ABC's Terry Moran and Yahoo! News Preach Roberts 'Saved' the Supreme Court
The top of the Yahoo home page on Friday asked "Did Chief Justice Roberts save the Supreme Court?” That’s channeling the incessant spin of ABC Nightline anchor Terry Moran, who announced on Yahoo's web show Top Line: “Roberts rode to the rescue of the Obama health care plan, and maybe rode to the rescue of the Supreme Court, a little bit, as well.”
"We live in an era of punditry and hyper-partisanship where everybody’s on one side or the other and screaming,” complained Moran. “And here’s the Court, and John Roberts in particular, saying ‘We do this job. You guys do the rest.’”
Moran seemed to confuse unhappiness on the Left with public opinion in general: "They’ve seen the esteem for the Court diminish over these hyperpartisan years, since Bush vs. Gore. Polls show Americans feel less confident in the Court. The Court has no way to enforce its decisions except in the confidence of the people."
Top Line host and Yahoo! News Washington Bureau Chief David Chalian reminded viewers, "We know from the Obama administration, they were ready to pounce on this Court, and attack it for political partisanship if it went the other way. They’re not under that attack right now from the Left, but do you think that kind of thing weighs on the Chief Justice’s mind?"
Moran replied: “There’s no evidence in the opinion that it does, but knowing John Roberts, I think it does. The prestige of the court is the source of its authority, and justices can’t be happy if it’s just another football in the political wars.”
But if Roberts shifted his opinion to assuage Team Obama, isn't he just tossing them the football to spike?
Moran also suggested it was “much better” for the Supreme Court to stop resisting the New Deal in the 1930s, so there’s a historical pattern of left-wing pressure for the Court to submit to left-wing badgering.
Chalian asked if Roberts has been "Souterized" in the mind of conservatives, and Moran insultingly suggested the Court (and Clarence Thomas, hello?) had been a "pet" of conservatives: "The right is demoralized today, because in some ways, the Supreme Court had become their pet. Scalia is their hero, Thomas is a hero. Alito and Roberts, there was a a sense they would to the, carry out the agenda on the Supreme Court. So it’s possible. But John Roberts is a conservative, and there’ll be plenty of opinions where he makes liberals mad, because deep down, he is a conservative jurist."
Chalian implied that the Court's prestige rests entirely on the approval of liberals and leftists: “It is amazing, this could have been a real Bush vs. Gore kind of moment, right? And it just immediately, that dissipated, the notion of the ruling being seen that way, even if Republicans are indeed disappointed.”
Moran said Roberts made "the country" happy: “That sense that the Court stands in a different position is essential to the authority of the Court and in some ways, to the happiness of the country. Isn’t it nice that there’s one place where there’s not hollering at each other?"
[Hat tip: Mrs. Graham]
- Tim Graham's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Wanna save the SC? Kagen
Submitted by rbosque on Fri, 06/29/2012 - 9:28am.
Wanna save the SC? Kagen should have recused herself and Ginsberg should step down because she hates the US Constitution. That's a start.
Once again the court is "saved."
Submitted by motherbelt on Fri, 06/29/2012 - 9:35am.
From what? These people are plainly admitting that the "legitimacy" of SCOTUS is dependent on the goodwill of liberals, and they WILL rule the way they're "supposed" to or risk being trashed.
Liberals have just demonstrated that they can bully the Court.
In an interesting take on this in the WSJ, there is a conjecture that Scalia's "dissent" was originally written as the majority opinion, and that Roberts changed course.
Yeah, I know, we should not start sounding like Democrats in 2000, but it is an interesting thought.
Maybe he got the 3am call
Submitted by c5then on Fri, 06/29/2012 - 9:43am.
And the voice said something like: "sure would be a shame if somthin' were to happen to your kids".
Other than that scenario, I can not figure this out. It makes no sense or logic to me.
At least Scalia's opinion makes logical sense.
Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it!
Agree c5
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 06/29/2012 - 12:51pm.
