Higher Criticism and Chief Justice John Roberts’ Decision

Rodney has started a series for us Browncoat Bibliobloggers. This is sorta like a Deuterocanonical post in the series.

Higher Criticism. Good stuff. That’s how people were learning that John Roberts had initially supported the negative view on the Healthcare mandate. He flipped, we are told, mid way through the decision process and then allowed it to stand as constitutional. If the facts came out, internet scholars were searching the decision and pulling parts out of who wrote what. Sort of like the Documentary Hypothesis of the Old Testament.

Pouring over the 2,700-page ruling upholding the Affordable Care Act, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal speculate that the Chief Justice actually changed his mind in mid-deliberation, flipping from the reliably-conservative foursome to join with the predictably-liberal quartet to become the swing vote in one of the court’s most important decisions in a generation. (here)

Skeptics like Rivkin point to:

  • The fact that the dissent repeatedly referred to liberal justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s argument as the “dissent,” suggesting she was at one time in the minority.
  • The commanding tone of the conservative justices’ language.
  • The way the dissent addresses the pivotal issue of whether the law’s so-called individual mandate penalty can count as a tax.

Read more: here

And in a rather funny bit…

scalia-originally-majority-opinion
That’s pretty darn awesome, in my opinion.

You Might Also Like

Leave a Reply, Please!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.