April 3, 2014

WHICH BEGS THE QUESTION...:

The Devastating, Sneaky Genius of John Roberts' Opinions (Emily Bazelon, 4/02/14, Slate)

I am ever in awe of Chief Justice John Roberts. He has an unparalleled talent for making the sweeping seem small and the sharp seem mild. His rhetoric is all about sounding reasonable and earnest, even if (especially if) the outcomes of his rulings are anything but. He's a champion of the long game. He's Scalia's stylistic opposite, the no-bombast justice. Isn't it lucky for conservatives to have them both?

Roberts is at his minimizing best in his opinion today striking down a key portion of the post-Watergate campaign-finance laws. Congress may still "regulate campaign contributions to protect against corruption or the appearance of corruption," he declares, and then whittles the definition of corruption down to a little nub that has nothing to do with how donors actually buy influence. And then Roberts tells Congress it can still achieve the ends of fairer and cleaner elections, it just has to alter the means it chose for getting there. Never mind that this Congress will do no such thing, just as it has failed to take up Roberts' invitation last June to pass a new version of the Voting Rights Act. 

...what business is it of a Justice that Congress has no interest in doing what complainants ask the Court to do for it?
Posted by at April 3, 2014 6:44 PM
  
blog comments powered by Disqus
« NOTHING MOMENTARY: | Main | TOO BAD THEY DIDN'T FIGURE THAT OUT IN 1776: »