Bench Memos

Conservatives’ Misguided Criticism of Roberts

Michael Walsh’s post on the Corner echoes some things I’ve been reading in the right-leaning sectors of the blogosphere, and that I hope do not catch on. The suggestion is that Chief Justice Roberts is somehow a disappointment — that his decision today tells us something bad about “the Bush Legacy” — because he upheld, as a “tax,” the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate.

First things first:  Professor Barry Cushman has debunked devastatingly the notion that there was a “switch in time that saved nine,” prompted by President Roosevelt’s Court-packing threats and so the comparison between the Chief Justice and Justice Owen Roberts seems unfair to both of them.

But also, and more important, the Court’s decision today contains some of the most muscular enumerated-powers and constitutional-structure-matters language of any (majority) opinion in decades. Judicial conservatives, it seems me to me, should be thankful (and grateful to the chief justice) for the approach taken by a majority to the Necessary and Proper Clause and to the so-called Spending Power, and should probably see this “good” about the ACA decision as outweighing the “bad” (i.e., that, because the mandate is, contrary to the president’s earlier assurances, a “tax,” it will have to be repealed legislatively and electorally, rather than judicially). The ruling on the Medicaid expansion, in particular, is a big “win” for federalism, it seems to me.

Mr. Walsh’s post is called “Won’t Get Fooled Again”, but I don’t see how anyone was “fooled” before. President Bush appointed, as he said he would, first-rate judges and justices, and the law is better for it. And, in my view, one of the strongest reasons to support Governor Romney is the fact that he is far more likely than is President Obama to appoint judges who understand the role of the Court and the vocation of a judge in the way that John Roberts does.

One more bit of silver lining: Today’s decision gives other courts the chance to rule — and I am confident that many will — that the contraception-coverage mandate violates the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Most Popular


The Dominant-Sport Theory of American Politics

I think it’s safe to assert that President Trump has an unfortunate tendency to do and say (and tweet) embarrassing things. When he does, we all join in the condemnation, and often it’s not so much for the substance as for the style. The president of the United States should be dignified, measured, slow to ... Read More

Why Does Russia Build So Many Doomsday Weapons?

While America’s ruling and chattering classes were chasing Moose and Squirrel, back on planet Earth the Russians have been busy building a doomsday bomb. As Vladimir Putin alluded to in his March 1 address to the Federal Assembly, the Russians have developed, among other “superweapons,” a Doomsday ... Read More
Economy & Business

A Trump Trade and Economic Doctrine

If the Treasury Department’s recent semiannual report is any guide, the Trump administration still doesn’t quite get it when it comes to trade imbalances. “The US government has all the tools it needs to achieve balanced trade without risking a trade war,” writes Joseph Gagnon for the Peterson Institute ... Read More
Politics & Policy

The Comey–Trump Dance

I never thought the Comey book would make much news for the simple reason that it would be outrageous if it did. If Comey knew something relevant and important about the Russia investigation that we didn’t already know, he couldn’t possibly put it in his book. Let’s say he did have something big on the ... Read More