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 TwitterShare on Reddit0Share on Facebook0Google+0Email to someone

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

Emptywheel Twitterverse
emptywheel RT @dnvolz: Here it is. The Supreme Court just submitted Rule 41 to Congress, which would expand FBI hacking authority: https://t.co/c2yi3T
4mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @GeorgWebb For the primary probably. His negatives are off the charts, though. How much of that was his own doing? @realDonaldTrump
10mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel .@kurtopsahl Maybe he should have just titled it, "The Fourth Amendment: Heads I win, tails you lose"?
11mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @kurtopsahl Right. Even just releasing correlations memo would change mosaic analysis tremendously. But Litt won't let that one out...
12mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @GeorgWebb It didn't take him out tho. It may have damaged him for General, but I'm not sure that's where most damage came @realDonaldTrump
12mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @kurtopsahl All while limiting himself to the stuff he himself has chosen to make public, which hides much of the impact. Nifty!
14mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel "When someone who controlled the FOIA disclosures writes a law review article on what got released," by Bob Litt https://t.co/YeeyAZE6of
24mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @SuperiorWang Absolutely, but Bernie's fundraising has been unprecedented. @JC_Christian
34mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz But you got in the room Scafe. So much admiration on this end. #FoundingScafes https://t.co/4iL252jyjm
35mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel Q: Would FB be obliged to delay reporting of WhatsApp requests 2 years? https://t.co/KmI0hHUhWB
36mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel FB FISA Content: 2013, 1H, 2H: 5000-5499 2014, 1H, 2H: 7000-7499 2015, 1H: 13500-13999 Bigger spike than Apple. https://t.co/OSHx19ApbW
37mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @Matt_Cagle What percent of those were Turkey, though? @zeynep
44mreplyretweetfavorite
June 2012
S M T W T F S
« May   Jul »
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930