JuridicsUSA: Supreme Court: Obamacare law is constitutional, but so are many alternatives

The Obamacare law has been ruled constitutional -- that is, not-unconstitutional.  The ruling casts the conflict back into the fires of political partisanship, bekawz the Supreme Court of the USA (SCOTUS) under Chief Justice John Roberts refused to do the Legislative Branch's work for them.  This is to the good.  Now, let's see what comes of it all.  8-)

— Lawt, refWrite Frontpage juridics columnist



Justice Roberts shoots the rapids


by Charles Krauthammer
Charleston [West Virginia] Daily Mail (June30,2012)
— reposted here by Lawt

WASHINGTON — It's the judiciary's Nixon-to-China: Chief Justice John Roberts joins the liberal wing of the Supreme Court and upholds the constitutionality of Obamacare.

How? By pulling off one of the great constitutional finesses of all time.

He managed to uphold the central conservative argument against Obamacare, while at the same time finding a narrow definitional dodge to uphold the law — and thus prevented the court from being seen as having overturned, presumably on political grounds, the signature legislation of this administration.

Why did he do it?

Because he carries two identities.

Jurisprudentially, he is a constitutional conservative.

Institutionally, he is chief justice and sees himself as uniquely entrusted with the custodianship of the court's legitimacy, reputation and stature.

Read more ....

John Roberts health care vote: Nuanced view of Chief Justice surfaces

Huffington Post (July1,2k12)
by Mark Sherman (Associated Press)
—reposted here by Lawt, refWrite Frontpage juridics columnist

WASHINGTON -- Chief Justice John Roberts could have taken down the entire, massive health care law that his fellow Republicans deride as "Obamacare." He could have prevented the Supreme Court decision that largely disabled the most disputed aspects of Arizona's crackdown on illegal immigrants.

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.

He long had been counted among the possible votes to uphold the law. But it was widely assumed that if Roberts ultimately voted for it, so too would Anthony Kennedy, most often the decisive vote in closely fought cases. It was only the second time in his tenure that Roberts provided the deciding vote for the side favored by the court's liberals.

Up until now, it had been the Kennedy Court, Chemerinsky said, "This year, it was the Roberts Court."