Bench Memos - National Review Online

Bench Memos - National Review Online: "But what does Crawford actually claim to know?  Just the following:

that Roberts held one view in March, and a different one in May;
that one or more of the four conservative justices, notably including Kennedy, tried to win him back to their view;
that a month of trying to persuade him failed;
that Chief Justice Roberts “pays attention to media coverage.”
That’s it."

'via Blog this'

Well, we know the conversation was described as lobbying and arm-twisting by the sources. Those words to not conjur the picture of a principled debate about the substance of the law. We also know that Roberts was asked about why he changed his vote and gave an unsatisfactory answer. We know there was an extensive public lobbying effort by people like Patrick Leahy just around the time Roberts was, in fact, going squishy on his prior decision.

And we also know that his opinion is hard to swallow in some respects. He says the ACA is not a tax for anti-injunction purposes--because it uses the "penalty language."  But apparently it was a tax for constitutional purposes. We know that his opinion doesn't deal with the fact that taxes must originate in the house for political accountable branch. We know that his opinion doesn't address the serious and difficult direct tax issue.

I'm not saying its a slam-dunk case, and I find it sad and disappointing conclusion. But you start to see a picture of a justice that's more concerned with the politics of a decision than the soundness of his interpretation. Let's hope this is a one-case lapse of judgment.