{"id":131309,"date":"2012-07-14T10:32:12","date_gmt":"2012-07-14T14:32:12","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/?p=131309"},"modified":"2012-12-26T16:03:57","modified_gmt":"2012-12-26T21:03:57","slug":"john-roberts-aca-ruling","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/article-of-the-day\/07\/14\/john-roberts-aca-ruling\/","title":{"rendered":"John Roberts Breaks Up With SCOTUS"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Article:<\/strong> Why Did Roberts Do It?<\/a> by David L. Franken in Slate.<\/p>\n

The Text:<\/strong> Sometimes you just have to take one for the team. A wistful thought of that kind must have flitted through the mind of Chief Justice John Roberts today as he announced that the Supreme Court was upholding the Affordable Care Act by the slimmest of margins. <\/p>\n

The lineup was a shocker: Roberts joined the court\u2019s four moderate\/liberal justices in upholding the act. Court-watchers knew Roberts would be in the majority, whichever way the case came out, but we expected Justice Anthony Kennedy to be there, too. He wasn\u2019t: Kennedy joined fellow conservative Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito in a vehement (and\u2014departing from court practice\u2014jointly signed) dissent. Indeed, the chief justice was the only justice who cast a vote on the individual mandate that was contrary to the political position of the party of the president who appointed him.<\/p>\n

Why did he do it? Quite simply, to save the court. As Jeffrey Rosen has noted, the ACA case was John Roberts\u2019 moment of truth\u2014and today\u2019s opinion proves that Roberts knew it. In the aftermath of Bush v. Gore and Citizens United, the percentage of Americans who say they have \u201cquite a lot\u201d or a \u201cgreat deal\u201d of confidence in the Supreme Court has dipped to the mid-30s. A 5-4 decision to strike down Obamacare along party lines, whatever its reasoning, would have been received by the general public as yet more proof that the court is merely an extension of the nation\u2019s polarized politics. Add the fact that the legal challenges to the individual mandate were at best novel and at worst frivolous, and suddenly a one-vote takedown of the ACA looks like it might undermine the court\u2019s very legitimacy.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Whatever else John Roberts wants, he doesn\u2019t want that. Though surely not immune from the kind of \u201cmotivated reasoning\u201d that polarizes political and legal thinking alike, the chief justice must feel a special institutional responsibility. A cynic might say that Roberts is keeping his powder dry for impending battles that are closer to his heart, such as the constitutionality of affirmative action. But I think Roberts is playing the long game. Assuming good health, he and his conservative colleagues will hold sway on the court for years to come. Roberts wants the institution over which he presides to maintain some remnant of the above-the-fray brand it has created for itself over two centuries. <\/p>\n

Read in this light, Roberts\u2019 ACA opinion is masterful. It opens with a five-page primer on judicial review and limited federal power that was clearly designed, like Chief Justice Earl Warren\u2019s unassuming opinion in Brown v. Board of Education, to be read by laypeople. <\/p>\n

Next\u2014and here I must take my lumps\u2014the opinion rejects the argument I advocated in Slate, that the obscure Anti-Injunction Act requires the case to be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds. Nonetheless, the rest of the opinion embodies the spirit of my earlier argument. Like John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, the chief justice uses the ACA case to shore up the court\u2019s legitimacy, throw a few sops to his ideological confreres, and deal at least a glancing political blow to the president while avoiding outright confrontation. Like Marbury before it, National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius is (to again borrow from historian Robert McCloskey) a \u201cmasterwork of indirection.\u201d<\/p>\n

Roberts concludes that the individual mandate exceeds Congress\u2019s Commerce Clause power because that clause only allows Congress to regulate existing commerce, not to force unwilling citizens into commercial transactions. This section of the opinion is ideological catnip for libertarians but will have only minor real-world effects since Congress rarely mandates private purchases. In the weakest part of the decision, Roberts argues that the mandate exceeds even the expansive scope of Congress\u2019 power to \u201cmake all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution\u201d the powers granted by the Constitution. Even though Congress thought the mandate was literally necessary to the Act\u2019s other insurance provisions (which are concededly regulations of commerce), Roberts concludes that the mandate is somehow not proper.<\/p>\n

But all of this turns out to be just warm-up material. Thirty pages into his opinion, Roberts suddenly pirouettes and holds that the mandate can be upheld as an exercise of Congress\u2019 power to levy taxes. (This will surely give Tea Partiers some succor\u2014and some sound bites: President Obama tried to pull a tax over on the American people, and the Supreme Court called it for what it was.) <\/p>\n

Lower courts\u2014even ones that upheld the mandate as a regulation of commerce\u2014resisted this conclusion, and the justices appeared unimpressed by it at oral argument because Congress chose to label the mandate a penalty, not a tax. And Roberts admits that it looks more like a penalty. Indeed, this entire portion of the opinion, unlike what comes before, reads as if Roberts\u2019 heart is not fully in it: It is dutiful, more like a brief written for a client than a judicial broadside fired from the hip. But it makes all the right moves: The mandate operates like a tax. Labels are not dispositive when it comes to sources of congressional power. And, most important, the court has a duty to construe statutes so as to rescue them from unconstitutionality\u2014a duty that, as Justice Louis Brandeis understood, is grounded in the need to preserve the court\u2019s institutional legitimacy. From every perspective\u2014political, institutional, and even legal\u2014the tax-power holding is a brilliant compromise.<\/p>\n

