John Roberts

Chief Justice John Roberts: What He Wants As His Long Term Legacy

Ronald Leave a comment

There is much speculation about the US Supreme Court and the most important case in a decade–the Affordable Care Act, known by its critics as “ObamaCare”.

Many think Anthony Kennedy is the key vote, but actually, the author would say that Chief Justice John Roberts is the REAL key vote, and there is much speculation that he will join the liberals and Kennedy, the usual swing vote, and might even convince Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito to join as well, on the power of his personality and the respect he engenders on the Court over the past seven years.

Chief Justice Roberts is going to have long career on the Court, and he wants his legacy to be positive, and IF the Court rules against “ObamaCare”, his reputation will be in tatters, and will be irretrievable.

Roberts is considered one of the brightest members of the Court, and although a conservative, he is not extreme as Clarence Thomas, for instance, is.

Roberts wishes to unite and move forward, and has been stung by the horrible reaction to the Citizens United case of 2010, and to the remnants of the Bush V. Gore case of 2000, the damage done to the reputation of the Court BEFORE he arrived as Chief Justice in 2005.

His questioning showed a mind conflicted, but to believe that he will negate the whole law is hard to imagine, as he set aside three days and six hours for this case, highly unusual, and that is, to many observers, a sign that he recognizes how crucial this issue is in itself, and the seriousness with which he takes it..

While no one can read the mind of anyone, expect Roberts to write the opinion and be in the majority, which is likely 6-3, but could be 7-2 or 8-1.

This case will shape the long term future of the Court, and if the law is overturned, the likely result will be, over time, a single payer system, which any conservative would not want.

And remember it was conservatives who led the charge in the time of Bill Clinton for what is now “RomneyCare” in Massachusetts, and “ObamaCare” in America!

Trying To Fathom The Supreme Court On Health Care: The Court Under The Microscope

Ronald Leave a comment

Yesterday’s oral arguments before the Supreme Court led many observers to think that the Court is about to declare the Obama Health Care law unconstitutional this coming June.

Not so fast, ladies and gentlemen! This is hysteria and panic before the fact, with plenty of opportunity after the Court decision, if it is, indeed, negative!

Emphasis was put on Justice Antonin Scalia’s sarcastic comments about mandating broccoli, a totally ridiculous statement! But one must remember that Scalia is a showboat, a maniacal egotist who loves to hear the sound of his own voice, and get everyone’s attention, and one must remember that the Court was issuing an audio of the oral arguments immediately after the event, a very rare circumstance, and that had to be on Scalia’s mind!

Scalia was thought to be a possible vote, but if it is not, so what, as Scalia is, arguably, a hypocrite who is constantly contradictory, utilizing a broad interpretation of the Constitution, when he wishes to, and other times, pontificating on “originalism”, the idea that we must literally follow the Founding Fathers as they saw things in 1787 at the Constitutional Convention.

More importantly, the view of Justice Anthony Kennedy and Chief Justice John Roberts will be the crucial votes, and although Kennedy and Roberts both expressed some reservations about the Obama Health Care bill and the mandate contained within it, there were also key comments by both that indicated a mind open to consideration of the constitutionality of the law.

Kennedy is usually the swing vote, and seemed conflicted, which can be seen as a good sign, and Roberts seemed very evenhanded, and is known to want to be in the majority, and probably write this most important decision of the past decade, and aware that the Supreme Court does not look very good in the eyes of many people based on recent cases, particularly the Citizens United Case of 2010, on top of the Bush V. Gore case of 2000.

The argument is that if Kennedy goes to the majority, then Roberts will join, and the vote would be 6-3.

And one must point out that the four defenders of the legislation were excellent in their arguments supporting the legislation, with Justice Stephen Breyer, a true intellectual, particularly outstanding in his arguments, but joined by Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan.

So, with one more day of oral arguments, it is not time to give up on support of the legislation, and also realize that one cannot always judge how members of the Court will vote, based on oral argument alone, as often, what is being done is to test both sides in the case, and sometimes, purposely mislead on intentions, in the process of asking the lawyers in the case to defend their side.

This decision is far from certain, but progressives should feel optimistic about it at this point, and simply wait patiently to see the result, knowing that the cause is just and compassionate, and that those of us who support it are on the right side of history with Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal and Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society!

The Supreme Court And Public Opinion: Not The Job Of The Judiciary!

