Tuesday, June 26, 2012

John Roberts' Immigration Vote

Chief Justice John Roberts' decision to side with the Leftists on the Arizona immigration law ruling was quite an eye-opener.

What a terrible disappointment!

It's always disappointing when someone you respect acts in a manner that lets you down.

Why did Roberts vote the way he did?

Ben Shapiro, Breitbart's Big Government, offers an analysis.

The key vote in today’s Arizona immigration bill decision belonged not to Justice Anthony Kennedy – who, when it doubt, votes for what he perceives to be “personal freedom” considerations – but Chief Justice John Roberts, whom conservatives were told would reliably interpret the Constitution back during his appointment days. But Roberts was also widely known as a judicial “pragmatist” in the mold of his mentor, Chief Justice William O. Rehnquist: he was someone who could create consensus among the justices.

Today, Roberts went pragmatist rather than Constitutionalist on the Arizona bill. While more reliably originalist justices like Thomas, Scalia, and Alito voted to uphold the Arizona SB 1070 in toto, Roberts elected instead to join with Kennedy and the liberal wing – Justices Sotomayor and Breyer in this case, since Justice Kagan recused herself due to her association with the Obama administration.

Why would he do that? There are a couple rationales. First, of course, is the most obvious: Roberts agrees with Kennedy, Sotomayor and Breyer on the Constitutionality of the statute. This seems somewhat unlikely, in light of the fact that the Arizona law directly mirrored federal immigration law

...There is a second possibility, however, which should be more encouraging to conservatives – it is entirely possible that Roberts joined with the liberal wing on this ruling in order to provide cover for the Obamacare decision to be handed down later this week.

I had the same reaction. Perhaps Roberts agreed to swing to the Left on parts of the immigration law because his decision on ObamaCare will actually reflect a proper interpretation of the Constitution.

If that's the case, that Roberts is making deals, then I've lost even more respect for him.

The Court should interpret the law, not cut deals and play politics.

It's very disappointing to see Roberts diminish his stature like this.

No comments: