Through the years that I have covered news in Washington, D.C., I have always tried to follow one rule - don't try to predict what the Supreme Court is going to do on a certain case. That was driven home this week by decisions in several major cases of the Court's 2011-2012 term.
On Monday, Chief Justice John Roberts - who has been villified by Democrats in recent years - joined with more liberal Justices to strike down three different provisions of an Arizona immigration law that was championed by many Republicans.
On the same day, Roberts also dealt Democrats a rebuke on a campaign finance case by overturning a Montana state law that had restricted corporate contributions to political candidates, upholding the controversial Citizens United ruling of 2010 that drew a Presidential rebuke in a State of the Union Address.
Then on Thursday, the Chief Justice - nominated by President George W. Bush - joined with the four more liberal members of the Court to deliver a major political victory to the President by voting to uphold the Obama health law.
If you put $5 on that Judicial Pick Three at the beginning of the week, the payoff would have been pretty good, because those may not have been what many people might have predicted for the Chief.
"Obviously, for conservatives and many supporters of federalism, this will be viewed as the Brutus moment with regard to Roberts," wrote legal expert Jonathan Turley.
It was a turn of events that had been discussed several months ago - Roberts siding with the liberals to save the Obama health law - but it hadn't been given much attention in recent weeks.
For Roberts to deliver such an important victory to the Obama Administration was even more supremely ironic, given that Senators Obama and Biden had both voted against the Chief Justice's nomination in 2005.
"My job is to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat," Roberts said in his Senate confirmation hearings, a line that was repeatedly spit back in his face by Democrats, who routinely accused the Chief Justice of embracing ultra-conservative positions.
The turn of events on Thursday left GOP lawmakers scratching their heads.
"He's a brilliant constitutional lawyer," said Sen. Johnny Isakson of Georgia, who passed on the opportunity to criticize the Chief Justice in an interview.
"I think the Supreme Court got it wrong," said Rep. John Sullivan of Oklahoma.
"I was surprised the Supreme Court appears to let all of the law stand," said Rep. Frank Lucas of Oklahoma.
"It doesn't change the fact that it's a bad law," said Rep. Dan Webster of Florida.
"I certainly was surprised with where the swing vote came down, with the Chief Justice," said Rep. Austin Scott of Georgia, "but I respect him as a man and respect the Court."
Republicans vowed to overturn the law, arguing they will benefit politically for November by making it one of their main campaign goals.
Reporting on the Supreme Court
On Monday this week, I visited my company's main flagship radio station in Atlanta and was on the air live with Neal Boortz trying to flesh out the Arizona immigration ruling.
The initial news reports indicated a "split" decision, but as I wrote in a blog that night, it seemed to me that the real story was a defeat for the states and a victory for the Federal Government by stating that the feds were in charge of immigration policy and enforcement.
As I was rushing out of the station on Monday afternoon, I stopped to talk to a few of my colleagues and told them of how nervous I get reporting on Supreme Court rulings, because they can often be very complicated to dissect - especially when you are trying to get the news out quickly.
I thought of that on Thursday morning as I was faced with competing assessments of the Obama health law - CNN and Fox News were reporting that the individual mandate has been struck down; other outlets were giving a different story.
I was live on the air and made the decision to play for time, to talk about how there were different stories, instead of deciding that one was correct.
It was a good decision.
In the end, CNN and Fox were both wrong, and they had to backtrack.
Some colleagues of mine who work at one of the other major TV networks gathered on Thursday night in Washington, D.C. for drinks after work - marking how they didn't get that news wrong on the air.
There should have been an easy way to figure out which way the ruling was going, since the majority was formed by Chief Justice Roberts and the four more liberal Justices.
This is what was at the end of the opening "Syllabus," which summarizes the decision of the Supreme Court:
"ROBERTS, C. J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, and III?C, in which GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined; an opinion with respect to Part IV, in which BREYER and KAGAN, JJ., joined; and an opinion with respect to Parts III?A, III?B, and III?D. GINSBURG, J., filed an opinion concurring in part, concurring in the judgment in part, and dissenting in part, in which SOTOMAYOR, J., joined, and in which BREYER and KAGAN, JJ., joined as to Parts I, II, III, and IV. SCALIA, KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., filed a dissenting opinion. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion."
It's almost the definition of confusing.
And when you are racing against the clock - and against your competition - sometimes mistakes can be made.
It was a brutal reminder - don't try to predict the Supreme Court's rulings and take your time in reporting on their decisions.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.