The rest of the opinion, striking down Congress\u2019 threat to eliminate all Medicaid funding to states that refuse to expand eligibility, is the most surprising. Although based on the common sense notion that Congress shouldn\u2019t be allowed to bribe states by making them offers they can\u2019t refuse, it fails to provide a yardstick by which to measure such coercion. My hunch is that this holding will be read narrowly and will not imperil the many \u201ccooperative federalism\u201d programs that already exist, from No Child Left Behind to Title IX to the Clean Air Act. But it is only a hunch.<\/p>\n

In any case, the individual mandate was the main event. And it survives, thanks to the vote of John Roberts. We may never know whether Roberts initially sided with the challengers and then \u201cswitched in time,\u201d like a famous Justice Roberts of the past, or whether he always intended to save the ACA. Either way, the country\u2014and the court\u2014should be happy he did.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Article: Why Did Roberts Do It? by David L. Franken in Slate. The Text: Sometimes you just have to take one for the team. A wistful thought of that kind must have flitted through the mind of Chief Justice John Roberts today as he announced that the Supreme Court was upholding the Affordable Care […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":49,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[259],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"\nJohn Roberts Breaks Up With SCOTUS<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Turns out maintaining the Supreme Court's legitimacy is more important than partisanship.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/article-of-the-day\/07\/14\/john-roberts-aca-ruling\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"John Roberts Breaks Up With SCOTUS\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Turns out maintaining the Supreme Court's legitimacy is more important than partisanship.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/article-of-the-day\/07\/14\/john-roberts-aca-ruling\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Prose Before Hos\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2012-07-14T14:32:12+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2012-12-26T21:03:57+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Article of the Day\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@pbhnetwork\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@pbhnetwork\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Article of the Day\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/article-of-the-day\/07\/14\/john-roberts-aca-ruling\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/article-of-the-day\/07\/14\/john-roberts-aca-ruling\/\",\"name\":\"John Roberts Breaks Up With SCOTUS\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2012-07-14T14:32:12+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2012-12-26T21:03:57+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/#\/schema\/person\/1e19d7cf2b1a9aea1805fd7b4b4b2b4e\"},\"description\":\"Turns out maintaining the Supreme Court's legitimacy is more important than partisanship.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/article-of-the-day\/07\/14\/john-roberts-aca-ruling\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/article-of-the-day\/07\/14\/john-roberts-aca-ruling\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/article-of-the-day\/07\/14\/john-roberts-aca-ruling\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"John Roberts Breaks Up With SCOTUS\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/\",\"name\":\"Prose Before Hos\",\"description\":\"The Far Side Of Politics\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/#\/schema\/person\/1e19d7cf2b1a9aea1805fd7b4b4b2b4e\",\"name\":\"Article of the Day\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/pbhnetwork\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/author\/article-of-the-day\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"John Roberts Breaks Up With SCOTUS","description":"Turns out maintaining the Supreme Court's legitimacy is more important than partisanship.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/article-of-the-day\/07\/14\/john-roberts-aca-ruling\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"John Roberts Breaks Up With SCOTUS","og_description":"Turns out maintaining the Supreme Court's legitimacy is more important than partisanship.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/article-of-the-day\/07\/14\/john-roberts-aca-ruling\/","og_site_name":"Prose Before Hos","article_published_time":"2012-07-14T14:32:12+00:00","article_modified_time":"2012-12-26T21:03:57+00:00","author":"Article of the Day","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@pbhnetwork","twitter_site":"@pbhnetwork","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Article of the Day","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/article-of-the-day\/07\/14\/john-roberts-aca-ruling\/","url":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/article-of-the-day\/07\/14\/john-roberts-aca-ruling\/","name":"John Roberts Breaks Up With SCOTUS","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/#website"},"datePublished":"2012-07-14T14:32:12+00:00","dateModified":"2012-12-26T21:03:57+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/#\/schema\/person\/1e19d7cf2b1a9aea1805fd7b4b4b2b4e"},"description":"Turns out maintaining the Supreme Court's legitimacy is more important than partisanship.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/article-of-the-day\/07\/14\/john-roberts-aca-ruling\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/article-of-the-day\/07\/14\/john-roberts-aca-ruling\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/article-of-the-day\/07\/14\/john-roberts-aca-ruling\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"John Roberts Breaks Up With SCOTUS"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/","name":"Prose Before Hos","description":"The Far Side Of Politics","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/#\/schema\/person\/1e19d7cf2b1a9aea1805fd7b4b4b2b4e","name":"Article of the Day","sameAs":["https:\/\/twitter.com\/pbhnetwork"],"url":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/author\/article-of-the-day\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/131309"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/49"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=131309"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/131309\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":133536,"href":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/131309\/revisions\/133536"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=131309"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=131309"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.prosebeforehos.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=131309"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}