An indefensible decision made for the basest of reasons

Carol Iannone writes:

Rush is saying that it’s a horrible decision, and that the people saying Roberts is brilliant, silver lining, etc., are out to lunch. He also says there is a report from CBS news that Roberts really did bow to the political pressure, media and elsewhere. People were saying that the court would be seen as illegitimate, that Roberts would be seen as going in for judicial activism if he overturned, and so on. The other justices are pretty angry. They tried to convince Roberts to change, tried to get him to reiterate his argument and he couldn’t in a convincing way.

It’s Jan Crawford on CBS News who has reported this. Roberts back in March was ready to overturn; he was swayed in the opposite direction by the media and political attention.

Carol Iannone continues:

Rush is bringing out more things. The Dems are condemning the uninsured as free riders, when their whole party is built on free entitlements for their constituencies. Also, in the buildup to the case, the uninsured were treated as this victim class that we had to pity because of our heartless healthcare system, but now they are free riders making us all pay for them. Of course they mean the uninsured who can pay, but still, the point holds, what a shift.

Also, Rush is pointing out that with the new rules, under which no one can be rejected for insurance because of pre-existing conditions, someone could choose to pay the lower penalty rather than buy the insurance. That is true, but over time, the government will probably make the penalty more and more onerous. One of the things that has emerged is that the government is planning on a lot of revenue coming in from the penalties.

Remember too that Obama attacked the Court in a menacing kind of way, saying that the Court would be acting illegitimately if it overturned legislation passed by people’s representatives. It seems unbelievable that a chief justice would be so weak and timid that he would bend because of that. Rush adds that the story may not be true.

- end of initial entry -

Jeff C. writes (July 1):

A report today says that Roberts intended to vote against Obamacare but might have been swayed to change his mind by some combination of media coverage and his own sense of destiny.

But what combination of imperiousness and hidden shame explains the following? He was unwilling to explain why he changed his mind. The dissenters were so exasperated that they would not debate him in their writing.

The decision is explained by Ecclesiastes 1:2. John Roberts might have thought about John Marshall but is similar to this guy.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at July 02, 2012 12:28 PM | Send