You are here: Home » General » Paul on O’Donnell
I’ll let Paul write up his own scoop, but his appearance on the teevee for those who missed it:
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed
Ok, so I hope some less nice commenter will give us the précis on Campos, for those of us without the time to watch tv on the device that was supposed to save the world from tv.
Campos said his source (a clerk or Justice) tol him Roberts did indeed draft most of the opinion that became the “Joint Dissent” and that Crawford’s assertion otherwise is inaccurate.
The other guest, Julian Epstein, was talking around Paul a bit. Epstein argued that the Chief was omitted all along to upholding the mandate as penalty, although it was unclear to me if Epstein specifically disbelieved that Roberts was the primary author of the Joint Dissent, which was originally an Opinion Of The Court. Campos has the better-sourced and supported argument in my view.
tol=told, comitted = comitted.p One shouldn’t use one’s abdomen as a laptop platform.
Why not? You could scoop him on his own scoop! It would be scoop-rific!
Can’t watch this at work, but thanks for posting it. I’ll enjoy watching this tonight or, even better, on Independence Day.
The sense I’m still getting is Roberts wanted to strike down the mandate and let the law fall later of its own weight, and the other four conservatives wanted to strike down the whole law, and for whatever reason Roberts would not go along. My own foresnsics, entirely from (way) outside suggest that Roberts switched sooner than at the last minute, and told everyone, but that the conservative four campaigned to get him back and so did not start writing until they gave up on him. That may be why in the end the CJ and the Ginsburg opinions look more polished than what got issued as the joint dissent.
To me this only matters as to the degree the current violation of the traditional opacity of the court is a problem, and to the extent that it allows people to do kremlinology as to the possibility that the conservatives’ debate with Roberts and his own evolution on the three cases this week may reflect fundamental versus tactical shifts in the way he will approach his job in the future.
It’s interesting to “know” that Roberts wrote both opinions (or most of both opinions, or whatever) because it casts some light on the Court’s internal processes, but what does it tell us about the state of constitutional jurisprudence? Does it all come down to ‘The Legal Realists were right”? I don’t think we can say that Roberts has broken with the right wing faction of the court at this point, but the spinning suggests that they may have broken with him. (And by the way, can we get the media to stop referring to Breyer, Ginzberg, Sotomeyer and Kagan as “liberals”?)
Of course the legal realists were right. It’s why they call us real
Surely we don’t actually know this with any certainty. Forgive me if I am wary of both Campos’s anonymous sources and his own interpretation of what they told him.
And by the way, can we get the media to stop referring to Breyer, Ginzberg, Sotomeyer and Kagan as “liberals”?
No way. Anyone who is not a flame-breathing, 19th century, crypto-confederate is a liberal. And an enemy of America, witting or unwitting.
Well, the media spells their names correctly at least. But how do you want them to be described, if not as liberals? Or is your point just that they’re not all equivalent to each other?
If you want a picture to show with your comment, go get a Gravatar.
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
Subscribe via RSS Feed
Paul Campos, Above the Law 2011 Lawyer of the Year
Erik Loomis, HNN Cliopatria 2011 Best Series of Posts
Who are we?
For administrative, advertising, or other inquiries, please e-mail here.
Switch to our mobile site