Ronald Leave a comment

A new poll, commissioned by the New York Times, shows that 38 percent want the 2010 Health Care law overturned entirely; 29 percent want the requirement that nearly all Americans obtain health insurance overturned; and only 26 percent want to keep the entire law in place.

At the same time, when it comes down to specifics, the American people support the law. 85 percent approve the requirement that health insurance companies cover those with existing medical conditions or illnesses; 68 percent support allowing children to stay on their parents’ policies until age 26; and 77 percent support offering discounts to reduce the Medicare prescription drug coverage gap, called the “donut hole”.

At the same time, 48 percent say they find confusing how the law will affect them and their families, while 47 percent say they understand the law.

What does this tell us? It tells us that the American people, as a whole, have no clue as to what this law does, and this is partially the fault of the Obama Administration and the Democrats, but it is also the fault of the opposition Republicans, conservative talk radio, Fox News Channel, and the powerful corporate interests that want the law defeated, and really don’t care about the fact that 50 million Americans have no health care except the emergency room, if they end up there. And if they die because of lack of health care, so be it, is the attitude of these special interest groups.

And now there is discussion of the fact that the United States Supreme Court should overturn the law because of the uneducated and confused public opinion.

But that is NOT the job of the Supreme Court, to listen to public opinion, but instead to LEAD public opinion in the proper direction!

If the John Roberts led Supreme Court overturns the law, they will be condemned in history for having kept us the ONLY major industrial democracy in the world to refuse to cover all citizens on a question of life and death!

The Supreme Court is not designed to be popular, and neither are the circuit courts below them. Their job is to interpret the Constitution, and do what is right for the American people, whether popular or not..

If one had polled public opinion, and in some cases it was actually done, the following would not have occurred:

End of racial segregation in public schools in 1954
Provide for privacy rights for couples to use contraceptives in 1965
End of ban on interracial marriage in 1967
Allowance of abortion rights in 1973
Provision to advance women and minorities because of past discrimination in 1977
Giving of privacy rights to gays and lesbians, not just straight people in 2003

These are an issue of social justice and what is right morally, and the same situation applies to the issue of health care.

Popularity should NEVER be a factor in court decisions, and if the Court is unpopular, so be it!

That is why the courts are not elected, as the ignorance and emotion of the masses should never be a basis of constitutional interpretation or human rights.

The Supreme Court has made America a better place, precisely because it has done what the American people may not have appreciated at the time, but was a necessary action, over and over again!

Two Year Anniversary Of Health Care Law, And Oral Arguments On Case Next Week In Supreme Court

Ronald Leave a comment

The Affordable Care Act, the Obama Health Care legislation, hits its two year anniversary this week, and next week, the US Supreme Court will consider the constitutionality of the legislation, seen as the landmark case of the past decade by many, and as the crucial issue that will have a dramatic effect either way on the upcoming Presidential Election of 2012.

The Obama Health Care law has allowed young people to remain on their parents’ health insurance to age 26; has prevented pre-existing conditions from being used to deny health care; and has cut down the “donut hole” for senior citizens in relation to their prescription costs.

Many other reforms must wait until 2014, assuming that the Supreme Court does not declare the whole act unconstitutional.

There is furious action to try to destroy the signature legislation that really defines the Obama Presidency, a law that took a full year to pass, and that was passed on party lines, which is actually not at all unusual in history.

Some federal judges have upheld the legislation, while others have challenged it, and it will be argued by both sides over three days for the unusually long total period of six hours, showing just how significant this case is!

As it seems now, the four “liberal” Justices–Bill Clinton appointees Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, and Barack Obama appointees Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan—will support the legislation.

For it to survive in one piece, at least one of the five “conservative” Justices would have to join the four liberal appointees of Clinton and Obama.

Anthony Kennedy, usually the swing vote, and usually joining the liberals on about one third of the cases before the Court, is thought to be a good bet, but not a guarantee.

Chief Justice John Roberts, who is very aware of the significance of this case for the Court and for his reputation, is thought to join in the majority, but again no certainty.

Ironically, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, who one would think would be opposed, has indicated in other cases as hints that he just might support the legislation.

Associate Justice Samuel Alito is thought less likely to support the legislation, and Associate Justice Clarence Thomas is thought to be the one certain, guaranteed vote against the health care legislation.

The argument for the legislation is the application of the commerce clause of the Constitution, which has been utilized over and over again by the US Supreme Court in the past, adding to the powers of the federal government. This was the same controversy with the Social Security Act, with a conservative oriented Supreme Court in the 1930s, and that legislation was upheld.

