Three Examiner pieces by Quin Hillyer;
Lower courts already should be restrained from national rulings
Both the Supreme Court and Congress — or both — should act to rein in district court judges who issue “nationwide” or “universal” injunctions….
… A few weeks back, I made the case that Congress should move to limit the abusive use of such injunctions. Several questioners and panelists at a Feb. 4 Heritage forum said the same thing, noting that Congress does have the authority to define and limit federal court jurisdictions in multiple ways, not just geographically.
But what I had missed was that a Supreme Court precedent from 1984 already should be keeping many of these judges in check. Heritage Foundation senior fellow Hans von Spakovsky spent some time discussing that precedent in his opening remarks. [The rest is here.]
Roberts Obamacare decision: still awful, in retrospect
The mystery of why Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts switched positions on the constitutionality of Obamacare continues. But switch he did, in a way that looks more political than judicial. The switch still does not speak well of him.
These reflections come, it must be said, from a third-hand report. The March issue of the Atlantic will feature a review by liberal Chicago lawyer Michael O’Donnell of a forthcoming biography of the Supreme Court leader. The book, titled “The Chief: The Life and Turbulent Times of Chief Justice John Roberts,” is by CNN legal analyst Joan Biskupic. It sounds like a good one. For now, what’s most interesting in the review, and what is certain to get the most attention when the book comes out, is Biskupic’s reporting on Roberts’ role in salvaging Obamacare…. [Full post, here.]
No, John Roberts didn’t just prove himself pro-Roe
Pro-lifers, don’t fret yet: Chief Justice John Roberts did not necessarily indicate yesterday that he is comfortable with the Supreme Court’s existing pro-choice jurisprudence. Instead, he showed he was unwilling to overturn precedent on what amounts to a procedural ruling.
Headline writers yesterday focused on Roberts’ role in joining the court’s four liberal justices in issuing a stay, or temporary halt, to a Louisiana law imposing new regulations on abortion providers…. [The rest is at this link.]
