Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
Google+1
del.icio.us.
Digg!
Yahoo! Buzz
Diigo
google
newsvine
reddit
technorati
Yahoo!
MyspaceOn June 27, 2012, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the principal provisions of the Affordable Care Act – “Obamacare.” The Court’s decision is a key issue for every candidate for every office in the November election.
By its action, the Court gave President Obama a clear victory for the signature achievement of his domestic agenda. It strongly enhances the President’s chances for reelection. The astounding fact – which reverberated throughout the country – was that Chief Justice John Roberts joined with the four liberal justices to provide the essential vote needed to uphold Obamacare.
Gareth W. Sadler
There are two views of why Roberts voted as he did. One view is that he acted true to his stated principles and decided solely on the legal issues without any regard to the consequences.
The other view of Roberts’s action is the more intriguing. It credits Roberts with having acted as he did primarily to pull the Court back from the “precipice” of having the Court broadly seen as an arm of the Republican Party and the big-money interests – vide Bush v. Gore and Citizens United. A decision destroying Obamacare might well have created such a backlash that the Court’s moral authority would be damaged for years to come. So, this alternate view sees Roberts’s action as having been decided precisely because of the consequences for the reputation of the Court.
In 1954, Congress was hopelessly deadlocked on the critical issue of civil rights. Chief Justice Earl Warren determined that it was imperative to break the paralysis. In Brown v. Board of Education, a unanimous Court, led by Warren, acted to end racial segregation in the public schools. All of the justices intended the consequences of their decision, overturning almost a century of precedents.
I support the view that Roberts did parallel the line taken by the Warren Court and that he acted primarily with the integrity of the Court in mind. Roberts’s place in history may be as a politician rather than as a jurist – one who, on occasion, rose to the level of a statesman.
Gary Sadler is a member of the State Bars of California and New York, retired.
Comments
I think the "alternative" is closer to the truth: "It credits Roberts with having acted as he did primarily to pull the Court back from the “precipice” of having the Court broadly seen as an arm of the Republican Party and the big-money interests – vide Bush v. Gore and Citizens United."
The decision in Citizens United was the sale of the (not so) United States to the Wall Street Corporations and Wall Street Banks - pure and simple.
You can add the Walmart Supreme Court decision and many others to the credits of our corrupt Supreme (Koch) Court! The decision regarding the Affordable Care Act just reflects their "feeling the heat" of the fed up We The People and concerned the growing demand for seriously needed reform of our Judicial Branch is a real threat to maintaining their status quo!!
Walmart Case: Supreme Court Aids The Powerful
For the workers, this legal "solution" amounts to the equivalent of asking Walmart to negotiate directly with every factory that produces its products on an individual basis, and not impose the price by wielding the power of its scale.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06...
OffTheBeat (anonymous profile)
July 22, 2012 at 8:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Mr. Sadler,
I want to commend you for this precise and articulate summary. I am of the opinion that Chief Justice Roberts acted to renew public confidence in the High Court and lower federal courts, an action unrelated to politics.
In America, the legitimacy of government depends on the consent and approval of the governed and public confidence in the administration of justice is indispensable. It is not enough that our judges be impartial; the public must perceive them as such. I believe this concept was instrumental in Chief Roberts' decision.
The present "perception" in the Ninth Circuit and its district courts is that "the governed" cannot and will not prevail against big business and California state agencies. The "consent and approval" of citizens is not a matter of concern in the Ninth Circuit and the result is utter lawlessness and a system of courts void of due administration of justice.
Public confidence is non-existent in the Ninth Circuit and its district courts because the vast majority of judicial officers shamelessly and repeatedly demonstrate disregard for the law. This lawlessness not only impedes public confidence but prevents citizens from exercising their constitutional right to petition the courts.
The above facts are graphically demonstrated in my petition to the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to the Ninth Circuit filed on July 15, 2012, see: http://en.calameo.com/read/001447105f...
I have to hold on to the hope that Chief Justice Roberts' decision was based, in part, on the critical need to renew public confidence in our courts. If so, it would necessarily involve the Ninth Circuit and its district courts and would alter the course of justice for many, many American citizens currently denied equal protection of the law.
Erin K. Baldwin
ErinBaldwin (anonymous profile)
July 22, 2012 at 4:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/a...
Georgy (anonymous profile)
July 24, 2012 at 9:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't know about the above stated motivations attributed to Justice Roberts. Upholding Obamacare as a 'tax' rather than the Obama Administrations Interstate Commerce Clause 'penalty' argument could have been a substantial bone thrown to his Roberts right wing extremists comrades. Sounds like there was some horsetrading going on at the SCOTUS on this decision. The result I think may backfire for Roberts. And shortly afterward the principled jurists on the conservative right revealed in public their rabidness.
DonMcDermott (anonymous profile)
July 25, 2012 at 9:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)