Freedom Line Blog

Tim is right that today’s DC Circuit Court ruling on the NLRB appointments is “a humiliating rebuke for [Barack] Obama.” It also reads well, with solid textual analysis supporting its interpretation of the “Recess Clause.” That said, its holdings are so sweeping — both as to what constitutes “the Recess” of the Senate and as to what it means that a vacancy can be filled by such appointment (only) if it “happen[s]” during the Recess — that while they certainly make sense in law and logic, they may go so far as to violate enough existing practice as to make the full circuit en banc or the Supreme Court to reject the full scope of the ruling. Being a realist, I can certainly see a final result that narrows the scope of this ruling (and of it definition of “Recess” and “happen”), but that still throws out Obama’s appointments and still upholds the main thrust of today’s ruling, which is that there are serious limits to the “Recess appointment” power.

But allow just a little further prediction. When the high court so rules, and Obama’s “humiliation” is confirmed, The One in the Oval Office will have a conniption fit. As it so happens, such a high court ruling will probably be just one in a series of about five or six key decisions in the next 18-24 months that will go directly against Obama administration arguments, actions, and abuses. Look, therefore, for Obama to resurrect his constitutionally dangerous, full-frontal assault against the Supreme Court and the courts in general, trying to undermine their very legitimacy. In fact, so unhinged may be Obama’s power lust that he might even try to openly defy an explicit Supreme Court ruling, maybe even citing Andrew Jackson’s infamous (perhaps apocryphal) statement from Worcester v. Georgia that the chief justice “has made his decision; now let him enforce it.”

In short, I see in this and other developing cases the potential for serious constitutional crisis, brought on by Obama’s authoritarian impulses. I hope I’m wrong.

Last week I blogged here about the decent prospects for several remaining court challenges to ObamaCare. One of those cases I mentioned was that of Liberty University. Today, the Supreme Court sent the case back to the Fourth Circuit to be reconsidered — which, as ScotusBlog explains, is a step forward for the case, by keeping it very much alive.

Summary paragraph:

The Supreme Court on Monday arranged for a Virginia university to go forward with new challenges to two key sections of the new federal health care law — the individual and employer mandates to have insurance coverage.  The Court did so by returning the case of Liberty University v. Geithner (docket 11-438) to the Fourth Circuit Court to consider those challenges.  The Court last Term had simply denied review of Liberty University’s appeal, but on Monday wiped out that order and agreed to send the case back to the appeals court in Richmond for further review.

This is very good news to those of us who believe in liberty — and, of course, for Liberty, too.

When one tries too hard to be popular, the result is usually less popularity.  That appears no less true when it comes to the Supreme Court.

Last week, we highlighted how public approval of the Supreme Court instantly plummeted following last month’s ObamaCare decision.  One week prior to the Court’s decision, twice as many people – 36% to 17% – believed that the Court was doing a “good” or “excellent” job as opposed to a “poor” job.  In the immediate aftermath of that decision, almost as many said that the Court was doing a “poor” job as a “good” or “excellent” job.  Additionally, over twice as many Americans – 56% to 27% – now believe that the justices pursue political agendas as opposed to maintaining impartiality.

As reported by The Hill, a poll this week confirms that backlash:

Negative opinions of the Supreme Court jumped in the wake of its ruling on the constitutionality of the 2010 health care law, according to a new Pew Research Center poll released on Thursday that shows the percentage who have an unfavorable opinion of the Court is higher than at any point since Pew began tracking it in 1985.”

And that’s not just among Republicans.  According to the poll, disapproval among independents increased while approval remained unchanged.  That’s not good news for Barack Obama, and it certainly doesn’t reflect well on Chief Justice John Roberts’s apparent attempt to sacrifice judicial prudence at the altar of popularity.

As the pessimist-in-residency at CFIF, I have to unhappily report that I find it virtually impossible to muster an interpretation of the Supreme Court’s ObamaCare decision as optimistic as the one that Tim notes below from George Will.

My thoughts track most closely with those of my friend and podcast partner John Yoo (you can hear me lead John and Richard Epstein in a discussion of the ObamaCare decision here). Here’s John, writing over the weekend in the Wall Street Journal:

Conservatives are scrambling to salvage something from the decision of their once-great judicial hero [Chief Justice Roberts]. Some hope [The ObamaCare ruling] covertly represents a “substantial victory,” in the words of conservative columnist George Will.

