Robert Meyer
The fall of the house of Roberts
By Robert Meyer
July 8, 2012

Unless you are Rip Van Winkle, you have heard an earful about how Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, has sided with the liberal wing in declaring the Obama health care bill constitutional. A host of prognosticators have offered their theories on how this happened and what it means. Adding to the intrigue, was a news story released on July lst, by a CBS journalist, that claimed Roberts changed his vote on the issue, apparently in reaction to the criticism heaped on the court, as pundits presumed the health care law would be struck down.

Roberts, as Chief Justice, probably feels more pressure than do his fellow justices. The court of this era will be historically referred to as "The Roberts Court," and apparently Roberts didn't want to bear the legacy of incurring the derision of the media and the liberal political functionaries. This is unfortunate because it is only a covert confirmation of what we already know: that courts are far from independent bodies, but are unduly swayed by the political debate. Roberts couldn't meet the standard he imputed on himself, that he is like a baseball umpire calling balls and strikes.

I always thought from the beginning, that President Bush made a mistake by not promoting Antonin Scalia to Chief Justice after the death of William Rehnquist. Of course, this would have required two votes in a hostile political environment, one for the Scalia promotion, and one for Roberts as an Associate Justice. In this case it required only one vote. And Perhaps Bush knew that an Edward Kennedy-like assault would prevail, in the wake of such a nomination, the way both Bork(successfully) and Alito(unsuccessfully)were ambushed. That said, we see why it is risky to promote someone to Chief Justice with no SCOTUS experience, not because Roberts' judicial temperament and philosophy was a wildcard, but because we never saw how he reacted under the pressure. The umpire's calls of "balls" and "strikes" was obviously impacted by the hostility of the hometown fans.

How does a Justice who changes his position in the wake of such pressure augur for future Supreme Court decisions? Terrible and not well. We can't consider Roberts an "Originalist" any longer. An "Originalist' would declare the whole bill unconstitutional, and not craft an alternative path by which it can be deemed legitimate. Every crucial decision will be fraught with uncertainty — and not because Anthony Kennedy is a swing vote. The CBS report(leak?) indicated that Kennedy, of all people, was trying to persuade Roberts to maintain his initial decision to declare Obamacare unconstitutional. My pipe dream was that the conservative justices added under Bush would bring Kennedy back in line, but despite the rumors, it remains a pipe dream.

Of course, their have been many past instances of conservative judicial appointments, frustrating conservative citizens by rendering liberal decisions. We could point to Sandra Day O'Connor being unreliable, the snafu of nominating Steven Breyer, the confirmation of Kennedy in place of Bork, etc. We could do a whole chapter in a book chronicling these defections or miscalculations. But a lot of these bad appointments were apparent from the start. The Roberts syndrome came out of left field unexpectedly.

What I find most disturbing is that the same can't be said about the nominees appointed by Democratic presidents. They have been in lockstep in their decisions, and have seldom been criticized by the media for their monolithic groupthink. The last instance of liberal defection that comes to mind in when Byron White(appointed by John F. Kennedy)called the Roe v. Wade decision, creating a right out of thin air. But courts were less polarized in those days. So how do we account for what Roberts? I think the desire for personal approval from Washington insiders and the prestige of the court, eventually become a motivating factor that supersedes the commitment to a constitutional judicial philosophy.

Roberts essentially offered the rationale that the decisions of the High Court are not meant to protect citizens from ill conceived legislation that is crafted by representatives that the people elect. Tell that to liberals. Yes, Roberts' claims are actually true, but this is entirely a cop out if its is meant to justify Roberts behavior in reaching this decision. And Yes, the fate of Obamacare will be now returned to the hands of the voters in November, but why procrastinate when it comes to doing the right thing? Passing the buck on the sure thing has proved a risky venture. And it raises the question as to what is the role of the High Court in the process of judicial review? Roberts, by repudiating constitutionally of Obamacare under the Commerce Clause, but allowing it under congressional taxing powers, resembles Perry Mason in the court room: He not only vindicated the client, but did his opponent's job by fingering the real culprit.

Numerous conservative pundits have groped to find a silver lining in this decision, trying to tell us the glass in half-full because it will now motivate conservative voters. At this point in Obama's ruinous tenure, if we still need motivation to vote, we have been comatose at the wheel.

© Robert Meyer


The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)

Click to enlarge

Robert Meyer

Robert Meyer is a hardy soul who hails from the Cheesehead country of the upper midwest... (more)


Receive future articles by Robert Meyer: Click here

More by this author


Stephen Stone
'The fervent prayer of the righteous'

Siena Hoefling
Protect the Children: Update with VIDEO

Stephen Stone
Flashback: Dems' fake claim that Trump and Utah congressional hopeful Burgess Owens want 'renewed nuclear testing' blows up when examined

Bruce Deitrick Price
Are you concerned about the quality of our public schools?

Rev. Mark H. Creech
Revelation Chapter 2: The church that stood for what is right, but needed love

Michael Bresciani
Taiwan, Pelosi’s attention-getting distraction: A political stunt

Jerry Newcombe
Falsely teaching our children that America is evil

Selwyn Duke
When Joe caved to Joe: The real Manchin con

Curtis Dahlgren
January 6 "justice" vs. BLM-ANTIFA violence: a look back

Randy Engel
Bishop James T. McHugh – The forgotten man in the McCarrick equation

Pete Riehm
Cow tipping and kowtowing

Stone Washington
Rescuing the right to life: The aftermath of abortion rights in America

Rev. Mark H. Creech
Revelation Chapter 1: ‘The one who is, who was, and who is coming’

Jerry Newcombe
Madison on the chopping block?

Kari Lee Fournier
Almighty God versus Satan: The sting of the century!
  More columns


Click for full cartoon
More cartoons

RSS feeds



Matt C. Abbott
Chris Adamo
Russ J. Alan
Bonnie Alba
Chuck Baldwin
Kevin J. Banet
J. Matt Barber
Fr. Tom Bartolomeo
. . .
[See more]

Sister sites