Two Years On: Obamacare

That's because they were worried about the reactions of their own constituents -- the voters -- not because they wanted to please the New York Times or make sure they got invited to Katherine Graham's next dinner party.

These votes are the exact opposite of what I'm talking about. The Times, the media, and their liberal friends were not begging them to vote this way, and warning them of the repercussions if they voted the "wrong" way.

 

Which is still much different that the theory people are proposing regarding Robert's vote.

 

What did that small town newspaper of little influence, the Wall Street Journal, urge?

 

I'd have voted against Democrat Party wishes and made it a 10-0 decision.

 

How is it different? Roberts: "I'll sign on because I'd like this to be a 6-3 decision, but narrow it to this particular inactivity, not inactivity from here on out."

 

Can you list all the northern Democrats who opposed the decision?

 

Since I feel some responsibility to keep this on the rails (Hi Moddy!) can we refrain from the blargity blargh?

The idea that noting Roberts' probable strong motivation in preventing a decision like this -- which could largely define his tenure, or at least a chunk of it -- from appearing abjectly political is some sort of liberal conspiracy is ridiculous on its face.

Commentators of all stripes are merely noting Roberts' own standard, which he hasn't been shy about. He likened himself in his confirmation hearings to an umpire calling balls and strikes. He has shown a pattern of taking cases which he thinks can get consensus decisions. It's who he is, and also who Republicans claimed they wanted him to be.

It's also a pretty strong part of who Barack Obama is, for what that's worth.

 

To us, he was Goliath the consensus-builder!

 

There's a huge difference between someone who seeks to build consensus, and someone who would throw away their vote in order to project a wider consensus than actually exists.

There's no evidence Roberts would do such a thing.

This isn't even a case like gay marriage, where he might be able to see how poorly a decision might look to future generations. This is purely a liberty issue. It's about the limits of the Federal government. Roberts own vote and his writing on the the law will be as big a part of his legacy as the size of the decision will be -- bigger even.

I'd be more confident in Roberts writing a strongly worded minority decision in a 5-4 ruling than joining a 6-3 majority and writing a mealy mouthed, narrow decision.

And, while Roberts is the Chief, unless you can make the case that even one (current) liberal Justice would ever consider voting in such a fashion, I'm going to have a hard time believing Roberts would.

It would have you believe he'd be relieved if Kennedy voted to uphold the law, since it would allow him to be a part of a 6-3 majority. If Kennedy (and Scallia) votes to strike it down, Roberts will be "forced" to join a 5-4 majority. The Horror!

 

Why would you think this? There has been gallons of ink spilled about how narrowly the Roberts Court decides cases.

 

So only half the party is racist? Good to know.

 

I can't really tease out your argument, here, but I'll just say that I strongly expect you and Justice Roberts view his job differently.

It's perfectly reasonable to posit, from all available information, that Roberts would prefer this not be a 5-4 decision. That's not a liberal plot. I've seen conservatives make the same assumption, as well.