Apologies to readers on the tardiness of this post, but as noted previously, I am playing catch-up right now. This one will be more of a thought I will push out to you all rather than a careful, well-considered analysis, but I don't think it will be any less effective of a post as a result.
While many pundits have noted that Chief Justice Roberts had legacy issues in mind when joining his more liberal counterparts on the health care reform legislation, I haven't seen mention of the idea that he did so in a way that might still satisfy his conservative leanings.
What if Roberts knew that failing to overturn the individual mandate would solidify the Republican base for November's elections? What if Tea Party support behind Mitt Romney would assure him of victory? What if Republicans were able to gain strong majorities in both houses, at which point they could do as John Boehner suggests and overturn ACA?
Wouldn't preserving the reputation and independence of the oft-under fire court be all the more palatable for a Chief who clearly considers such things if the above scenario played out? Of course this assumes that Roberts would ideologically want to overturn the legislation, but I think that, in a reputation-less vacuum, this is a fair assumption.
Maybe Republicans should consider this before bad-mouthing Roberts, and maybe Democrats shouldn't be so quick to celebrate the Supreme Court's decision. I don't know about the politics, but as far as Supreme strategy, John Marshall would be proud...
Eds. Note: Check out our inaugural weekly poll above to give your thoughts on the matter.
No comments:
Post a Comment