Liberals Still Love John Roberts for His Obamacare Ruling

In an unsigned editorial published today, the editors of The Wall Street Journal give a Bronx cheer to “the media acclaim cascading over Chief Justice John Roberts” for his decision upholding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare. As the Journal notes, Roberts is currently basking in the praise of both Esquire magazine, which named the chief one of its “Americans of the Year,” and The Atlantic, which hailed him as one of the “Brave Thinkers” of 2012, “by which they mean thinkers who agree with the Atlantic's liberal editors.”

I’m surprised the liberal love affair with Roberts has lasted this long, but then again the Supreme Court hasn’t yet issued any major decisions since handing down its Obamacare ruling in back in June.

Before the inevitable heartbreak strikes, I'd encourage the fawning editors at Esquire and The Atlantic to reread Roberts’ Obamacare ruling. “It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices,” he wrote. It would be a shame if the chief's liberal admirers were caught by surprise when he invokes that same principle of judicial deference to Congress and votes to uphold the Defense of Marriage Act or some other law they don't like.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Jeff||

    I still hate him for his Obamacare ruling, so I can't say I'm surprised.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    “It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices,”

    Maybe that is precisely why Roberts was chosen as a "Brave Thinker".

  • $park¥||

    It's a nice "Fuck You!" to the people who voted in dipshit politicians, but I think John Marshall might have had a different opinion when he specifically took that power for the SC.

  • Brutus||

    Th problem with that statement is that in rewriting Obamacare's mandate to pass constitutional muster, he saved Congress from the consequnces of its craven political choices.

  • IceTrey||

    I'm not sure it does pass muster. It's still a tax on non-consumption. How can you be taxed for not doing something?

  • Brutus||

    If there was a tiny reed to hang the mandate on, that was it and Roberts found it.

  • Bardas Phocas||

    Thank god he'll be invited to those legendary DC cocktail parties.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    This approbation is the fulfillment of his life's work and ambition.

    Fucking pathetic.

  • bmp1701||

    They've got Fisher v. University of Texas this term. He could drop a loaf on affirmative action and watch himself again become an evil Reich-Wing Toady.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Your run of the mill liberal doesn't give a fuck about AA. The noisy progressives do though.

  • bmp1701||

    They could also overrule the 9th Circuit's judgment on the Proposition 8 case and put the marriage amendment back on the books. Bricks would be shat.

  • SIV||

    If Roberts upholds affirmative action he'll be canonized.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Before the inevitable heartbreak strikes,

    Unless Roberts has grown in office and is now a full fledged big government progressive. For which there is more evidence than having faith in his being a limited government constitutionalist.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    “It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices,”

    Then what the fuck is his job and the point of judicial review.

    Oh that's right, it's State Building

  • fish||

    Jack M. Balkin - Jack M. Balkin is Knight Professor of Constitutional Law and the First Amendment at Yale Law School, and the founder and director of Yale's Information Society Project, an interdisciplinary center that studies law and new information technologies.

    Lisa Simpson: Statism: one of those campy 70s throwbacks that appeals to Generation X-ers Yale Constitutional Law professors.

    Bart Simpson: We need another Vietnam to thin out their ranks a little.

  • DJK||

    Wow! I tried reading the article and couldn't get through the second paragraph. Such a fundamental misunderstanding of what the fuck Constitutional government is all about. Yet this is what passes for thought at the nation's most illustrious law schools...

  • Sonic Charmer||

    "when he invokes that same principle of judicial deference to Congress and votes to uphold the Defense of Marriage Act or some other law they don't like"

    Not sure how/why this could ever happen. Why wouldn't the people who (obviously) blackmailed him into the Obamacare decision just blackmail him again?

  • The Late P Brooks||

    "The law is whatever we say it is."

  • Tim||

    It's a tax!
    It's a fee!
    It's a dessert topping!

  • ||

    I guess liberals enjoy drinking salty ham tears as much as anyone.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    “It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices,” he wrote.

    Actually, I think that is precisely your job.

  • Brutus||

    I have sympathy for his statement. Unhappily, it's not the SCOTUS's job to rewrite legislation so it passes constitutional muster, either, but he fucking did it.

  • Juice||

    The day after the ruling I saw my neighbor and she was beaming and joyous over it. It was the first thing out of her mouth, how happy she was about it. I said that it was actually a pretty unsettling precedent, that the logic in the opinion was piss poor, and that the act itself was a convoluted clusterfuck designed to enrich corporations. Didn't matter at all. "Now poor people will get free healthcare." Because of this statement, I questioned her knowledge of the actual act that had passed and she just dismissed me as an uneducated sap who wanted the poor to suffer.

    They don't care that this precedent will allow all sorts of federal mandates on individuals and that despite Roberts' ruling, it did indeed overturn Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co. Now the feds have the power to mandate just about anything they want as long as the court decides that the penaltaxes are "not overly burdensome." They got what they wanted today and that's all that matters.

  • WhatAboutBob||

    Regular people who support Obamacare have only two words in their brain: "free stuff!". I bet most have no clue about the details, much like they have no clue about anything the federal government does. As long as the politicians say nice things then it's all ok.

  • Number 2||

    Last week, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down an amendment to the Michigan State Constitution, adopted by referendum of people of the state, that barred state colleges from applying racial, sexual or ethnic preferences in admissions.

    While the Obamacare decision was pending, we heard endless whining from the Left that any judge who rejected the Will of the People and imposed his or her "own views" of what laws were and were not permissible was committing the ultimate crime against democracy and would forever and permanently damage the legitimacy of the courts.

    Have any of those people objected to the Sixth Circuit imposing its "own views" to strike down a constitutional amendment that the people themselves directly adopted?

    Didn't think so...

  • ||

    Liberals don't like the Constitution. They view it as this ginormous pain in the ass that keeps them from getting what they want. They are all "Are you serious?" about looking at legislation from the POV of "Is this Constitutional?" instead of from the POV of "Will this get me votes?"

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Absurd. Conservatives hate the Bill of Rights and its primary defender - the ACLU.

    Liberals used the Constitution to add amendments like the 13th, 14th, 16th, 17th, 19th and so on.

    Quit listening to the Beckerhead.

  • Calidissident||

    The ACLU has a habit of ignoring the amendments they don't like

  • WhatAboutBob||

    What's the deal with your obsession with Glenn Beck? I bet you're the only hear that ever listens to him.

  • fish||

    He used to be Beck's Buttplug...they had a nasty breakup!

  • B.P.||

    Don't forget the 18th amendment.

  • Brutus||

    Is that why liberals were so excited by the Citizens United decision, because it expanded free speech?

  • RightNut||

    Roberts could issue libertarian/constitutional rulings for the next 30 years, and it still wouldn't undo the amount of damage he did with the Obamacare ruling.

  • IceTrey||

    It's funny how libs hate it when the government gets involved in a women's right to choose an abortion, but love it when the government gets involved in a woman's right to choose her healthcare insurance.

  • nikea||

    Instead, lawmakers spent the windfall. From 2002 to 2007, overall spending http://www.cheapfootballcleatsairs.com/ rose 50 percent faster than inflation. Education spending increased almost 70 percent faster than inflation, even though the relative school-age population was falling. Medicaid and salaries for state workers rose http://www.nikefootballcleatstrade.com/ almost twice as fast as inflation.

  • attractions guide||

    Obamacare building is very good for me

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement