In his Washington Post column, Michael Gerson writes this:
Even in a short time, Roberts’ decision has not worn well. What initially seemed wise now smacks of mere cleverness—less a judge’s prudence than a lawyer’s trick. To find the health care law constitutional, Roberts reimagined it. It was outcome-based jurisprudence, even if the intended outcome was institutional harmony. It was an act of judicial arrogance, even in the cause of judicial deference. And it raises deeper concerns. Unmoored from a reasonable interpretation of the law, institutionalism easily becomes the creed of the philosopher-king—hovering above the balance of powers, tinkering benevolently here and there, instead of living within the constraints of the system.
Mike is right on every particular. What Chief Justice Roberts did was supremely arrogant and unwise. Whatever motivated Roberts—he would undoubtedly insist it was his high-minded concern for the legitimacy of the Court; his critics would say it was his concern for winning the favor of the New York Times—he embraced a role that simply was not his to assume.
If Roberts wants to be a political philosopher, a law professor, or a politician, he is free to pursue those vocations. But if he wants to be a Supreme Court justice, he should take those duties seriously. In mixing and matching his responsibilities—in embracing the title of one thing and acting like another—John Roberts ended up as a sophist.
To be a sophist is no crime—but neither does one belong on the Supreme Court, and certainly not as chief justice.
As one of the litigants put it yesterday, Roberts swore (at his confirmation) to be no more than an umpire, calling balls and strikes. But in his decision, he called a ball a strike, and knew he was doing so.
Roberts got hit by the pitch in the groin. Who knew?
Something extremely rare was staring John Roberts in the face last week, a possibility unusual even for a Supreme Court Chief Justice: an opportunity to go down in history all by his lonesome. A star turn unaccompanied by liberals or conservatives — 1-4-4, remember? — There it was. All he needed was to seize the day, and boy did he carpe the diem out of it! n nThe Bolsheviks — remember them? — and Lenin in particular, used to make a fetish out of an obscure figure from ancient history called Herostratus. He was the arsonist who single-handedly incinerated the Temple of Artemis at Ephesus in Asia Minor in 356 BC (we approach the 2458-th anniversary of the fire on July 21st). To put the fire in perspective, the Temple of Artemis was one of the "Seven Wonders of the Ancient World." Far from evading capture or responsibility, Herostratus reveled in the deed because so gratuitous an act would, as he put it, make him immortal. After his execution, the Ephesians thought to thwart his ambition by decreeing that his name was never to be uttered again under penalty of death. n nObviously that didn't work, and the adjective "herostratean" has reached us as a description of any destructive act motivated by reckless self-aggrandizement. Lenin used to trot out "herostratean" to condemn domestic "wreckers" and "saboteurs" who wished to destroy the wonder that was Soviet Russia in the making for no other reason than egomania; and what V.I. Lenin did, every slavish Soviet apparatchik was destined to repeat, which accounts for the frequent use in Russia during the Soviet Era of a word having almost no employment elsewhere. n nCloser to home, the pathetic man who shot John Lennon (whose name I pointedly refrain from supplying) seems to have been cast in a herostratean mold. Last week, I'm beginning to suspect, we learned of another American Herostratus.
You mean Mark Chapman? The guy is/was nuts. Yet the sick thing is he has fans. He's been in prison for more than 30 years now. He is still only like 56 or so. What he did was so wrong, but it is a sobering thing to think about. I used to live in the UK. I saw him interviewed on TV years after the conviction. He didn't seem to be dumb at all. Just totally divorced from reality. I don't think John Roberts is that bad.
Neither do I. n nAs Lenin might say, Justice Roberts was "objectively," not intentionally, herostratean in his opinion.
Interesting that a cheap little Republican flack hasn't enough shame for his own history of petty lies and cheap tricks and doesn't hesitate to instruct the Chief Justice on how he should go about his job. n nWehner really is a piece of n nfudge.
MFT, Michael Gerson's cheap tricks, what the eff ? He was a ghostwriter and PR guy who wrote speeches and came up with talking points This is so terrible? Nobody is taking Roberts seriously for your information. Even the concurring majority treated his opinion with contempt using it as a springboard to reaffirm the applicability of the Commerce Clause laughing up their sleeves at Roberts' reasoning, such as wit was. And MIchael is a David Brooks compassionate conservative moderate who *still* has good things to say about Roberts' ca ca. And defended immigration amnesty. From this point forward Roberts might as well write his opinions on magicians flash paper. His influence has the shelf life of a Higgs boson. If a guy like Gerson appalls you, you might consider that the opposite number would be Sidney Blumenthal whose situationist ethics have the ethical constancy of a hooker in need of cab fare,
sorry, b, but it ain't Gerson's byline on this thing. n n(and sorry that I can't appreciate the song as the mrs played it to the point where i never want to hear it again)
true, I don't know about Wehner's institutional past, but the disappointment recounted by Gerson (who first supported the decision AFIK) is not his alone. without knowing you personally you might therefore appreciate having taken up with a woman of spirit , spunk & feistiness
look up who Wehner used to assist ….. n nthen look up an op-ed that Wehner placed in the NYT at the beginning of 2008. When Hilary was the front-runner for the Dems and was expected to be their candidate for pres, Wehenr inked a really cute little thing expressing his admiration for a guy named Obama and talking about why Obama should get the Dem nomination. n nand yeah, agree or not, I'm enjoying reading your stuff.
Pathetic post. Roberts is not a God. He screwed up big time. He deserves to be harshly criticized. Gerson has been in public life for many years. He's a good writer, though not great. Like every other American, including you and me, he has an absolute right to express his opinion.
This is a good essay. The main point can't be repeated often enough. If Roberts actually cares about the country and the court's legitimacy he should resign. Like yesterday.