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.
A theoretically limitless chain of implied powers derived from tangential connections, using the Commerce Clause as a fig leaf for tyranny...
Obviously not what the Founders envisioned.
Your opinion of the clerks I can buy. Believing kagan and the wise latina are NOT giving the dem’s and this administration the inside scoop? Not buying that. They are party members first, justices second.
Jane Roberts is the head of Feminists for Life. Other than that I don’t know much about her politics.
Are you going to be unhappy if you are wrong?
The Nacy Pelosi Constitution would only have one clause in Article I, because the power to regulate interstate commerce is apparently a blank check for power on every aspect of our lives.
Our founders thought the power to regulate interstate commerce meant the power to regulate commerce between the States - not to regulate all activity or non activity that may have an effect upon interstate commerce.
Intrastate commerce has an effect upon interstate commerce - and yet regulation of intrastate commerce was, by omission, directly NOT given to Congress.
One of The Gipper’s very worst mistakes was the appointment of Sandra Day “ohhhh....I’m cool with Affirmative Action for....ohhhh...let’s say, another 27 years” O’Connor.
But he was on the right track with the idea of getting the hell out of the Federal system and plucking her from the state courts.
we are sunk....
hope I'm wrong...
Supposedly nominating Roberts was one of the few good things W did, now even this may turn out to be a disaster.
Yep, and I believe it was Ginsberg.
No conscience, no qualms.
The court got arizona 100% correct...
the states do not have the authority to set immigration and naturalization policy..(can you imagine the policy california would set if this were the case)
the feds do not have the authority to tell the states how to enforce their laws, or to micromanage local law enforcement...
Not the “popular” or the “trendy” decision, but it was constitutionally correct...
as for fubocare, roberts will do the constitutionally correct thing AGAIN, and repeal it in it’s entirety..
as a side note, I think fubo may have screwed up... kagan may not be the activist he thought she was.. I will be watching her closely..
If it can be proven that any justice is voting to “throw someone a bone”, he or she should be impeached. It’s sad that the court’s actions make us think this way.
The one compelling issue which dominates all American politics also dominates American jurisprudence: Race.
Nathan Bedford's first Maxim of American politics, all politics in America is not local but ultimately racial, can be applied in a different way to American jurisprudence. One can strike a maxim that says that few Supreme Court Justices are willing to put their historical legacy in jeopardy by coming down on the wrong side of any race case.
The Arizona immigration case had to do with issues of race. I am not surprised that Washington survivalists like Justice Roberts took the politically correct position. There is no obvious politically correct racial position on healthcare apart from the fact that it is called Obama Care after the first black President of the United States.
As paranoid as this sounds, it gives one some hope that the Supreme Court will feel free to do justice when the issue in the federalism context is healthcare rather than what do we do with 20 million people of color in our midst.
What can the possible benefit be if there is a leak? Weigh that against what will become of the reputation of the leaker when (not if) it is known there is a leak?
Leaking anything is meaningless unless the info can be used to advantage a and I’m not seeing how, if it has been leaked and it is favorable to Obama they have used it to their advantage or if unfavorable how they could use that to their advantage. This is only heating up now because we are so close to the decision and the media wants to drive the narrative and milk it for all it’s worth.
Personally I don’t see any upside for Obama since the law ids unfavorable to a sizable majority of the public and a vote to keep it intact in the face of Romney promising to unwind it if elected will help him. If it is struck down entirely or in part it will signify a major loss for the Administration. Their claiming a victory if it is upheld is meaningless just because the majority of Americans don’t want the law anyway. Besides that it takes away the ability for Obama to run against the “activist” USSC.
If the vote is 6-3 Pelosi can thump her chest. If she can stretch her arms that high without ripping her face.
She may want to shave her chest to make sure the thumps can be heard more clearly.
Scoleia thinks otherwise
Oh well. The ruling has been made
Who? Do you mean Scalia?
No, actually I am not. We both heard the show and we each drew different conclusions obviously. That is not misrepresenting.
The cruse of predictive spelling on iPhones - yes?
I hate to say this..... but I have a sinking feeling that Tribe is right. I predict it will be a 6-3 decision (maybe even 7-2), in favor of 0dumb0 care. I don't see John Roberts with enough guts, balls or courage to go contrary to 0dumb0's signature piece of commie legislation in his first term of destroying Amerika. I think that Roberts is scared to death of the racist kenyan negro, which is why he would never rule against 0dumb0's eligibility. And Anthony Kennedy just loves being the middle flip-flop guy. The pro-0dumb0 juggernut may even pull in one of the 3 remaining justices, just so they can keep there status in the DC social structure & power elitists.
I hope I'm wrong!
isn’t Tribe a longtime SCOTUS wannabe??? a lib who has all the answers yet whose opinion doesn’t matter when push comes to shove???
this is nothing more than Tribe making comments in a lame attempt to remain relevant and keep his name out there....
Read them, amplify upon their principles and ideas by accessing the Founders' writings and speeches and sharing them with all you know--especially the young, for whom the decisions being made today are of such critical importance.
For a quick review of those principles and the nation's first 50 years under its Constitution, consult John Quincy Adams' "Jubilee" Address here, or a recent reprint of a 1987 Bicentennial collection of the Founders' principles, here.
James Madison stated: "Although all men are born free, slavery has been the general lot of the human race. Ignorantthey have been cheated; asleepthey have been surprised; dividedthe yoke has been forced upon them. But what is the lesson? ... the people ought to be enlightened, to be awakened, to be united, that after establishing a government, they should watch over it ... It is universally admitted that a well-instructed people alone can be permanently free."
The question is, Do We Have A Living Constitution?--in the sense that many, such as Tribe, believe. Or, must changes to that Constitution's limits on government power be made in the manner prescribed within the Constitution itself, by the Amendment process involving "the People"?
"Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon them collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption or even knowledge of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives [the executive, judiciary, or legislature]; in a departure from it prior to such an act." - Alexander Hamilton
In the first of the eighty-five "Federalist Papers," Alexander Hamilton emphasized that:
"... it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection or choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force."
I hope I won’t be eating crow tomorrow, but my gut tells me we’re going to be by and large happy with how the SCOTUS comes down on the ACS - And I’m generally prone to pessimism when it comes to things like this.
i did not hear him yesterday but Limbaugh definitely seems to be changing his tune today compared to your take on his comments...literally minutes ago he said the word/belief is obama has already been told he lost on the individual mandate and his lemmings in the criminal liberal media are already trying to spin this pending loss as a victory for mullah obama, in the sense a loss on obozocare in the SC is going to fire up the rat base...
we will see but i don’t believe the Arizona case decision has bearing on obozocare..
This has already been answered in the affirmative; see the USSC case Raich.
This is the point I was attempting to make. I also find it nuts to imagine the SC would make an attempt to "balance" it's decisions so as to appear non partisan. Since when is the truth partisan? If they come down 15 times in a row against a law written and passed by a Rep Congress and explain why, then I would accept that decision even if I hated it personally.
All the court has is it's credibility and to keep it they must make decisions 100% in concert with the intent of the Constitution. If that is lost then they may as well disband the courts, all of them.
IOW, an invitation to tyranny.
Sic Semper Tyrannis
Limbaugh is worried about something.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.