November 20, 2012

"The editors of Esquire have included Chief Justice Roberts in their December 'Americans of the Year' issue, praising his 'nimbleness.'"

"After the Citizens United decision on free speech and political spending, he found a way [in the Obamacare case] 'to save the court's credibility."

The Wall Street Journal editors note "the strange new respect a conservative receives for sustaining liberal priorities."

50 comments:

KJE said...

I still think he's smiling to himself, thinking about the giant crap sandwich he fed the Democrats with his decision on the ACA...

Matthew Sablan said...

Why was the court's credibility in danger by ruling that people can spend money to talk?

The Drill SGT said...

Too bad soo many Dems thought he was unfit to be a Justice.

Obama, Biden, Reid, Kerry plus 18 others voted no.

Pogo said...

Roberts effectively ended any chance at curtailing our overspending, limiting the scope of state control over our persons, and recovering the principles of limited government.

He's a statist, and voted to expand statism. Liberals want to tear his head off and eat it, he's just so delicious.

Matthew Sablan said...

Pogo: I think Roberts made a weird, but understandable decision. No one thought that it could be considered a tax, so very little analysis went on about it. The general consensus was: "Well, if it is a tax, it is a possibility it will be upheld, since there's a broad taxing power. But, who'd be stupid enough to author and push forward such a huge tax hike?"

The answer: Someone who realized they'd never be called to task for it.

dbp said...

If we wingers were going to hate anybody it would be Roberts, not Romney. But we don't even hate Roberts; we're kind of let-down by his decision-making though.

wyo sis said...

It's "nimbleness" to spin the constitution? Good to know the code words.

kcom said...

Credibility - I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Mitchell the Bat said...

So it turns out that Chief Justice Roberts is just like Lena Dunham.

I thought the WSJ was better than that.

Calypso Facto said...

Esquire's bullshit politics, driven primarily by the obtuse moron Charles Pierce, led me to finally drop my subscription after 20 years. Anyone trying to save dignity when seen with a copy of Esquire now has to flip the old Playboy apology around: "I only read it for the pictures."

ricpic said...

Jack be nimble, Jack be quick,
Jack jump over the Constitution stick.

chickelit said...

John be nimble
John be quick
John burns both ends of the candlestick

Lem said...

The article is behind a pay well... but for what is worth...

I think Roberts decision had the effect of lending the courts prestige and credibility to Obama... it may have swayed voters into thinking Obama was doing the right thing.

Never mind that the math doesn't work... its like Thacher said... eventually, we are going to run out of other peoples money.

John said...

And when the Court kills affirmative action or does something else that liberals don't approve of, they will hate him again. Meanwhile, conservatives will never forgive him for the Obamacare decision no matter what he does.

Roberts is going to end up remembered as a Greek tragic figure who put all of his considerable intellect into the task of being liked only to end up being hated by virtually everyone.

Lem said...

oh, I meant pay wall.. not pay well.

John said...

"Anyone trying to save dignity when seen with a copy of Esquire now has to flip the old Playboy apology around: "I only read it for the pictures."

THIS in spades. I will happily admit to enjoying looking at pictures of half naked starlets. But I can't imagine degrading myself to the point of actually reading or worse admitting to reading anything published in that rag.

BDNYC said...

The Court's credibility is enhanced when decisions lead to liberal results. It matters not if that means sustaining a law or invalidating it. Whatever the circumstances require.

The Constitution is a plaything.

Pogo said...

Did Roberts wear a giraffe costume for the ACA decision?

Because that would explain a lot.

shiloh said...

Roberts was "worried" about his judicial legacy ie he didn't want to be the grinch who stole Christmas.

Or maybe he just had enough w/angry/hateful cons and really wanted to stick it to them!

Or both ...

btw, it's true one gets more liberal w/age and wisdom. :-P

Lem said...

A Chris Christie costume.

BDNYC said...

I still have a hard time believing Roberts believes in the tax argument. It's possible that this was an intentionally bad decision, reached by an unusual array of votes, and therefore susceptible to future reevaluation.

sydney said...

I can be nimble, too. "Up" means "down." Any word means whatever I want it to mean. Like in Wonderland (or was it on the other side of the Looking Glass.)

AJ Lynch said...

What Romney said was spot on.

Obama pandered to minority voting blocs and gave them goodies. For example, he "evolved" on gay marriage, he gave illegal Mexicans an unconstitutinal executive order which was a modified Dream Act and he took the illegal Mexicans's side in the Border enforcement wars, he blocked funding charter schools in DC to placate the teachers'unions.

There are many other examples.

Aridog said...

Justice Roberts caved like the cheap wet paper bag he evidently is...and parsed the words tax versus penalty. HIs semantic dithering is astounding.

My understanding is that the oringal drafts of the ACA had the word "tax" in place of penalty....and it was intentionally changed to "penalty," because it was a levy for non-performance.

No matter now, if my understanding is true or not...The Robert's Court says penalty equals tax. The principle of penalty/punishment for non-performance is established now, as a "Tax", with no need for any hearings or trials.

Note that the "tax" is based upon household income. If you file separately, you must co-report each other's income on your 1040's anyway, eh. If you simply share living quarters with others, without maintaining a conventional household, you must report your roommates' income also, and they yours?

There must be some tax lawyer types here who can explain these ideas to me, right? Maybe only the IRS defined "Heads of the Household" need report on other incomes in the house? What?

I would appreciate it. Seriously.

Methadras said...

Backhanded praise with a pat on the head for the justice that basically gave us a new entitlement and tax all in one. Thanks CJ Roberts.

ricpic said...

