General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy Did Roberts Change His Mind?
Last edited Mon Jul 9, 2012, 08:30 PM - Edit history (1)
http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2012/jul/09/why-did-roberts-change-his-mind/Roberts may want to blunt the anticipated accusations of political partisanship that any right-wing decisions in these cases will likely attract by supporting Obamas heath care program now. If so, he will have been immeasurably helped by his new enemies in the right-wing media who are painting him as a secret liberal, or as a turncoat villain with a deteriorating mind.It is therefore hard to credit that, only a short time after that contemptuous refusal, Roberts has been converted to a policy of extreme judicial modesty. Most commentators seem to have settled on a different explanation. Recent polls have shown that the American public has become increasingly convinced, by the drum-roll of 5-4 decisions reflecting a consistent ideological split, that the Supreme Court is not really a court of law but just another political institution to be accorded no more respect than other such institutions. Roberts, as Chief Justice, must feel threatened by this phenomenon; the Chief Justice is meant to be a judicial statesman as well as a judge, and it is part of his responsibility to maintain public respect for the Court for being above politics. Perhaps he thought it wise, all things considered, to take the occasion of an extraordinarily publicized case to strike a posture of judicial reticence by deciding contrary to his own evident political convictions.
He might have been particularly inclined to do so in view of the large number of politically charged cases scheduled for hearing next year, beginning in October, a month before the presidential election. The Court will have the opportunity to overrule its 2003 decision allowing state universities to take an admission candidates race into account, as one consideration among others, in seeking a diverse student body. The conservative justices might wish to abolish affirmative action altogether, or to impose more stringent restrictions on it.
They will also have the opportunity to reverse lower courts by upholding Congresss Defense of Marriage Act, which forbids federal agencies to treat gay marriages as real, for example by allowing a gay couple to file a joint income tax return. The Court will be asked to strike down an important part of the Civil Rights Act of 1965, which requires states with a particularly bad voting rights record to seek federal permission for new changes in their election laws. Moreover, it may soon find a chance further to constrict or even to abolish abortion rights.
Roberts may want to blunt the anticipated accusations of political partisanship that any right-wing decisions in these cases will likely attract by supporting Obamas heath care program now. If so, he will have been immeasurably helped by his new enemies in the right-wing media who are painting him as a secret liberal, or as a turncoat villain with a deteriorating mind.
========================================================================
This is the first of two posts on the Supreme Courts surprising 2011-2012 term. Tomorrow: David Cole on why liberals are having trouble celebrating their Supreme Court victories.
July 9, 2012, 2:05 p.m.
rocktivity
(44,577 posts)Last edited Mon Jul 9, 2012, 10:51 PM - Edit history (2)
with his ruling on Citizens United.
And DID Roberts "change his mind?" If the CBS News.com story is to be believed (the reporter has a pro-conservative track record and probably had anti-ACA judges as sources), he was NEVER interested in striking down ACA in its entirety, just the legality of its mandate.
rocktivity
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)and considered the rest of ACA constitutional. The other conservative judges were firm in throwing out the whole bill. This left Roberts in no-mans land, thus his reasoning that the mandate was a tax. That gave him legal cover to side with the liberal justices.
deaniac21
(6,747 posts)tnlurker
(1,020 posts)I believe.
phoenixtrouble
(1 post)There is a problem with the "states rights" point. There are a lot of federal laws that do not recognize same sex marriage for the purposes of benefits or other entitlements. Before you say anything, I'm not looking for any handouts. My main point of contention is that the man I am in love with and have been living together in a committed relationship is not a U.S. citizen. He is in the U.S. legally on a work visa (HB-1) but his visa and contract are due to expire in 5 months. If the laws are not recognized at the federal level, he will be forced to return to his home country. Heterosexual couples can marry a non-citizen and then the non-citizen can apply to become a naturalized citizen of the U.S. U.S. immigration policy states that this rule specifically does NOT apply to same-sex marriages, even those marriages that take place in states where they are legal. While I agree it is, and should be a states-rights issue, federal rules and laws MUST be equal across the board.
Paulie
(8,462 posts)And feel for you and wish you two the best!
A former co-worker of mine was in a similar situation, but this was after 9/11. His SO, on student visa, was coming back from a trip to Poland (burying his mother), but had his music collection of 300 CDs with him. Border agents deported him back to Poland for copyright infringement, and tried for months to come back to his home, cat and life. They ended up moving to the UK.