None of this makes sense. The media's hypocrisy is the only thing clearly understood in this event coverage. But that isnt new either.
To add to the confusion, read this....
http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/28/stock-trades-may-show-obamacare-leak-f...
I believe several points resulted in Roberts vote.
Submitted by DC2280 on Fri, 06/29/2012 - 12:12pm.
1. The consistant decline for several decades in the nations opinion of the SCOTUS.
2. Carving out his independence from the more conservative judges and ultimately addressing his legacy.
3. An attempt to undo what many (not all ) believe was a bad decision in not allowing the vote count to continue in Florida during the 2000 Bush/Gore contest.
4. Rejecting a bill that was passed by both houses and signed by the president that would be perceived by many (not all ) as a politically made decision.
5. Finally, of late Roberts seems not to want to be tied to either the liberal or conservative factions of the court on every case.
Roberts didn't save Jack. What he did was kill America
Submitted by Dave. on Fri, 06/29/2012 - 9:45am.
And if you cannot see that, then it sucks to be you, I guess.
-Save
Vote for the American in November
Roberts sold his soul...
Submitted by Meredith1966 on Fri, 06/29/2012 - 9:52am.
If Roberts sold out in order to make the Court appear non-partisan, he ought to be removed from the Court. Partisan is in the eyes of the observer; as a jurist, he's supposed to rise above partisanship and render an objective, Constitutionally-based opinion, regardless of the politics involved in the case before him. It seems apparent from his legal contortions that he was more interested in pleasing certain powers-that-be (the media and the President, specifically) than he was in rendering an objective opinion. By declaring that the Act was unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause and then blessing it with validity under Congress' taxing authority, he has tried to make everyone happy--yes, Conservatives, it is unconstitutional, but yes, Liberals, we'll let it stand anyway. Yet, by doing this, he has undermined his own credibility as a jurist and, really, the credibility of the Court as a place where justice is blind. The Liberal Media loves him because in deciding this case as a Liberal, he's validated they're worldview that a Liberal outlook is an objective outlook; in truth, he hasn't enhanced the reputation of the Court, he's actually damaged it.
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." - Thomas Jefferson
Money quote
Submitted by motherbelt on Fri, 06/29/2012 - 10:07am.
by doing this, he has undermined his own credibility as a jurist and, really, the credibility of the Court as a place where justice is blind.
Well said!
Roberts
Submitted by bolivar on Fri, 06/29/2012 - 11:58am.
Roberts is a wimp and is showing his TRUE colors. To be this pantywaist in the heat of this argument shows me he is a pu$$^ of the worst order. He will get nothing but derision from me.
By the way, he no longer has any impartiality in any subject. I see impeachment in his future if he continues on this path. His "decision" will go down as one of the worst if not THE worst of all time.
Instead of doing the RIGHT thing, he took the easy way out and wimped out. To be courageous and brave in the face of liberal derision is an easy thing to do but, to knuckle under to the limp-wristed is truly a cowardly way out.
Law of the land is the Constitution; law of the case is SCOTUS
Submitted by lrgon on Fri, 06/29/2012 - 12:28pm.
Alexander Hamilton at the Constitutional Convention of 1787: “… the laws of Congress are restricted to a certain sphere, and when they depart from this sphere, they are no longer supreme or binding. In the same manner the states have certain independent power, in which their laws are supreme.”
Hamilton in Federalist #78: “There is no position which depends on clearer principles than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.”
Chief Justice John Marshall: “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.”
Thomas Jefferson: “Every law consistent with the Constitution will have been made in pursuance of the powers granted by it.Every usurpation or law repugnant to it cannot have been made in pursuance of its powers. The latter will be nugatory and void.”
William Davie, delegate from North Carolina to the Constitutional Convention: “This Constitution, as to the powers therein granted, is constantly to be the supreme law of the land.... It is not the supreme law in the exercise of a power not granted.”
Davie is clear that the states never granted the congress the power to meddle in areas like health care.
The anti-constitutionalists have used the commerce clause to fool us into allowing congress to venture out into unconstitutional territory.
