Tuesday, July 3, 2012

The Flip That Will Flop?

John Fund
The decision was apparently more political than legal.

When asked last month how the Obamacare case would be decided, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg repeated an old line: “At the Supreme Court, those who know don’t talk. And those who talk don’t know.” Well, that line doesn’t seem so apt in the era of news that’s instantly and constantly updated, 24/7.

The week before the Supreme Court announced its decision, the White House was clearly hinting to many in the media and on Capitol Hill that they expected a 5–4 opinion that would hinge on the taxing-power issue. Did someone leak? Sunday on Face the Nation, Jan Crawford of CBS News said that two reliable sources told her that Roberts originally voted, in late March, with the four conservative justices to invalidate the individual mandate. According to Crawford, Roberts suddenly changed sides some six weeks later and then resisted “a month-long desperate campaign by the conservative justices to bring him back to the fold.”

I’ve learned from my own sources that after voting to invalidate the mandate, the chief did express some skepticism about joining the four conservatives in throwing out the whole law. At the justices’ conference, there was discussion about accepting the Obama administration’s argument, which was that, if the individual mandate was removed, the provisions governing community rating and guaranteed issue of insurance would have to go too but that the rest of the law might stand. The chief justice was equivocal, though, in his views on that point.

That Roberts ultimately decided to cast the deciding vote to uphold the individual mandate is disappointing but not troubling in and of itself. As Ed Whelan has written for National Review Online: “There is certainly nothing inherently wrong with a justice’s changing his position during the opinion-writing stage (or any other stage) of a case. On the contrary: a justice’s duty is to get the case right, and if that entails a change of mind, or two, or more, so be it.”

But that his switch occurred in the context of the Washington zeitgeist at the time is disturbing. As Jan Crawford reported: “There were countless news articles in May warning of damage to the Court — and to Roberts’ reputation — if the Court were to strike down the mandate. . . . Some even suggested that if Roberts struck down the mandate, it would prove he had been deceitful during his confirmation hearings, when he explained a philosophy of judicial restraint.”

Indeed, Senator Patrick Leahy (Vt., D.) , the chair of the Judiciary Committee, suddenly took to the floor on May 14 and directly addressed Roberts, urging him in harshly partisan tones to uphold Obamacare and maintain “the proper role of the judicial branch.”

Stewart Baker, a partner at the Washington law firm Steptoe & Johnson, writes at the Volokh Conspiracy that he found the whole campaign against Roberts weird and unusual, given that the justices’ conference vote on Obamacare had been held six weeks earlier. Why “would the chair of the Judiciary Committee risk the appearance of trying to harshly strongarm the Court when his remarks wouldn’t make the slightest difference?” he asks. “The Leahy speech reads like it was written for an audience of one. It offers flattery and it offers threats, all of them personalized to appeal to Chief Justice Roberts alone.”

We may never know if the intended “audience of one” was at all influenced by the sudden flash of liberal invective against him. But as the Wall Street Journal editorialized on Friday, any vote switch made in that atmosphere could be

far more damaging to the Court’s institutional integrity that the Chief Justice is known to revere than any ruling against ObamaCare. The political class and legal left conducted an extraordinary campaign to define such a decision as partisan and illegitimate. If the Chief Justice capitulated to this pressure, it shows the Court can be intimidated and swayed from its constitutional duties.

Certainly, there are clues that if Roberts had a change of mind, it was sudden. Referring nine separate times to Justice Ginsburg’s concurrence in upholding Obamacare, the four conservative justices in their dissent take the extraordinary step of calling Ginsburg’s concurrence “the dissent.” In addition, as Crawford noted, the four dissenters “refused to join any aspect of his [Roberts’s] opinion, including sections with which they agreed. . . . They deliberately ignored Roberts’ decision, the sources said, as if they were no longer even willing to engage with him in debate.” If they weren’t, it may explain why Associated Press reporter Jessica Gresko reported that Justice Anthony Kennedy appeared visibly angry during the public reading of the Obamacare decision on Thursday.

No comments: