SUPREME INDIFFERENCE

If I ever get the chance, I'm going to take John Roberts' hands in both of mine and congratulate him on single handedly destroying the United States Supreme Court. A recent Gallup poll shows that under Chief Justice Roberts, the Court's credibility has sunk to its lowest level ever, at 25%. That's even worse than when that old dingbat Roger Taney hastened the Civil War by ruling slavery was a protected right in the Dred Scott decision. Think about what Roberts has wrought: 25%! When I went to law school, 25% was not a passing grade, though I understand there is such a thing as grade inflation.

Mr. Roberts (not to be confused with the fictional navy ensign comic character of the same name, though confusion in this case is understandable) first caught my suspicious eye over a decade ago. That's when he steered the High Court (now arguably rendered low) in the National Federation of Business case, commonly known as the Obamacare decision.

Roberts had the deciding vote and authored the decision, wherein he decided that the law passed by Congress provided a penalty for anyone not complying with the health care mandates. A penalty is like a tax, and since Congress has the taxing power under the Constitution, it could do whatever it liked, Roberts wrote, this being the linchpin of his jurisprudence.

Now it doesn't matter if you approve or disapprove of Obamacare (I actually support it), but the way we do things matters. To base its legality on Congress's taxing power seemed specious at best, legal malpractice at worst. If Roberts is right, then why stop at Congress legislating how we get our health care? Pass a law telling me how to worship, whom to vote for, whom I may be allowed to marry, etc...so long as a "penalty" is attached in case of noncompliance, then Congress's power is all reaching.

And that tells you all you need to know about John Roberts. Except: how did he manage to get even a 25% approval rating?