The argument against is based on opposition to the so called “mandate” that all citizens MUST obtain health insurance coverage by 2014, or face a fine.

What the critics fail to address is that when someone does not have health insurance and ends up needing medical care, he or she ends up in the emergency room, and all of us have to pay for the health care provided. Is it proper that some have no health care coverage and gain medical aid, and the rest of us have to pay for our health care, and also for those who are irresponsible enough to avoid paying for care that he or she knows he or she can gain for free?

This is the crux of the matter, and it is hoped and believed that a majority of the Supreme Court will end up backing the Health Care law, with a prediction by many of at least 5-4, but even possibly 6-3, or 7-2, or even 8-1.

A victory by more than 5-4 would be a real endorsement of the health care legislation, while a 5-4 defeat would be a major blow to 50 million citizens who benefit from the legislation.

In either case, this decision, when it is announced in June, will have a transformative effect on our nation, and on the Presidential Election of 2012. We will all wait with “baited breath” for the result!

The Supreme Court: Most Important Issue Of Presidential Campaign Of 2012

Ronald 2 Comments

It is amazing how little this Presidential campaign of 2012 has been connected to foreign policy, and to constitutional law, as if ONLY the economy matters.

As much as the Great Recession and its supposed aftermath has created a major crisis for Americans, to overemphasize it is a dangerous action, as the LONG RANGE problem is much more our relations with the world AND the future of our judiciary.

Regarding the judiciary, the thought that a Republican President would select MORE conservatives to a Court already top heavy with conservatives is absolutely terrifying on issues such as the power and influence of corporations, the rights of women, the rights of gays, the role of religion in government, and the struggle to preserve civil rights and civil liberties.

For instance, if Michael Dukakis had been elected in 1988 instead of George H. W. Bush, we would not have had Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court.

If John Kerry had been elected President in 2004, instead of George W. Bush, we would not have had John Roberts and Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court.

Going further back, if Walter Mondale had defeated Ronald Reagan in 1984, we would not have had Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court, and Justice William Rehnquist would not have become Chief Justice.

So the election of the President has LONG TERM consequences in judicial and constitutional interpretation, just as much as foreign policy is not only short term, but long range affecting.

When one realizes that Ruth Bader Ginsberg is 78, and Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy are 75, it seems realistic to believe that all three COULD be out of office in the next term of office.

So the Court could become more conservative if a Republican is elected to the Presidency, and more moderate if Barack Obama is elected to a second term in the White House.

Therefore, every voter MUST realize that the Presidential election has consequences, not only in foreign policy long term, but also in the future of our legal system and our constitutional rights.

The Troy Davis Case: Capital Punishment On Trial, And The Supreme Court Disgraces Itself!

Ronald 1 Comment

The decision of the US Supreme Court to allow the execution of Troy Davis by the state of Georgia tonight is a legal travesty, and makes the Supreme Court look more than ever what it is rapidly becoming–a total disgrace!

It is shocking to the author that the decision of the Court was unanimous! How could it be that Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan could sit by and allow themselves to be bullied by Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito, and that Chief Justice John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy could not see the virtue of allowing a lie detector test; would not consider that a number of prison wardens called for clemency because of doubts about the evidence, none of which was physical and with no gun found; would not take into account that seven out of nine witnesses in the trial recanted; would not listen to five jurors in the case who said they regret their decision to convict and give the death penalty; and would not listen to a witness who said one of the other witnesses confessed that he had been the murderer of the police officer in Savannah, Georgia, in 1989!

This execution puts capital punishment on trial, and it is barbaric that a country that prides itself on democratic virtues and values allows the death penalty when there is evidence so often that innocent people are being executed, many of them minorities in Southern states that have always been “excellent” in utilizing the death penalty against the racial minority that they exploited in slavery and segregation! This is an enhanced way to utilize racism and justify it!

One would like to believe that the “Old South” has passed into history, but actually it has NOT in any sense! Not only do Southern states use the death penalty very often, but also they seem to revel in the fact that seven of the “Old South” states–all but Virginia, Florida, Georgia and Texas–joined with border states Kentucky and West Virginia, to be nine of the ten poorest states, according to the US Census of 2010!

The “Old South” is great at executing people, and keeping them ignorant and in poverty, and by no coincidence, they tend to be RED states, those that tend to vote Republican!