Jack be nimble, Jack be quick,
Jack dodge Constitution shtick.

ricpic said...

shiloh never angry, hateful neither,
shiloh untethered from the truthful meter.

Jay Vogt said...

Back in the late 70's when Milton Glaser and Clay Felker put together Esquire, it was the sharpest magazine around. It was terse, timely, funny and gorgeous. One hellofa a read - fortnightly!

Thought times for mags now. On the rare occasions that I pick it up, it smells of trying-to-hard cologne and it reads like any other celebrity/politics waiting room table filler.

edutcher said...

Nimble in this case meaning twisting things around so you still get invited to all the cool parties.

shiloh said...

Roberts was "worried" about his judicial legacy ie he didn't want to be the grinch who stole Christmas.

Christmas being defined as SRO on the cattle car to Treblinka-on-the-Platte.

Or maybe he just had enough w/angry/hateful cons and really wanted to stick it to them!

Or maybe he wanted to give Conservatives a chance to repeal ObamaTax anytime they had the votes.

And, on the subject of voting, where were you hiding out 10/5 - 11/5 when the Romster was winning?

Trying to get the pages of your Playboy unstuck?

ricpic said...

Me be truthful, me hate injun,
Me pile plate with heap big dindin.

ricpic said...

Did Roberts wear a giraffe costume for the ACA decision?

Did he go to the crapper first? Strikes me as the type that never goes to the crapper. As in is above such things. Celia shits!

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

m pretty sure his legal mind is nowhere as good as advertised.

Once he determined it was a tax, his analysis was not finished. It then needed to proceed immediately into whether a 'tax' bill had thus, letter of the law, 'originated in the Senate', contrary to the constitution. He appears not to have realized that aspect of it, perhaps falling victim to confirmation bias, which should never happen with so much at stake.

So much for Roberts and his alleged intellect.

Jay Vogt said...

Also, justice Roberts might be more aptly covered under the old "Dubious Achievements / Why is This Man Laughing" meme of the Esquire of old.

bandmeeting said...

I met David Granger at a party a few years ago. He's a very nice guy for someone who runs a such shitty magazine and has a terminal case of Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Levi Starks said...

Our constitution used to be the rock upon which our nation stood. It was one of the things that separated us from the nations of the world. What Roberts did was just the first step toward turning it in to the sand upon which the rest of the world resides. Pretty soon we'll be just one big happy family.

From Inwood said...

I think Justice Roberts should be asked when he thinks the world began to tax people.

Pastafarian said...

You're forgetting just how nimble Roberts was: Not only was the mandate a tax, when Roberts needed it to be a tax (when deciding whether it was constitutional), he also considered it a penalty when necessary (to determine whether the case should even be considered).

He's a logical contortionist of the first order.

I just hope it was worth it to him: He trashed the law with semantic tricks to uphold a 2400 page monstrosity that will sink the American experiment...but at least he'll get a really cool write-up in Esquire, GQ, and Cosmo.

Chip S. said...

I think this question should be on the LSAT:

Which of these traits is the least desirable in a SC justice?

a. probity
b. intelligence
c. wisdom
d. nimbleness

McTriumph said...

Esquire lost all credibility when their fashion layouts went Disco. You can't take any men's magazine seriously that once pushed platform shoes for men.
FORWARD!

Piers said...

LOL Esquire.

mccullough said...

Striking down the Medicaid expansion (and garnering six other votes to do it) was huge. If enough states don't agree to it, then Obamacare is decimated.

Also, there are currently cases in the federal courts about the exchanges. The employer mandate only applies if the state has set up an exchange. The idiots who drafted Obamacare didn't include any employer mandate (or subsidies) if the federal government sets up the exchange. The IRS has tried to step in and claim it has the authority to grant subsidies to federal exchanges as well.

Roberts is playing the long game.

Amartel said...

The "strange new respect" only lasts as long as the recipient continues to bow to Liberal priorities. Then it's back to being non-credible again. Just ask John McCain or George Bush. Ask Chris Christie in about a year.

The rallying cry of the leftard: What have you done for me lately?

james smith said...

So making a politically based decision saves the court from being political?? Yep i got it now.

Darrell said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Darrell said...

So making a politically based decision saves the court from being political??

Only when it serves the Left.
Roberts is The Beet of The Year. At least.

n.n said...

Citizens United protected the rights of all corporations, for-profit and non-profit, including unions and civil rights corporations.

As for Obamacare, it is not Romneycare (until the Democrats corrupted it). It is the conflation of a contributory and net-negative contributory entitlement. It does not address the underlying causes of progressive inflation over the last several decades. It does not distinguish between insurance and welfare. It does not respect the limitations of reality, including finitely accessible natural and human resources.

Describing Obamacare's funding as taxation may actually serve a purpose. People know that taxes are confiscatory (or redistributive) and they don't like it. As their disposable income diminishes, they will respond to reduce their burden. Involuntary redistribution schemes have limited lifetimes.

William Chadwick said...

I call it the "Garry Wills Syndrome." Wills was just another national review writer,pretty much ignored by the MSM, until he came out as a statist. Suddenly his openions were sought out and his name began showing up all over the place as a valued commentator.

Crunchy Frog said...

Esquire's bullshit politics, driven primarily by the obtuse moron Charles Pierce, led me to finally drop my subscription after 20 years.

If it reads anything like the incoherent hatchet job on the Buss family he wrote for Grantland, good for you.

ampersand said...

Thinking about Robert's actions, particulary the seemingly desperate attempts to get Kennedy to agree with him,the more I think he was bribed to come up with that convoluted decision. Cash bribed.