Infuriated by a US Supreme Court ruling that kept US President Barack Obama’s healthcare program intact, conservative activists and Republican presidential candidates vowed on Thursday to make the role of the high court a central issue in next year’s presidential election.
Conservative ire was trained particularly on US Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote the majority opinion that preserved the subsidy regime underpinning the Affordable Care Act, even though another Republican appointee, Justice Anthony Kennedy, also voted with the majority.
Roberts, who was appointed to the court by Republican former president George W. Bush, has voted with court conservatives on many landmark cases, including ones involving campaign-finance laws and voting rights. However, he also enraged opponents of the Affordable Care Act three years ago when he cast a deciding vote in rejecting a different legal challenge to the law.
“He’s let down the movement,” said Curt Levey of the Committee for Justice, which advocates for conservative judicial nominees. “He may feel he has no obligation to the movement.”
Some conservatives have been skeptical of Roberts from the start, saying he was maddeningly opaque about his judicial philosophy during his 2005 Senate confirmation hearings. Roberts had spent only about two years as a federal appeals court judge, which meant a sparse paper trail illuminating his judicial philosophy.
In opening remarks during his confirmation hearing before the US Senate judiciary committee in 2005, Roberts spoke neutrally, noting that: “Judges are not politicians who can promise to do certain things in exchange for votes” and vowing to “confront every case with an open mind.”
“We wanted to be supportive, but there were these nagging doubts,” said Carrie Severino, policy director of the conservative Judicial Crisis Network. “You can’t assume someone is going to go south, but it appears the concerns were warranted. It’s what happens when you nominate someone who doesn’t have a clear record.”
Levey said that the pressure now falls on Republican presidential hopefuls to spell out in detail their views on court appointments — and simple generalities about being faithful to the letter of the US Constitution will not cut it.
“It might have been enough before today for presidential candidates to spout the usual things about appointing someone who interprets rather than writes the law. I think you’ll have to say more now,” he said. “Each candidate will have to do something to show the base how they will avoid appointing another Roberts.”
Mark Levin, a frequent critic of the court who heads the conservative Landmark Legal Foundation, said Republican senators, too, would “need to take their responsibility far more seriously and much more aggressively scrutinize these nominees.”
Beyond that, Jay Sekulow, a prominent conservative lawyer who has argued a dozen cases before the high court, suggested that the healthcare ruling would prompt a debate on the presidential campaign trail over the justices’ proper function.
“What the court said that is that if legislation is written poorly, we can fix it,” he said. “That’s very different from the traditional role of the court.”
Indeed, some Republican candidates were scathing on Thursday in their assessment of the decision. Former Republican Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee termed it “an out-of-control act of judicial tyranny.”
Senator Ted Cruz accused the high court of usurping the role of Congress.
“Unelected judges have once again become legislators, and bad ones at that,” he said.
In that vein, the ruling, along with a decision on the legality of same-sex marriage bans, could hand Republicans a twin-barreled weapon with which to galvanize conservative voters into action.
Four years ago, conversely, it was the Democrats who made a Supreme Court ruling a centerpiece of their election message, blasting the court’s decision in the Citizens United case, which opened the door for massive corporate campaign expenditures.
Obama’s successor, whether Republican or Democrat, could play an outsized role in shaping the future of the court, Severino said.
“The next president could replace Justice [Ruth Bader] Ginsburg or possibly Kennedy and Scalia,” she said. “It would be World War III in terms of the amount of influence that president would have.”
With the midday sun blazing, an experimental orange and white F-16 fighter jet launched with a familiar roar that is a hallmark of US airpower, but the aerial combat that followed was unlike any other: This F-16 was controlled by artificial intelligence (AI), not a human pilot, and riding in the front seat was US Secretary of the Air Force Frank Kendall. AI marks one of the biggest advances in military aviation since the introduction of stealth in the early 1990s, and the US Air Force has aggressively leaned in. Even though the technology is not fully developed, the service is planning
INTERNATIONAL PROBE: Australian and US authorities were helping coordinate the investigation of the case, which follows the 2015 murder of Australian surfers in Mexico Three bodies were found in Mexico’s Baja California state, the FBI said on Friday, days after two Australians and an American went missing during a surfing trip in an area hit by cartel violence. Authorities used a pulley system to hoist what appeared to be lifeless bodies covered in mud from a shaft on a cliff high above the Pacific. “We confirm there were three individuals found deceased in Santo Tomas, Baja California,” a statement from the FBI’s office in San Diego, California, said without providing the identities of the victims. Australian brothers Jake and Callum Robinson and their American friend Jack Carter
Le Tuan Binh keeps his Moroccan soldier father’s tombstone at his village home north of Hanoi, a treasured reminder of a man whose community in Vietnam has been largely forgotten. Mzid Ben Ali, or “Mohammed” as Binh calls him, was one of tens of thousands of North Africans who served in the French army as it battled to maintain its colonial rule of Indochina. He fought for France against the Viet Minh independence movement in the 1950s, before leaving the military — as either a defector or a captive — and making a life for himself in Vietnam. “It’s very emotional for me,”
The Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) Central Committee is to gather in July for a key meeting known as a plenum, the third since the body of elite decisionmakers was elected in 2022, focusing on reforms amid “challenges” at home and complexities broad. Plenums are important events on China’s political calendar that require the attendance of all of the Central Committee, comprising 205 members and 171 alternate members with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) at the helm. The Central Committee typically holds seven plenums between party congresses, which are held once every five years. The current central committee members were elected at the