After all, the reasoning goes, Justice Roberts’s opinion declared that the Constitution’s Commerce Clause does not authorize Congress to regulate inactivity, which would have given the federal government a blank check to regulate any and all private conduct. The court also decided that Congress unconstitutionally coerced the states by threatening to cut off all Medicaid funds if they did not expand this program as far as President Obama wants.

All this is a hollow hope. The outer limit on the Commerce Clause in Sebelius does not put any other federal law in jeopardy and is undermined by its ruling on the tax power … The limits on congressional coercion in the case of Medicaid may apply only because the amount of federal funds at risk in that program’s expansion—more than 20% of most state budgets—was so great. If Congress threatens to cut off 5%-10% to force states to obey future federal mandates, will the court strike that down too? Doubtful.

Worse still, Justice Roberts’s opinion provides a constitutional road map for architects of the next great expansion of the welfare state. Congress may not be able to directly force us to buy electric cars, eat organic kale, or replace oil heaters with solar panels. But if it enforces the mandates with a financial penalty then suddenly, thanks to Justice Roberts’s tortured reasoning in Sebelius, the mandate is transformed into a constitutional exercise of Congress’s power to tax.

John, I fear, is right. Finding conservative principles in the constitution has zero cash value when they don’t effect the ultimate outcome (though they admittedly did, in limited fashion, with the Medicaid expansion). As for banking on them paying dividends in the future? That depends on the deference that future incarnations of the Court are willing to give to the Roberts decision. And that’s a reed too thin to bear the weight that conservatives are attempting to load upon it.

On the heels of Homer’s nod to Quin below, George Will chimes in on yesterday’s Supreme Court ObamaCare decision with a nod to my broader point.  Namely, that the Court’s commerce clause ruling constitutes a significant new precedent in constitutional jurisprudence.  Entitled “Conservatives’ Long-Term Victory,” Will laments that ObamaCare’s individual mandate managed to survive, but asserts that conservatives won a “substantial victory”:

By persuading the court to reject a Commerce Clause rationale for a president’s signature act, the conservative legal insurgency against Obamacare has won a huge victory for the long haul.  This victory will help revive a venerable tradition of America’s political culture, that of viewing congressional actions with a skeptical constitutional squint, searching for congruence with the Constitution’s architecture of enumerated powers.  By rejecting the Commerce Clause rationale, Thursday’s decision reaffirmed the Constitution’s foundational premise:  Enumerated powers are necessarily limited because, as Chief Justice John Marshall said, ‘the enumeration presupposes something not enumerated.’”

Ultimately, Will notes, ObamaCare’s fate “rests on public opinion.”  Nevertheless, we are in agreement that yesterday’s lasting achievements should not be overlooked or minimized by understandably disappointed conservatives and libertarians.

I discuss this bizarre decision here.

I further note that I was almost right in my final prediction, below.

Especially: “ I think this is going to be one of those horribly fractured decisions where observers have trouble making heads or tails of everything. I think there may even be concurrent pluralities rather than a simple majority on at least a couple of the questions presented to the court. In the end, though, I do — yes, I do — expect the mandate in this particular form, applied in this particular way, to be adjudged at least partially unconstitutional.”

Indeed, the MANDATE was found unconstitutional, but the penalty it carried, treated as a tax, was not. And on the Medicaid issue, there were indeed shifting pluralities rather than a single majority. So I was right on the style of the opinion — although not on the substance of just how the court would find a way to muck it up beyond ordinary understanding.

In a disappointing decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld ObamaCare’s individual mandate forcing all Americans to buy health insurance as constitutional.  Chief Justice John Roberts joined the four liberal justices on the Court to rule that the mandate stands under Congress’ taxing authority.

Okay, it’s time for me to weigh in, now that everybody else has so thoughtfully risen to my challenge to put their predictive skills on the line. I see we run the gamut from total victory against the whole law to a doleful prediction that the mandate will stand.

Well, count me in the mushy middle. After going back and forth and around and around on this subject for months, I just can’t tell where my own analysis — and my own wish for a defeat of ObamaCare — ends and my assessment of each of the justices’ proclivities begins.

But here’s what I have come up with: I think this is going to be one of those horribly fractured decisions where observers have trouble making heads or tails of everything. I think there may even be concurrent pluralities rather than a simple majority on at least a couple of the questions presented to the court. In the end, though, I do — yes, I do — expect the mandate in this particular form, applied in this particular way, to be adjudged at least partially unconstitutional. In other words, the court will leave open the possibility that such a mandate in theory could be within the federal government’s powers, but just not THIS mandate in this form. But I think a majority may not agree on what the remedy for this abuse is, and will come up with some Rube Goldberg way of punting the ultimate decision back to lower courts or to Congress.

