Laurence Tribe: I think my former student, John Roberts, will vote to uphold ObamaCare

Hotair ^ | 06/27/2012 | AllahPundit

[SeekAndFind]

Via the Examiner, I've been looking for tea leaves for you all day but this, unfortunately, is the best I can do. I don't even regard it as tea leaves: I think Tribe is just pre-spinning the outcome so that, if the mandate is struck down, he can call Roberts a disappointment who betrayed his education in a fit of ideological pique, etc etc etc. But we're starving for insight and this is, in its own lame way, an insight into Roberts' thinking. As is this:

Eastman, a critic of the health care law, said he wouldn’t be surprised to see Roberts side with the Obama administration and uphold the law. “He’s a creature of the Washington administrative state. That’s his background,” the professor said, noting that Roberts has spent almost his entire professional life in Washington.

Scalia’s background is Beltway-heavy too yet his vote against ObamaCare seems a fait accompli.

More unconvincing tea leaves? Okay, how about the idea that Roberts' vote in the Arizona case with Kennedy and the liberals presages a similar outcome on ObamaCare?

What the Arizona compromise will augur for the most closely watched case of the term is anyone's guess. Yet the justices' evident search for common ground in the immigration ruling and a few other cases this term could portend a healthcare decision that does not predictably cleave along political lines…

Overall, the judgment was modest, the tone cautious. It underscored the federal role in regulating immigration and largely rejected the effort by Arizona – and, by extension, several other states – to institute sweeping measures to stop people from illegally crossing the border.

The justices’ regard for national authority on dilemmas that cut across state boundaries could end up echoing in the healthcare ruling.

“Both problems transcend states’ borders and are too big for the states to solve on their own,” Duke University law professor Neil Siegel said, stressing that he did not want to predict how the court would rule on Thursday.

Jeffrey Rosen is pushing this line too over at TNR but you could just as easily argue that Roberts and Kennedy threw the left a bone in the Arizona ruling because they’re ready to tear their hearts out with O-Care. A party-line conservative majority on immigration on top of a party-line conservative majority on ObamaCare would have handed liberals a double-barreled weapon in arguing that the Roberts Court is hopelessly politicized. They’ll still argue that if they lose on O-Care, of course, but their point will be weakened because of the Arizona case.

Exit tea leaf: Even at this late date, Obama's still warning his fundraising audiences about ObamaCare being struck down. How come?

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

CLICK ABOVE LINK FOR THE VIDEO

[BlatherNaut]

Is the power to regulate interstate commerce the power to regulate EVERYTHING that may have any effect - however tangential - upon interstate commerce.

A theoretically limitless chain of implied powers derived from tangential connections, using the Commerce Clause as a fig leaf for tyranny...

Obviously not what the Founders envisioned.

[Michael Barnes]

Your opinion of the clerks I can buy. Believing kagan and the wise latina are NOT giving the dem’s and this administration the inside scoop? Not buying that. They are party members first, justices second.

[NeoCaveman]

Jane Roberts is the head of Feminists for Life. Other than that I don’t know much about her politics.

[Perdogg]

Are you going to be unhappy if you are wrong?

[allmendream]

Indeed - they try to spin that straw into gold every time.

The Nacy Pelosi Constitution would only have one clause in Article I, because the power to regulate interstate commerce is apparently a blank check for power on every aspect of our lives.

Our founders thought the power to regulate interstate commerce meant the power to regulate commerce between the States - not to regulate all activity or non activity that may have an effect upon interstate commerce.

Intrastate commerce has an effect upon interstate commerce - and yet regulation of intrastate commerce was, by omission, directly NOT given to Congress.

[Buckeye McFrog]

One of The Gipper’s very worst mistakes was the appointment of Sandra Day “ohhhh....I’m cool with Affirmative Action for....ohhhh...let’s say, another 27 years” O’Connor.

But he was on the right track with the idea of getting the hell out of the Federal system and plucking her from the state courts.

[ScottinVA]

Hell, no.

[cherry]

I think this is going to be a shocking ruling because it will say the fed govt can make their slave citizens buy, do, jump up and down or anything at its whim....

we are sunk....

hope I'm wrong...

[dfwgator]

Roberts defecting on this one would be an unmitigated disaster.

Supposedly nominating Roberts was one of the few good things W did, now even this may turn out to be a disaster.

[G Larry]

Yep, and I believe it was Ginsberg.
No conscience, no qualms.

[joe fonebone]

BS...

The court got arizona 100% correct...

the states do not have the authority to set immigration and naturalization policy..(can you imagine the policy california would set if this were the case)

the feds do not have the authority to tell the states how to enforce their laws, or to micromanage local law enforcement...

Not the “popular” or the “trendy” decision, but it was constitutionally correct...

as for fubocare, roberts will do the constitutionally correct thing AGAIN, and repeal it in it’s entirety..

as a side note, I think fubo may have screwed up... kagan may not be the activist he thought she was.. I will be watching her closely..

[Terry Mross]

If it can be proven that any justice is voting to “throw someone a bone”, he or she should be impeached. It’s sad that the court’s actions make us think this way.

[nathanbedford]

There is one difference between two cases that involve federalism and that difference might control Roberts' vote.

The one compelling issue which dominates all American politics also dominates American jurisprudence: Race.

Nathan Bedford's first Maxim of American politics, all politics in America is not local but ultimately racial, can be applied in a different way to American jurisprudence. One can strike a maxim that says that few Supreme Court Justices are willing to put their historical legacy in jeopardy by coming down on the wrong side of any race case.

The Arizona immigration case had to do with issues of race. I am not surprised that Washington survivalists like Justice Roberts took the politically correct position. There is no obvious politically correct racial position on healthcare apart from the fact that it is called Obama Care after the first black President of the United States.

As paranoid as this sounds, it gives one some hope that the Supreme Court will feel free to do justice when the issue in the federalism context is healthcare rather than what do we do with 20 million people of color in our midst.

[scram2]

What can the possible benefit be if there is a leak? Weigh that against what will become of the reputation of the leaker when (not if) it is known there is a leak?

Leaking anything is meaningless unless the info can be used to advantage a and I’m not seeing how, if it has been leaked and it is favorable to Obama they have used it to their advantage or if unfavorable how they could use that to their advantage. This is only heating up now because we are so close to the decision and the media wants to drive the narrative and milk it for all it’s worth.

Personally I don’t see any upside for Obama since the law ids unfavorable to a sizable majority of the public and a vote to keep it intact in the face of Romney promising to unwind it if elected will help him. If it is struck down entirely or in part it will signify a major loss for the Administration. Their claiming a victory if it is upheld is meaningless just because the majority of Americans don’t want the law anyway. Besides that it takes away the ability for Obama to run against the “activist” USSC.

[Terry Mross]

If the vote is 6-3 Pelosi can thump her chest. If she can stretch her arms that high without ripping her face.

[ScottinVA]

She may want to shave her chest to make sure the thumps can be heard more clearly.

[svcw]

Scoleia thinks otherwise
Oh well. The ruling has been made

[Perdogg]

Who? Do you mean Scalia?

[svcw]

No, actually I am not. We both heard the show and we each drew different conclusions obviously. That is not misrepresenting.

[svcw]

The cruse of predictive spelling on iPhones - yes?