FILE - In this Feb. 12, 2008, file photo, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., is seen in Providence, R.I. Turned away at the Supreme Court, congressional Republicans sketch a filibuster-proof strategy to repeal the nation's health care law in 2013. But it hinges on two uncertainties _ Mitt Romney capturing the White House and the party seizing even narrow control of the Senate. (AP Photo/Stephan Savoia, File)
He didn't do either, and in the process surprised (or dismayed) longtime court observers of every political stripe.
Those two outcomes in the finals days of his seventh year on the court offer some clues for reassessing what kind of chief justice Roberts is and intends to be. Is he no longer the rock-ribbed conservative loved by supporters and jeered by opponents? Has he become a pragmatic leader mindful of the court's place in history? Is he more canny, but still solidly conservative?
The measure of a justice is best taken after decades of service, rather than a few years. At age 57, Roberts could lead the court for another quarter-century.
But at the very least, the end of the Roberts Court's most consequential term already is leading to revised, and in some cases more nuanced, appraisals of his leadership.
Erwin Chemerinsky, a liberal scholar who is dean of the law school at the University of California at Irvine, announced that the era of the Roberts Court had begun. "He authored the opinion in the most important case in his seven years on the court, and did so against what was expected," Chemerinsky said.
In truth, Roberts' vote to uphold President Barack Obama's health care law was not so much a surprise.
The following is the relevant part of SCOTUS’s ruling on the Medicaid expansion: “The Medicaid expansion thus violates the Constitution by threatening States with the loss of their existing Medicaid funding if they decline to comply with the expansion. Pp. 51–55. (c) The constitutional violation is fully remedied by precluding the Secretary from applying §1396c to withdraw existing Medicaid funds for failure to comply with the requirements set out in the expansion. See §1303. The other provisions of the Affordable Care Act are not affected. Congress would have wanted the rest of the Act to stand, had it known that States would have a genuine choice whether to participate in the Medicaid expansion. Pp. 55–58. Because THE CHIEF JUSTICE finds the withholding—not the granting—of federal funds incompatible with the Spending Clause, Congress’ extension of Medicaid remains available to any State that affirms its willingness to participate. Even absent §1303’s command, the Court would have no warrant to invalidate the funding offered by the Medicaid expansion, and surely no basis to tear down the ACA in its entirety. When a court confronts an unconstitutional statute, its endeavor must be to conserve, not destroy, the legislation.”
I ask you, why would a State wish to participate in something that is not now and never will be fully funded by the Feds and once begun is subject to future changes in funding?
Fox News' Chris Wallace asked minority leader Mitch McConnell whether or not he will call Romney's mandate a tax, since Obama's mandate was modeled after what Romney passed as governor of Mass.
The Romney campaign has decided that the Obama mandate IS NOT a tax. So there's that.
Rick Santorum warned Republican's, that they will need to make a distinction between the nominee and Obama. lol...fact is, there is no distinction between Romney and the president when it comes to health care mandates.
In other news...
Rupert Murdoch, owner of News Corp (Fox's parent company), said that it is "doubtful" that Romney will beat Obama. Ya think???
Another interesting news story reveals that "Romney Invested in a Medical-Waste Firm That Disposed of Aborted Fetuses."
I have a hard time trying to figure out what the conservative message is. Every time they say they are for or against something, ol' Willard Mitt Romney portrays something completely different.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/romney-bain-abortion-stericycle-sec
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/02/eric-fehrnstrom-mitt-romney-individual-mandate-tax_n_1642951.html?1341241468
Mitt Romney's campaign say's Obamacare IS NOT a tax. You get it? It's not a tax, its a "PENALTY".
AND, It's a tax on the middle class..
Georgia and the other 25 states are going to opt out on the medicaid provision, which will render this decision impotent.
As for the rest of the bill, states have until 2014 to get their plan's together, or the federal government will step in and create the health care exchanges for them. That's the law.
Roberts basically said that the states cannot be coerced into a Medicaid expansion with threat's of cutting funding all together. He continued saying that the feds can, however, withhold additional funding from states that choose not to participate in the expansion.
His opinion on medicaid expansions, is opposite his opinion on exchanges and the mandate.
Go do some homework.
“We do not consider whether the Act embodies sound policies. That judgment is entrusted to the Nation’s elected leaders.”
“Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”