Meanwhile, the challenge to the Medicaid provision will fail, 6-3.

If I am right, perhaps we should be thankful for even tiny victories. But I say: “Ugh!”

I’ll join the scrum on this one, though in a much less organized fashion than either Ashton or Quin. Insulated as it is from direct political pressure, the Supreme Court’s actions are always much harder to predict than those of the other two branches, so I’ll offer a few thoughts rather than predictions:

• The now widely-held belief that Chief Justice Roberts is writing the majority opinion makes me nervous. The positive interpretation is that some or all of Obamacare is going to be struck down and that Roberts — ever-mindful of public perception of the Court’s legitimacy — is writing it to ensure the widest possible acceptance of the ruling. On the other hand, if Justice Kennedy drifted over to the left on this decision, this could be a 6-3 ruling upholding Obamacare, with Roberts switching only so he could write the opinion and blunt the damage done by the majority.

• If the individual mandate is struck down but found to be severable from the broader law, the health insurance market is going to be thrown into absolute chaos. There’s a reason that insurers themselves were lobbying so hard for the mandate — it’s the only thing that backfills the tremendous costs being imposed on them by the rest of the legislation. The combination of an explosion in costs with likely attempts by HHS to enact price controls will put American health care in a death spiral — itself a good reason to find the provision severable.

• I’m of the opinion that, as a political calculation, having only the mandate struck down is the worst possible outcome for Republicans. If the entire law is upheld, then the GOP and the Romney camp get to run the fall campaign on the message that only electing a Republican president and Republican majorities capacious enough to achieve repeal will be sufficient to get rid of Obamacare. If the entire thing is struck down, then the work is done. But the mandate is the most unpopular portion of the law and if the Court strikes it down while leaving all of the popular components (read: the benefits — like prohibiting insurance denials based on pre-existing condtions or guaranteeing eligibility to be on your parents’ health insurance until the age of 26), it’s entirely possible — and perhaps likely — that the public opposition will be defanged while many of the most pernicious effects of the law remain.

• One final thought: Regardless of whether he’s part of the majority opinion or the dissent, I sincerely hope that Justice Thomas uses this historic opportunity to write a separate opinion on Commerce Clause jurisprudence that can be called on by his proteges in years to come.

Tom Goldstein, who has argued 25 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, bucks conventional wisdom with his latest prediction regarding the High Court’s ObamaCare ruling tomorrow. 

Over at SCOTUSblog, a site he co-founded, Goldstein writes:

[I]n the end, based on the entire mix of information I have, I think the mandate will not be struck down tomorrow.  (Neither I, nor anyone else, has any inside information.)  My prediction includes the possibility that there will not be a single majority opinion for the theory on which the mandate is upheld, and even the thin possibility that the Court will not have a majority to find the mandate constitutional.

As to the other major ObamaCare questions before the Court, Goldstein predicts:

Far less important, I expect the principal opinion will be written by the Chief Justice; a majority of the Court will find it has jurisdiction; and the challenge to the Medicaid expansion will be rejected.

Goldstein does acknowledge that most Supreme Court observers disagree with his prediction and that his own confidence in it “isn’t overwhelming.”  Coming from such a well-respected and brilliant legal mind, Goldstein’s prediction isn’t reassuring either. 

Here’s to hoping that Goldstein is misreading this one.

C’mon, my Fellows: Weigh in! Which way will the high court go tomorrow?

The always astute Ed Whelan weighs in here.

Specifically, the fact that Justice Scalia read his dissent from the bench in the Arizona immigration case leads me to believe that the Court will invalidate the individual mandate by a 5-4 vote……

Okay, to all my fellow…er, my fellow Fellows of CFIF: Last chance to get in your updated predictions on how the Supreme Court will rule on ObamaCare.

I’ll see what you come up with before I reveal my hand (gee, isn’t that clever of me?) — but I WILL offer this outside-the-box scenario as a remote but not entirely-out-of-the-question possibility. To wit:

We could see a typical Kennedy “split the baby” sort of decision: the mandate unconstitutional, on narrow and tentative grounds, with a remand to lower courts to decipher some Delphic question from Kennedy about how best to separate the mandate from the rest of the law.

