Posted on 07/07/2012 4:13:46 PM PDT by Kaslin
Time magazine demonstrated in its last issue that it was so overwhelmingly thrilled with John Roberts upholding ObamaCare that it put Roberts on the cover with the title Roberts Rules, touting his landmark decision. Inside, the magazine gave the ruling 15-plus pages of coverage.
By contrast, the Congress voting to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt for failing to deliver documents on the Fast & Furious program drew two dismissive paragraphs one less paragraph than Time editor Richard Stengel took to boost Roberts as a chip off the old block of John Marshall, the greatest of all Chief Justices in an Editors Note:
John Marshall, the greatest of all Chief Justices, famously wrote that it is the job of the high court to say what the law is. It is not, he implied, the province of the court to say whether a law is wise or sound or good for the people; it is simply to rule on whether or not it is constitutional. Chief Justice John Roberts was channeling his groundbreaking predecessor when he wrote his landmark opinion on the Affordable Care Act....The courts decision is so important that we moved up our publishing schedule to create this special issue in order to get it to you as soon as possible.
The top quote on the Briefing quotes page was Roberts declaring It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices. In another context or case, Time would probably find this sentiment loathsome and lacking compassion, but not this time.
David Von Drehles cover story began:
You dont have to love classical music to be amazed that Beethoven wrote his Ninth Symphony while deaf or be a fan of the old New York Giants to marvel at Willie Mays catch in Game 1 of the 1954 World Series.For legal buffs, the virtuoso performance of Chief Justice John Roberts in deciding the biggest case of his career was just that sort of jaw dropper, no matter how they might feel about Obamacare.
Not since King Solomon offered to split the baby has a judge engineered a slicker solution to a bitterly divisive dispute.
But wait, Von Drehles writing got even sillier:
The fact that Roberts had to squirm like Houdini to reach middle ground (in the second part of his ruling, he held that the mandate to buy insurance is not a tax, but by the third section he announced that it is) only enhanced the bravura of the feat. As the saying goes, its one thing to dance like Fred Astaire, but Ginger Rogers did it backwards in high heels. Philosophical purity is easy the blogosphere is lousy with it while pragmatic solutions to difficult problems are as rare these days as virgins on Jersey Shore.As such, the Chief Justices ruling confounded a political world primed for Armageddon: the spectacle of five Republican appointees striking down the signature achievement of a Democratic President in the midst of a tough re-election campaign. After a party-line vote by the court to decide the disputed 2000 election for George W. Bush over Al Gore, and another in the controversial Citizens United campaign-spending case, the Washington atmosphere reeked of gasoline, and the Obamacare case looked like a match ready to fall.
Von Drehle made no attempt to blame the Left for pouring the rhetorical gasoline and getting out the match box. He touted Roberts for taking compromise off the dirty-word list; What Roberts managed to do with Obamacare vindicated the virtue of compromise in an era of Occupiers, Tea Partyers and litmus-testing special interests.
Meanwhile, the Holder contretemps drew two paragraphs under the headline Misplaced Contempt? Eric Dodds conceded the contempt vote was historic, and then declared it was off base:
The vote came a day after Fortune published findings of a six-month investigation concluding that contrary to popular belief agents did not intentionally allow guns to walk. Instead, Fortune said, agents efforts to make arrests were hamstrung by prosecutors and weak laws. The findings suggest that a key premise of the investigation by the GOP-controlled Oversight Committee is off base. Despite the contempt charge, it appears unlikely Holder will be prosecuted.
Reward
He sucks to high heaven just like Time magazine! Where’s the reward.
Congratulations, Roberts. You’ve destroyed the integrity of the court in exchange for some media whoring. This is his legacy.
Time and NewWeak just don’t sell anymore. Libraries and clinics still subscribe....but I suspect it’s getting harder to show marginal profit with either. My honest bet is that between 2013 and 2016....both will merge into one magazine and try to survive. Somewhere after 2016....the value of the company will be such that Russian millionaire will walk in and buy it....gutting the staff, and making it some extreme right-wing news magazine.
Had the decision gone the other way, the Court would have been trashed, criticized, villified and de-legitimized; the usual tactic of the subversive left.
(It looks like Mr. Roberts might have been threatened; if true, it would be lovely to find out by whom.)
IMHO
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.