then finds OTHER 5/4 majorities for tossing out a whole nest of other things including a 9-0 agreement on chucking out the individual mandate (which is otherwise a very tiny part of the bill).
That would result in something very much like the result described by Ruthy Ginsburg ~ to wit, lots of divisions.
Larry Tribe underestimates his student. Larry would never be that clever mostly because he, himself, is a rather doltish thinker.
Alternatively, he could have early on recognized that the individual mandate was popular with the court's majority, and simply voted with them to get the right to write the majority decision, and left Obamakkkare with nothing but the individual mandate!
That'd be equally divisive I think, but certainly effective.