Thursday, June 28, 2012

Nice to know Roberts agrees with me

I posted about an hour before the the ruling was announced lamenting that the mandate appeared to be on its way to defeat on a technicality, that although the mandate functions exactly like a tax, it wasn't written as such and would therefore be eliminated.  But Chief Justice Roberts decided "fuck it, I'll vote for it anyway under the taxing power, even though it wasn't written that way."

So good on him.


Paralympic chess star said...

How about a few words on why exactly you think roberts, a bush appointee, went for it?

PoliticalDoctor said...

I think he looked into the abyss of his legacy being the most partisan court in history and stepped back from the brink. He likely sought from the beginning to find a way to allow the mandate without opening the floodgates to a huge flood of new powers under the Commerce Clause. By voting with the conservative wing to say the mandate isn't allowed under the Commerce or Necessary and Proper clauses, he sets a limit, but in a way that allows the mandate to stand and that doesn't stain his Court forever.

NWest said...

How do you define "most partisan court in history"?
- The Warren, Burger and Rehnquist Courts overturned precedents at an average rate of 2.7, 2.8 and 2.4 per term, respectively. The Roberts Court, on the other hand, has only overturned an average of 1.6 precedents per term.

- The Warren, Burger, and Rehnquist Courts struck down an average of 7.9, 12.5, and 8.2 laws per term, whereas the Roberts Court has only invalidated an average of 3 laws per term.

Could it be that "partisan" just means "not always making decisions that I agree with?" When the 4 liberal justices vote as a bloc, is that partisan, or just "good jurisprudence"?