John Roberts Fails to Dictate Another Presidential Outcome, John Yoo Cries

In this post, I suggested the reason Republicans are so angry that John Roberts apparently flipped his vote (note, Barton Gellman reminded today that Ramesh Ponnuru said at Princeton reunion this year that Roberts had flipped before June 1) because they expected the conservative Justices to influence this year’s election.

Funny. In his rant declaring John Roberts the next David Souter, John Yoo has this to say:

Given the advancing age of several of the justices, an Obama second term may see the appointment of up to three new Supreme Court members. A new, solidified liberal majority will easily discard Sebelius’s limits on the Commerce Clause and expand the taxing power even further. After the Hughes court switch, FDR replaced retiring Justices with a pro-New Deal majority, and the court upheld any and all expansions of federal power over the economy and society. The court did not overturn a piece of legislation under the Commerce Clause for 60 years.

Mind you, he doesn’t rule out a Republican (he doesn’t name Mitt directly) getting elected. But he does see this in terms of the election, it seems.

But that’s not the most interesting passage in Yoo’s rant. This was:

Justice Roberts too may have sacrificed the Constitution’s last remaining limits on federal power for very little—a little peace and quiet from attacks during a presidential election year.

The … last … remaining … limits … on … Federal … power.

Yep. John Yoo said that.

Tweet about this on Twitter4Share on Reddit0Share on Facebook3Google+0Email to someone

9 Responses to John Roberts Fails to Dictate Another Presidential Outcome, John Yoo Cries

Emptywheel Twitterverse
bmaz @armandodkos You know I love you right?
3mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @armandodkos Heh, Yes, I, of all people, am Mr. Beltway. Good one!
3mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @armandodkos Attacking and scolding people that agree with you seems a poor use of time.
9mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @armandodkos I dunno, I think fact I agree w/King decision+think it should prevail does that sufficiently. Just not belligerent enough for U
10mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel Wonder if a futile suit against the President will lead Congress to do something about expansive immunity claims? Prolly not.
29mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @granick If they get handset ID because you're sitting next to me, is that CDR? Not traditionally, no. But it is included in permitted IDs.
42mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @granick We know they intend to use track burners. So if they're doing that analysis why would we believe they're not using location?
44mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @granick Not at all. They have to return to a CDR at each step. Says nothing about what they do to get there.
45mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @LemonSlayerUS I'm talking NGOs, not members of Congress.
46mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel Fairly certain we've known for over 5 years Powell was not briefed on torture until September 16, 2002.
47mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel Maybe I'm wrong and NSA doesn't intend to do contact chaining on location. But wouldn't it be smart to get something in writing first?
54mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel Bunch of privacy NGOs just supported legislation w/o first getting promised assurances for ODNI it doesn't put NSA in our smartphones.
56mreplyretweetfavorite
June 2012
S M T W T F S
« May   Jul »
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930