Is this something the GOP should be proud of? And is it conscionable that Republican candidates tend to ignore poverty, never mentioning the disgrace of it in 21st century America, and this including millions of poor whites, as well as minorities?

This is a sad moment for America, but hopefully, it will start up the fight to end capital punishment as against American democracy, making us look terrible in the viewpoint of our friends, European countries, that do not allow the death penalty, and do just fine without it!

Gay Marriage And The Supreme Court: Anthony Kennedy The Crucial Vote!

Ronald Leave a comment

In 1967, the US Supreme Court issued a decision in Loving V. Virginia, declaring interracial marriage constitutional. At the time, there was still widespread feeling among the American people, particularly whites, that interracial marriage should not be allowed, with three out of four in a 1968 poll so declaring. And nearly the same percentage, 73 percent, of all races felt the same way in 1968.

It is clear, also, that a majority of people, particularly whites, were not supportive of the Supreme Court decision in 1954, Brown V. Board of Education, which mandated the end of segregation of the races in public education.

Often, the Supreme Court is ahead of the country in formulating change, and of course, conservatives resent that. But without the Court intervening, progress would be slower or completely halted.

Therefore, with the decision of New York State to allow gay marriage, it is time for gay rights advocates to bring a case to the higher court!

But, of course, there is fear that the conservative Court would rule against it, but that is seen as highly unlikely.

No one can be sure how Justices would vote, but even if one considers that Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Chief Justice John Roberts might vote against, the odds are that Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer, and Ruth Bader Ginsberg would vote in favor.

That leaves Justice Anthony Kennedy, the true centrist on the Court, who more often votes with the conservatives, but often sides with the liberals. And when one considers that Kennedy was the decisive vote in Lawrence V. Texas in 2003, granting privacy rights to gay couples, one has hope that he would continue to support gay rights, including marriage.

Kennedy also supported the rights of gays to stop being treated as a group deserving discrimination in the Colorado Constitution in Romer V. Evans in 1996, and also in a Circuit Court case in 1980, he showed concern about mistreatment of gays.

The timing is crucial, as Ruth Bader Ginsberg may leave the Court soon, and in the next term in office, if a Republican won the White House, both Ginsberg and Kennedy might be replaced, based on their ages, and the opportunity for a Supreme Court decision in favor of gay marriage might have passed!

And remember, unlike interracial marriage, a majority of Americans in a recent poll support the concept of gay marriage, a massive switch from just a few years ago!

So bring on a Supreme Court case and soon!

Changes Coming In Cable And Television News!

Ronald Leave a comment

As we enter the second half of 2011, and the Presidential race becomes ever more center stage, Fox News Channel is making every effort to legitimize itself as “mainstream”, just as Jon Stewart went after Fox News Channel on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace last week, as not being accurate or responsible in its coverage of politics and news!

Having “rescued” liberal commentator Juan Williams, after he was summarily fired by National Public Radio, with a reported $2 million a year five year contract, Fox News then went to hire CNN morning anchor John Roberts to be a national correspondent, and former Democratic Senator Evan Bayh to be a political commentator.

Now they have hired CNN White House correspondent Ed Henry to be their White House correspondent, and of course, for the past few years, they have had former CNN morning anchor Bill Hemmer on their station.

Will it work, to make Fox News Channel seem “mainstream”? With the leaving of Glenn Beck from his every weekday show through joint agreement, it might have some effect, although Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, John Stossel, Greta Van Susteren, Brit Hume, Bill Kristol, Liz Cheney, et al, make one wonder if that is possible!

Meanwhile, Keith Olbermann, who had a “divorce” from MSNBC, has now revived his “Countdown” show, following a similar format, on former Vice President Al Gore’s independent station, Current TV. For those who enjoyed his incisive coverage of politics, it is a welcome return, but the question is whether he can “steal’ the audience of MSNBC and Lawrence O’Donnell at the same hour, along with Eliot Spitzer on CNN. As it turns out, Current TV replays Olbermann’s show EIGHT times over the 24 hour cycle, so in theory, one can watch Spitzer, see O’Donnell in rerun at 11 pm, and then watch Olbermann at any three hour cycle up through dinner time the next day!

Additionally, Norah O’Donnell of MSNBC and NBC, who had been a chief Washington correspondent, is now moving to CBS as their White House correspondent. Always pleasant and appealing in her manner of reporting and commenting, CBS has staged a major coup by gaining her employment!

