Florida Wants the Feds to Crack Down on Blue State CDL Handouts
'It Will Stun You': Miller Warns D.C. Crime Manipulation Is Worse Than Previously...
Trump Signs Additional Orders to Restore Law and Order
This Is Why Trump Is Sending the Feds to Chicago
When You Recognize It, You'll See How Gavin Newsom Obliterated His Own Attacks...
Did You See How DNC Chairman Ken Martin Kicked Off Their Summer Meeting?
It's Starting to Feel Like the Golden Age
Bill Maher Nails Why Trump Connects With Voters...and Dems Won't Like It
On Home Buying, Maybe We're All Asking for Too Much
How 'Ghost Gun' Rules Are Running Slap Into Reality
Trump Just Took Another Step to Make D.C. Safer
There's Been a Major Update Regarding Kilmar Abrego Garcia
Trump Wants Grassley to Tell Dems These Three Words Over 'Blue Slip' Tradition
A Disturbing Number of People Have Signed Petition Supporting Illegal Trucker Accused of...
Are Democrats Really Sure They Want to Escalate the Redistricting Wars?
Tipsheet

Turncoat: Chief Justice Roberts Evokes the Ire of Conservatives

Chief Justice John Roberts saved Obamacare for a second time today, fueling conservative skepticism about his commitment to straightforward and originalist jurisprudence. His overt warmness toward highly improbable interpretations of laws — particularly when they are politically controversial, like the Affordable Care Act (ACA) — is earning him the scorn of those who praised his nomination to the Court ten years ago.

Advertisement

Roberts was nominated in 2005 by then-President George W. Bush as the replacement for Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Like all Supreme Court nominees, he was chosen mainly for his judicial philosophy as demonstrated by his track record in lower courts. Since his nomination and swearing-in, he has leaned conservative. But he has also  jump ship to side with the Court's liberal wing from time to time.

Some see the Chief Justice's relative unpredictability as a positive, a means of protecting the Court's credibility in a period of intense political polarization. Roberts is keenly aware of the Court's public image, as well as his own legacy, and he has gravitated away from statements that might cast him as a political partisan on the bench. He sees himself as preserver of optics for the nation's highest court.

This goal has arguably had an effect on the Chief Justice's own jurisprudence in key cases. He has demonstrated a willingness to treat laws as extremely elastic in their range of possible meanings. For instance, today, he articulated the hermeneutical principle that defined his reading of the legal text under scrutiny:

Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter.

There it is: "If at all possible." The Chief Justice's approach is to interpret laws as generously as humanly possible. His posture is to assume the constitutionality of a law unless it is explicitly unconstitutional. And even then, today's ruling might push that principle even further, since he ignored the portion of the ACA that was under scrutiny in favor of the broader meaning of the law. He ignored a blatant contradiction in the legislation.

Advertisement

Many conservatives are concerned that Roberts' goal of non-politicality has morphed into an exercise in liberal placation. In an effort to prove that he is legitimate and an important Chief Justice, he refuses to strike down the cornerstone achievement of the Obama presidency, regardless of the law's possible unconstitutionality.

In the words of lawyer Carrie Severino: "If the chief justice is willing to join the court's liberals in this linguistic farce, it's time we admitted that our national 'umpire' is now playing for one of the teams."

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement