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 Twitter0Share on Reddit0Share on Facebook0Google+0Email to someone

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

Emptywheel Twitterverse
emptywheel @MagnificentOne_ So yes, you have basic problems with the Constitution, even conservatively interpreted. Glad we have that clear. @NC_Prime
emptywheel That's a big crazy. Driving while Gronk. 10 yards.
emptywheel @MagnificentOne_ I'm sorry. You don't understand what states are? We're going to have some difficulty here w/basic constitution. @NC_Prime
emptywheel @MagnificentOne_ Oops. Advocating violence against political opponents. That's not a good idea you know. @NC_Prime
emptywheel @MagnificentOne_ And 7 other states. states. You know. 10th Amendment. You're a laughable human. @NC_Prime
emptywheel @MagnificentOne_ Lou-I-Si-ana. Again, a state led but a nut ball. @NC_Prime
emptywheel @MagnificentOne_ Then go after Bobby Jindal whose state found them innocent. @NC_Prime
emptywheel @MagnificentOne_ The fucking states. In conservative states. Boy you're a poster boy for why GOP morons make legit GOP look bad. @NC_Prime
emptywheel @MagnificentOne_ Look. You might want to research some facts before you embarrass yourself more. You make @NC_Prime look dumb by association
emptywheel @MagnificentOne_ You're saying PP runs 8 different states, including CO? Wow. That is crazy. @NC_Prime
emptywheel @MagnificentOne_ But yes. For morons 8 states and video proof is not proof. @NC_Prime
emptywheel @MagnificentOne_ Yes. 8 states have investigated and found PP innocent. Video edits have shown falsity. Non PP sources shown. @NC_Prime
June 2012
« May   Jul »