So cable news and TV news in general has become ever more personality driven, and adds interest to the coverage of major political events!

Supreme Court Issues Surprising Decision On California Prisoners: Release 30,000 Inmates Within Two Years!

Ronald Leave a comment

The Supreme Court, in a surprise decision by 5-4, ordered California yesterday to release 30,000 inmates in its prison population due to improper care and attention to the medical and mental problems faced by many prisoners.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, the swing vote on the Court, again surprised people in that he joined the four liberals–Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginseberg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan–in arguing that the living conditions of many prisoners were unacceptable under the 8th Amendment’s banning of “cruel and unusual punishment”!

The case, Brown V. Plata, drew an oral condemnation from Justice Antonin Scalia, and an equally scathing written attack by Justice Samuel Alito, and Justice Clarence Thomas and Chief Justice John Roberts also joined the minority.

California, in the midst of a horrible economic crisis, will need to find solutions within two years, and possibly gain an extension, and can utilize new construction, out of state transfers and utilizing county facilities to resolve the issue. Otherwise, up to 30,000 inmates could be unleashed on the general population, a security issue of horrifying proportions if it actually comes to be!

While the future seems grim, Justice Kennedy can be applauded for recognizing the concept of human dignity and a minimal condition of medical care and basic sustenance, and Kennedy has long been a critic of long and harsh sentences.

Realize that not all of the inmates of California state prisons are murderers or rapists, as many are in prison on drug convictions, and there have been laws in California requiring a three strikes concept that puts a prisoner under a life term, no matter how small the infractions on later legal issues.

Key solutions that will arise over the next few years under Governor Jerry Brown will be financing, meaning the need for more taxes to support keeping more people in state prison; making sure that violent criminals do not walk the streets in the future; and overcoming recidivism by promoting real job training and mental health intervention to assist parolees in finding work and going straight, rather than returning to prison through a “revolving door”!

It is clear that America has never been very good at promoting change in felons, whether younger or older. The tendency has been to “throw the keys away”, but in reality, that is not a solution long term, and we must work as a nation on improving the odds of prisoners learning from their incarceration, and hopefully not having to return to prison after having created new victims!

Presidential Challenges To The Power Of The Supreme Court: From Jefferson To Obama

Ronald Leave a comment

As the author reflected on yesterday, the 150th Anniversary of Abraham Lincoln’s inauguration as President of the United States and his taking the oath of office from Chief Justice Roger Taney, he thought of the tremendous rivalry which existed between the Taney Court and Lincoln regarding the Dred Scott Case of 1857, which asserted that a slave was property and could be taken anywhere in the nation by his or her slave owner.

And the recognition of rivalry and opposition by many Presidents to the Supreme Court during their terms of office came to mind.

Thomas Jefferson was a great rival of his cousin, Chief Justice John Marshall, and bitterly opposed the Court’s decision in Marbury V. Madison, which established the concept of judicial review. Jefferson also tried very diligently to remove Associate Justice Samuel Chase by impeachment from the Supreme Court, which ultimately failed in 1805.

Abraham Lincoln bitterly disagreed with the Dred Scott V. Sanford case of 1857, and was a constant rival of Chief Justice Taney during the years of the Civil War, as Taney and his Court made efforts to weaken Lincoln’s war powers until his death in 1864, an event applauded by many members of Lincoln’s Republican Party.

Theodore Roosevelt often spoke of the need to transform the Supreme Court, and specifically called for a constitutional amendment to limit the tenure of Supreme Court Justices while campaigning on the Progressive Party line in 1912, and was critical of Supreme Court decisions that he thought were bad for the nation.

Franklin D. Roosevelt was highly critical of Supreme Court decisions that limited the New Deal programs, and advocated a “reorganization” of the Court in 1937, which would permit the appointment of six new Justices, one for each Justice over the age of 70, a plan called an attempt to “pack the Court” by its critics who defeated it.

And now, Barack Obama has been highly critical of the Supreme Court in the Citizens United Case, which certainly both Roosevelts would have joined him in opposing the unlimited power of corporations to contribute to political campaigns, an idea which became law in the Progressive Era, and now has been upended after nearly a hundred years by the John Roberts Court!

So challenges to the power of the Supreme Court have occurred under many Presidents, and most specifically, under those in the past considered to be among our greatest Presidents–Jefferson, Lincoln, TR, and FDR. Barack Obama is joining great company indeed!