The good news — and this would be a stunner — is that I think there is a small chance that if Kennedy doesn’t just split the baby, but slices into about four pieces, then Justice Sotomayor might concur in part that “as applied,” the mandate is unconstitutional. If so, that would mean that while the end result could be quite a muddle and the size of the victory (in law, not politics) would be very small, the POLITICAL upshot would be huge in that even a small acknowledgement by an Obama appointee that the mandate went too far would take away some of the ability for Obama to bash the court as a campaign issue.

Granted, most people now think that Roberts, not Kennedy, will write the main decision, based on who has written what other decisions when, during this term. But it would be perfectly feasible for Roberts to write a plurality opinion rather than a majority one, while Kennedy wrote a concurrence with the narrow result of ruling this mandate unconstitutional (and Sotomayor joining in part) — so that the narrow result would have a majority, but the major reasoning would have only a plurality, with Kennedy’s concurrence actually being controlling in terms of what happens next (e.g. some sort of weird remand).

Of course, maybe somebody piped some bath salts into my room and I’m hallucinating. This is all too complicated by half. It’s probably just what happens when I/we have too much time to speculate.

On the other hand, the high court has done weird things like this before. With Kennedy in the mix, anything is possible.

Despite premature rejoicing among immigration restrictionists not once but twice — first after oral argument, where Obama Solicitor General Donald Verrilli seemed to really take it on the chin, and then when the first reports of this morning’s decision were Tweeted out — the reality is that the Obama administration won much more than it lost today in the Supreme Court ruling on the Arizona immigration law. The part that restrictionists were cheering was that which allows police who have arrested somebody for other reasons to also check their citizenship/residency status. That is, of course, the most prominent part of the law; hence the rejoicing on the hard right.

A closer look, however, shows that the provision survived only because A) it applies only with strict limitations on its reach, and B) because state courts have not had a chance to officially construe its meaning. In other words, depending on how state courts interpret the law, even that provision may in the future by thrown out by the Supremes.

Meanwhile, three other important provisions, including one making it unlawful for illegal aliens to take jobs in Arizona, were thrown out. This is a big deal. What the high court — with not only Kennedy but also Chief Justice Roberts joining the liberals — is saying is that federal law should be construed, even without express provision, to pre-empt (or preclude) state law in those same areas. This is a big loss for state’s autonomous powers. To quote from the court’s syllabus (with my emphasis added), “Because Congress has occupied the field, even complementary state regulation is impermissible”. This is, frankly, a shock to me. It means that on any subject even remotely touching on foreign policy on which Congress legislates, the states are not permitted even to pass their own laws in pursuit of the same objectives.

Restrictionists also might gag at this line from the syllabus: “As a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain in the United States.”

I count myself as a “moderate restrictionist.” On the merits, however, I thought Arizona was entirely right, and the administration entirely wrong. I therefore am not happy with this decision. I think it amounts to a huge infringement upon state policing authority. It certainly supports much of the Obama argument — an argument which, to me and many others, still seems ludicrous.

Oh, well.

In an interview with CFIF, Clint Bolick, Hoover Institution fellow and leading legal expert, discusses how the judiciary is up for grabs this presidential election and his latest book, “Two-Fer: Electing a President and a Supreme Court.”

Listen to the interview here.

Along with reformist former state official Bradley Byrne, I explained yesterday at the Mobile Press-Register how Medicaid is taking over the entire Alabama General Fund budget, and how ObamaCare makes it worse. This might have some bearing, tangentially, to the Supreme Court case on ObamaCare (the part argued last, about states being commandeered into ObamaCare Medicaid expansions).

Federal and state governments share Medicaid costs, but Obamacare by design will add millions nationwide to state Medicaid rolls while picking up the added costs only in the short term….

Before the $81 million error was discovered and before Gov. Bentley was forced to prorate the state’s budget (making across-the-board cuts due to revenue shortfalls), and even without full implementation of Obamacare, the state General Fund’s budget for Medicaid had doubled in just two years. To put this into perspective: During this two-year period, our court system was cut by a third, our criminal prosecutors’ offices by 14 percent, our Forestry Commission by 17 percent and our economic development by 5 percent. Medicaid went from consuming 20 percent of our General Fund budget two years ago to 36.5 percent this year. It is on track to consume the entire General Fund by decade’s end.

This is a big deal. And Alabama is hardly unique. It adds practical weight to the states’ arguments that they are being coerced into something they can’t afford.

President Barack Obama’s controversial warning to the Supreme Court that a vote to overturn ObamaCare would be “unprecedented” is getting push-back from the federal judiciary.