The Roberts court is wrong by rubber stamping congress' unconstitutional forays.
Mitt Romney claims he can come in and nullify by executive order Obamacare. But even bad law has to be nullilfied by congress.The president has not the authority to do so on his own without congress using Article One section one wherein all law making power is the sole domain of congress.
The States who created the Constitution can nullify bad law.
Several points are clear
Submitted by ronber on Fri, 06/29/2012 - 12:33pm.
Having had a chance to digest (somewhat) the court decision yesterday and think about the resultant press coverage, several points are quite clear:
1) The liberal press corps and other assorted Democrats, suddenly and immediately, found themselves in love with SCOTUS 4 to 5 decisions
2) The liberal press corps and other assorted Democrats, suddenly and immediately, found themselves in love with SCOTUS writing legislation.
3) The liberal press corps and other assorted Democrats, suddenly and immediately, found themselves in LOVE with the Chief Justice, whom just days and hours before was an anathema to them.
4) The liberal press corps and other assorted Democrats, suddenly and immediately, found themselves, to their amazement as well, to be major hypocrites, tried to refute the charge but instead found themselves admitting and enjoying being frauds, fakes and liars.
5) The liberal press corps and other assorted Democrats, suddenly and immediately, proved that whatever the topic, they have no morals, no ethics and the only thing that matters is whether there is a (D) or an (R) after the name or a (D) or an (R) is supporting a particular issue!! The matter of the Constitution of the United States of America is of NO concern whatsoever to the liberal press corps and other assorted Democrats.
If only a REAL invariably conservative judge had been appointed
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 06/29/2012 - 12:55pm.
to the Supreme Court instead of the merely 'reliably conservative' Roberts. If only a liberty-loving jurist such as the pal of Clarence Thomas and Reagan-appointed hero of gun rights advocates across the land, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals legal superstar of the Right--and at the top of every potential 'conservative SC Justice' short list for years--Judge Laurence H. Silberman himself! had been sitting in Roberts' seat, then this Constitutional monstrosity, a/k/a the Affordable Care Act, a/k/a ObamaCare, a/k/a CommieCare would have of course been shot down in flam...WHAT? You mean to tell me Silberman, in an exhaustive, tightly-reasoned opinion, UPHELD the constitutionality of the Act?
Well, then..never mind.
Jer
I have no more faith in any judge, Jer, at any level, ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 06/29/2012 - 7:44pm.
than I do any of your left leaning thoughts.
Judges are as political, and as hypocritical, as is any mortal.
The fact they were lawyers prior to being "elevated" to the bench is in NO way reassuring.
Actually, it is quite the reverse.
MD
I'm not surprised, Matthew. I suspect you've felt that way
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 06/29/2012 - 7:56pm.
ever since Judge Roy Bean passed away.
Jer
Jer, your sense of humor ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 06/29/2012 - 10:35pm.
aside - at least the "Law West of the Pecos" was honest.
He reportedly told one unlucky fellow - "I'll see that you get a fair trial; then I'm gonna take you out and hang you."
There is a very good reason that lawyers and the legal system do not command a great deal of respect from the average person; it's called 'experience'.
MD
~Did I ever tell y'all about the time
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 06/29/2012 - 10:53pm.
My husband and I were hit by a drunk driver (with a permanently revoked license) driving a stolen limo with stolen plates and 5 kids in the back seat, two of whom belonged to the drunk driver? At one o'clock in the afternoon on a Sunday, no less. It was the Sunday many moons ago when Dale Jr. won the Daytona 500. I wouldn't remember that insignificant detail if my husband hadn't groaned about missing the whole thing because we were standing in the mud on the side of the road all afternoon next to the shattered ruins of three vehicles.
I said all that to say, the day I spent in court over that matter forever shattered any faith I had in the 'justice system' or it's representatives.
Bru, ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 06/29/2012 - 11:07pm.
I spent enough time in courtrooms, both for civil and criminal trials, to know that the statement, "A courtroom is the last place to find justice", is disgustingly true.
