Marc Theissen wants to know why Republican presidents are so bad at picking Supreme Court nominees. But he never considers the truth, which is that conservatives have been getting punked. It started early when Ronald Reagan decided he wanted to make history by appointing the first female Justice, instead of some fire-breathing Heritage Foundation knuckle dragger. When he followed that up with Antonin Scalia, it had more to do with appointing the first Italian-American Justice than anything particular to Scalia’s philosophy. Mario Cuomo threatened to destroy any Democrat who voted against Scalia’s nomination. None of them did. As for Anthony Kennedy, he was Reagan’s third choice for the position, after his first two nominees flamed out.
From a conservative’s point of view, Reagan did okay. He tried and failed to put Robert Bork on the Court, and he succeeded in putting Scalia there. Poppy Bush intentionally screwed the conservatives by putting David Souter on the Court. He wrongly assumed that he needed Souter’s vote to uphold Roe v. Wade, but he was ostensibly pro-life. When Thurgood Marshall retired, Bush felt he needed to appoint a black person to the court. He also needed to make amends with conservatives for some of Souter’s votes. Those are the only reasons that Thomas was nominated.
The younger Bush appointed the now suspect John Roberts and then tried to put Harriet Miers on the Court. Miers was probably pro-choice. That’s probably at least part of the reason Bush nominated her.
The truth is that the abortion issue wasn’t that important to Reagan and it was a fake issue for the Bush family. Poppy Bush was pro-choice until he became Reagan’s running mate, and his wife remained pro-choice. Laura Bush was always pro-choice, and her husband didn’t much care one way or the other. It’s not just abortion, though. The people who play politics at the top of the Republican food chain don’t want to live in Pat Robertson’s America. They just need those votes. A Court that actually ruled in a consistently culturally conservative way would invite backlash. And, as Roberts just proved, there are limits to how much Wall Street and the Tea Party can agree about the proper scope of the federal government. The Tea Party is there to provide energy and votes. They are not there to be taken seriously.
What has been happening since Obama got elected is that the lunatics have begun to run the asylum. They’ve taken over some cell blocks, but the battle is not yet over. John Roberts just proved that.
I agree that John Roberts is perfectly sane. But you can also thank him for Citizens United, a totally gratuitous case that he rammed through to complete the institution of money = freedom as the law of the land. Today’s Republican Party makes sanity look good, for sure, but mere sanity is not enough.
Citizens United is about the power of corporations which has very little to do with social conservatism or Bircher economics.
I understand the logical distinction, but I don’t see how it relates to my comment. You might just as well say that the GOP agenda is incoherent, which it is. But there it is, isn’t it. My own view is that Roberts was quite as ready to play politics with the ACA as he was with campaign financing. It was only as he began realizing how transparently political, and widely despised, Citizens United was, and how very disruptive (including to many major capitalist interests) and transparently political a rejection of ACA would be, that he balked. Same guy, he just came to his senses. Quite late in the game, too, from everything we can tell.
As for the Montana case, Roberts just didn’t want to go there. I don’t think that’s because he really thinks CU was such a great idea, I think it’s because he realizes it was a huge mistake and is simply covering his butt.
Roberts was being perfectly consistent. He’s a Chamber of Commerce Justice. And the insurance companies want all those billions of government money.
I really didn’t appreciate the Tiger Direct ad BLASTING out of my speakers when I came to this page. To make matters worse, after I muted it, it turned on again a few seconds later BLASTING away at top volume. I had to shut my speakers off to type this reply.
Please tell your advertiser that I have purchased from Tiger Direct before, but will not again, neither on-line nor at the outlet store in Schaumburg Illinois. This is MY computer, not theirs to take over and deafen me while disturbing my family. I am offended at this intrusion.
Do I have to install AdBlock?
And, as Roberts just proved, there are limits to how much Wall Street and the Tea Party can agree about the proper scope of the federal government.
What the stupid Teahadists, and Theissen, don’t seem to understand is that Roberts is a Wall Street/Chamber of Commerce Republican. And they wanted this law upheld, though they’ll never admit it publicly.
Until we know the backstory…who hustled whom and how…Roberts’ vote “proved “one thing and one thing only. It proved that he voted to extend Obamacare. Everything else is empty, uninformed bullshit. My own intuition leads me in the direction of Roberts’ own weaknesses. I think that he was hustled/blackmailed/lobbied/call it what you will into changing his vote.
Why?
How?
We probably won’t know for decades. Do we really “know” the backstory on the assassinations of the ’60s + ’70s? On Watergate? The Iran-Contra boondoggle? Lewinskygate? The stolen elections of 2000 + 2004? 9/11?
Of course not.
Why would we get the down-and-dirty on this one?
Wake the fuck up.
It’s the Big Hustle in action once again.
Believe nothing.
Hassan-i-Sabbah…the leader of the Assassin sect…pretty well pinned it.
Realpolitik at work.
Bet on it.
WTUF.
AG
Occam’s Razor: The simplest (least number of possible variance points) explanation that conforms to all the given information is probably the correct explanation.
AG is right. We don’t know the variance points. We don’t know all the information. For example, can anyone tell me who is the most influential living person in Roberts life AT THIS TIME? If it happens to be someone not involved with the law, strange things happen (ex: Charles Barkley’s mother makes him do weird things with his $$$ that he keeps claiming he won’t do)
But, given what we do know, the answer is likely to be a distaste for partisianship exhibited by the “conservative” judges. Effectively, a slapdown by the boss for overreaching AND TALKING ABOUT IT.
Of course, the first three words stand. All analysis is bullshit until the principles talk. Unfortunately, most of the time when the principles talk … it’s still bullshit (re: Nixon interview with Frost).
I think it’s probably Charles Barkley’s mother again. If she’s built anything like Charles, I can understand how Roberts might be scared into doing something.
My own take all along on Roberts…call it intuition for want of a better word…is that he has some personal secrets to hide and that he was put in the position of Chief Justice for just that reason. He can be controlled. But who’s doing the controlling and to what purposes? Who knows?
AG
You’re right about the insurance companies. However, two of your points are highly questionable. First, there is plenty of $$$$ behind the anti-ACA forces as well, or do you really believe the Tea Party is a grass-roots movement and that Mitt Romney and the GOP were just kidding in their attempts to destroy the ACA? Second, Roberts changed his decision at the last minute.
http://www.salon.com/2012/07/03/roberts_wrote_both_obamacare_opinions/
This article is really interesting and amazing to read…
http://www.panaceaco.com