During oral arguments on a different ObamaCare provision than those argued before the Supreme Court last week, Fifth Circuit Judge Jerry Smith asked a Department of Justice lawyer for clarification.  “Does the Department of Justice recognize that federal courts have the authority in appropriate circumstances to strike federal statutes because of one or more constitutional infirmities?”

To drive home the point, Judge Smith ordered DOJ to provide a written explanation of its views “no less than three pages, single spaced.”

The only problem with the homework assignment is that it wasn’t directed to the right person.  President Obama, that one-time constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago, should be the one sitting at the keyboard relearning first year law.

At least then he’d be aware that what’s truly unprecedented is his belief that federal courts are rubber stamps for his liberal agenda.

Remember in 2009 when conservatives in Congress presented an alternative to ObamaCare that would have guaranteed bipartisan support for some of the outcomes the Obama White House and its liberal allies wanted?  Had the liberals concentrated on targeted reforms instead of a gargantuan“comprehensive solution” not only would the ultimate bill have been much shorter, it would have been much easier to read and comprehend.

That’s a point worth considering since judging by the comments from the Supreme Court this week, passing health reform piecemeal would have been a far better strategy for those wanting to salvage the legislation.

Due to ObamaCare’s massive size, Byron York notes that none of the Justices actually admitted reading the entire law.  “I haven’t read every word of [the law], I promise,” said Justice Stephen Breyer on Wednesday.  Justice Antonin Scalia’s comments to an attorney defending the law were more pointed: “You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages?”  “You really expect the court to do that?”

The problem for ObamaCare’s defenders is that the Justices’ refusal to read the entire law means that they are much less likely to rule the individual mandate unconstitutional and keep the rest.  Instead, they’ll just invalidate the whole thing and have Congress start over.

If that happens, the liberal mania for “comprehensive” solutions for everything from illegal immigration to financial transactions and health care will be dealt a much-deserved blow.  You can’t interpret what you can’t define.

If the Court strikes down ObamaCare in its entirety liberals will have only themselves to blame.  Had they listened to conservatives, some of the popular aspects of ObamaCare – guarantees of coverage and subsidies for premiums – would likely be in place with bipartisan support.  Now, they may have nothing to show for what could ultimately end up being a massive waste of time and money.

With the Supreme Court getting ready to hear arguments about the (un)constitutionality of ObamaCare, House Republicans yesterday voted to repeal the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), one of ObamaCare’s provisions that may be left unaffected by the Court’s decision.

As the Washington Times reports, this is “the 26^th time the House has voted to partially or completely repeal the sweeping overhaul” of the health care industry.

Like the other 25 times, this House vote won’t be seconded by the Democratic controlled Senate.  But in an election year that’s hardly the point.  What matters right now is that House Republicans continue to highlight how elements like IPAB destroy freedom and choice in health care by letting 15 unelected bureaucrats instead of the free market decide the price of services.

On to number 27!

In an interview with CFIF, Carrie Severino, chief counsel and policy director at the Judicial Crisis Network, discusses why Justice Elena Kagan should recuse herself from any consideration of ObamaCare’s constitutionality before the Supreme Court.  Ms. Severino authored the white paper titled, “Elena Kagan: The Justice Who Knew Too Much.”

Listen to the interview here.

As we anticipated in last week’s Liberty Update, the U.S. Supreme Court announced today that it will hear legal challenges to ObamaCare this term.  As we also noted in that commentary, the issue broadly boils down to whether an explicit provision of the Constitution will be rendered meaningless and effectively read out of the document itself.

That is not hyperbole.  Our Founding Fathers didn’t randomly insert provisions into the Constitution for no reason whatsoever.  Rather, they crafted that document to design a federal government of limited, enumerated powers and to safeguard individual freedom to the greatest extent possible.  Accordingly, they intentionally included the Commerce Clause of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution to empower Congress “To regulate Commerce with Foreign Nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.”  ObamaCare, however, does not merely “regulate commerce among the several states.”  Rather, it compels commercial activity from every citizen, and punishes inactivity on the part of any individual.

Anyone asserting ObamaCare’s validity must therefore answer this question:  If the Commerce Clause somehow permits forced commercial activity and prosecution of inactivity, what possible hypothetical federal mandate would it not permit?  Such a result would void a specific clause within the text of the Constitution because no limiting principle would remain.  That, in turn, would mean that no other provision remains safe in such a brave new world.

Hopefully, at least five Justices respect the Constitution enough to not remove yet another thread from its fabric.  Should the Court fail, however, the fight will not be finished.  The job will simply fall upon us as individual citizens to effectuate the individual freedoms that too few elected and appointed officials seem to respect.