View on the news

Roberts and the court: Not calling the strikes, but changing the game

Christopher Curran
Posted 7/21/15

In late June of this year, the Supreme Court of the United States presented two significant decisions that will affect American society for decades to come.

One was regarding the Affordable Care …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

E-mail
Password
Log in
View on the news

Roberts and the court: Not calling the strikes, but changing the game

Posted

In late June of this year, the Supreme Court of the United States presented two significant decisions that will affect American society for decades to come.

One was regarding the Affordable Care Act, known commonly as “Obamacare.” The other involved the federal endorsement of same sex marriage. These far reaching judgments are merely two of several Supreme Court decisions under Chief Justice John G. Roberts, which will change the way Americans live forever.

Ten years ago, during his Senate confirmation hearings, Roberts presented an attitude of an impartial taskmaster who would seemingly lean conservative in his interpretation of the constitution. However, the reality of the last decade of his tenure has been much more moderate, if not liberal leaning. One thing is certain – George W. Bush’s supposed conservative nominee for the Supreme Court has surprised many and has drastically affected our collective future.

During his Senate confirmation hearings, the future chief justice used a great many baseball analogies to try to convey what his mindset would be in scrutinizing the cases potentially before him. He likened the head of the court to an umpire:

“Umpires don’t make the rules, they apply them. The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules, but it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ballgame to see an umpire.”

Yes, the justices have to make sure all parties follow the rules. However, they also strike down rules that they deem unfair, and they further strengthen rules they feel are worthy of additional constitutional validation. Thus, these types of decisions do not enforce rules like an umpire. They make new rules of the game through interpretation.

Such is the case with the Affordable Care Act. Prior to the Supreme Court decision “National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebellius” in 2012, President Obama had assured the public that the “individual mandate” requiring businesses and individuals to purchase health insurance was not a tax. Yet, in the quizzical Roberts court decision, that is exactly what the interpretation of the law was. The chief justice in his majority opinion stated: “The mandate could be construed as a tax and was therefore under Congress’s authority to lay and collect taxes.”

On June 28 of this year, the Supreme Court further supported its liberal viewpoint of this law by deciding that people within states without in-state health insurance exchanges could still realize tax subsidies. Faced with the inherent question of the burden hoisted upon the middle class and small business who will have to pay higher rates, higher deductibles, and insure those working 30 or more hours a week in order to provide subsidies to those of who hold lower income status, the chief justice responded in his majority opinion: “It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”

This sentiment is preposterous in that this law was rammed through a Democrat House and Senate and proposed by a Democrat administration. Furthermore, the president prevaricated by assuring citizens it was not a tax, and that we could keep our preferred physicians – which, under the law, we cannot. Also, former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi of California said her fellow congresspersons should vote for the bill and figure out what is in it later.

How was that dynamic the political choice of the people?

Additionally, in the last days of June, the Roberts court decided in favor of a national precedent that insures the validity of same-sex marriage. This decision further expands the result of 2012’s “United States v. Windsor,” which held the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional. DOMA had held that marriage was defined as a union of a man and a woman. Chief Justice Roberts believed that DOMA “violates due process and equal protection.”

This recent decision irrevocably removes the definition of marriage from the individual state or municipality and therefore gives license federally to the same-sex marriage standard. Marriage laws have always been a local or state issue since the inception of our country. In response to that age-old consideration, Roberts stated the following: “The constitution is made for people of fundamentally differing views.”

Certainly, the constitution is there to protect the rights of all Americans. However, this decision rips the rights of governance from states and destroys the age-old traditions of community perceptions of marriage. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz stated an appropriate Tenth Amendment concern: “The Supreme Court rewrote the constitution and threw out the marriage laws of all 50 states.”

States’ rights have also been contested in 2012’s “Arizona v. United States.” This case struck down parts of Arizona’s attempt at imposing strong immigration laws to contend with their burdensome illegal immigrant problem. The Roberts court overwhelmingly defeated Arizona’s efforts with their decision.

Perhaps the most perplexing of all the decisions of this court was the opinion in 2010’s “Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.” In a 5-4 decision the Supreme Court held that corporations were free to buy ads to influence the outcome of political elections. This unrestricted new capability of special interests will pollute the election process for the unforeseeable future.

All in all, John G. Roberts has not only been a surprise in his opinions, he has been less conservative than expected, sometimes moderate, and much more liberal than anyone could have ever guessed. What he has done is steered his court toward allowing radical change in our society. What the long-term effects of his court’s decisions will be will be realized in time.

Although, one inescapable fact has been proven true, he did not come to the Supreme Court to umpire the game, but to change the rules of the game.

Comments

4 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here

  • Justanidiot

    ". . . this decision rips the rights of governance from states and destroys the age-old traditions of community perceptions of marriage."

    Damn right!

    We need marriage to between one man and one woman, of the same race, of the same religion, etc. just as god intended it. Anything beyond that is unacceptable and the parties involved should be punished.

    Wednesday, July 22, 2015 Report this

  • ScottJ794

    Not sure if that comment was sarcasm or not, but I assume it was. To my knowledge, marriage has NEVER been defined as being between two people of the same race OR religion, but it has ALWAYS been defined as being between a man and a woman. Regardless of your feelings on same sex marriage, the point is that the Supreme Court does not have the authority to do what it did, but they know it will stand, because no one will have the courage to challenge it.

    Thursday, July 23, 2015 Report this

  • Justanidiot

    Check out Loving v. Virginia

    ahhhhh, the good old days...

    Thursday, July 23, 2015 Report this

  • jdonegan61990

    thank you for stating it so eloquently: "age-old traditions...of marriage." Times have changed. The World we live in changes. Is it not ridiculous to think the laws should remain static while everything else evolves?

    Monday, July 27, 2015 Report this