MD
~After the judge glanced at the papers in front of him
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 06/29/2012 - 11:45pm.
he asked if there was over $500 worth of damage done in the wreck.
The one in which a limousine, a late model F-150, and a Chevy sedan were all completely totaled..
When answered in the affirmative, the judge decided to revoke the drunk's license. After an awkward silence, he happened to notice that it was already revoked. As in, years earlier.
The man stole a limo from his BIL's car lot, stole plates to put on it, took his young son (whose b-day it was) and daughter and three of their friends out for a joy ride in it, in the rain, drunk out of his mind, wrecked into a car and a truck and sent the car driver to the hospital on a stretcher and his own son to the hospital to get 29 stitches from the flying shards of glass.
For stealing a car and plates and driving drunk without a license, 5 counts of child endangerment, wrecking the stolen car and destroying two others and putting two people in the hospital, the judge sentenced him to time served (54 days), a 90 day rehab program, and some probation. He wouldn't have gotten that much if my husband had not been able to tell the prosecutor that he witnessed the man behind the wheel, as the prosecution thought that the fact that he was drunk on the scene with his kids and the car wasn't enough to prove beyond doubt that he HAD been the driver.
At the end, the prosecutor asked that a special note be put in the perp's file to the effect that he MUST NOT drive..and the judge said incredulously, "Of course he's not going to drive, his license is revoked!"
Yo, Jer
Submitted by creekrat on Fri, 06/29/2012 - 8:00pm.
As a lawyer, I'd tread very carefully around this site for a while! This senseless, non constitutional outcome really stings. As I posted elsewhere here, we are finished even if we get the house, the senate and the whitehouse. Any appeal is pre decided already. Sickening, but not real keen on any legalistic mumbo jumbo.
Its own chapter
Submitted by Jimbo on Sat, 06/30/2012 - 12:22am.
I truly believe that in a hundred years (or less) when history teachers discuss the downfall of this Republic with their classes, this SCOTUS decision will have earned its own chapter. Beyond the fundamental realignment it creates in the relationship between the government and its subjects, it will have broad reaching implications in the years to come that can all be traced back to this single decision.
Jer, real question here.
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Fri, 06/29/2012 - 11:08pm.
Does it not seem funny that Roberts decided to uphold the ACA on grounds the administration vehemently denied?
I mean, did the lawyers ever argue the Constitutionality of the ACA based on it's being a tax? If not, why would Roberts make that argument for them?
IIRC, Roe V. Wade was decided similarly. Upheld on arguments not made.
We will never know
Submitted by Jimbo on Sat, 06/30/2012 - 12:18am.
I don't know if we will ever really know the answer to that question. As Roberts himself said, the argument which was being viewed through the lens of the commerce clause was unconstitutional. He should have ended his opinion there. There was no reason or cause to view the argument through a lens that was not being discussed. As one of the talking heads said, it is akin to a professor grading a student's paper with an F, but then correcting it for the student and awarding an A.
I dont get it
Submitted by Jimbo on Sat, 06/30/2012 - 11:12am.
ABC's Terry Moran and Yahoo! News Preach Roberts 'Saved' the Supreme Court
This statement has really been bothering me. Saved the SCOTUS from what? It's one of three interdependent portions of our government. If the vote went the other way, what would have happened? The SCOTUS would have folded its tent and gone away? The SCOTUS would no longer be the highest court in the land?
Honestly - I don't get it.
~"Saved" it
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sat, 06/30/2012 - 2:47pm.
From the wrath, scorn, and contempt which the media would have uncorked on it had the ruling gone against their wishes.
Wanna Bet?
Submitted by Jimbo on Sat, 06/30/2012 - 4:31pm.
I will bet that if you took a poll of people walking the street, especially those in clueless NYC... and said to them "What would have happened to the SCOTUS if Roberts didn't save it?" you would have a shockingly high number of people who would say that the SCOTUS would have gone away. Assuming they knew what the SCOTUS was.