BYH to the city Public Works department for paying for an expensive public input session on sidewalks and not telling...

Roberts counterpunches counterpunching president


Hugh Hewitt


Sunday, December 2, 2018

President Donald Trump does not need, and should not pursue, a war of words with Chief Justice John Roberts. Both lead equal branches of government. Neither would benefit from ongoing anvil tossing, especially at a time when Trump has no attorney general who can command the respect and attention of the legal community.

Full disclosure: Roberts is an old colleague, with whom I shared a suite in the old Executive Office Building at the beginning of President Ronald Reagan's second term. I am also one of the few very vocal defenders among originalists of the chief justice's decision in the 2012 case against Obamacare that earned him an unwarranted suspicion among many in the tribe of my jurisprudential leanings.

Quite simply, courts ought not to strike down federal laws passed by Congress and signed by the president if there is any way to avoid doing so. The chief justice found such a path and, along the way, revivified limits to the Constitution's spending clause while cementing the border around the reach of the interstate commerce clause. Nice work, that opinion. It is a modern Marbury v. Madison and will be understood as such some decades down the line.

The chief justice's concurrence in Citizens United v. FEC is another jewel — an accessible and understandable yet comprehensive and precise statement of the stare decisis doctrine and its limits. Read it if you'd like a look ahead at where the court is going and why.

I hope the Roberts court plunges into a wholesale revamp of the jerry-rigged fire trap of establishment clause jurisprudence and that it levels the God-awful collection of incoherent holdings I must annually pretend to teach by memorization. (A law professor can no more teach "establishment clause jurisprudence" than a math professor can teach the square root of two).

I hope as well that the court makes free-exercise rights more robust. And that it turbocharges the Fifth Amendment's long-dormant prohibition against taking property without just compensation, with the recognition that the public must pay property owners whenever an endangered-species listing or a critical-habitat designation devalues their land. The Supreme Court may also exile, finally, the use of race in the bestowing of benefits or infliction of penalties, and banish from its docket redistricting challenges — as redistricting belongs to the legislative and executive branches of the states, not the majority of nine unelected justices.

So we are at the dawn of a new era of an old idea: constitutional seriousness. The ground rules matter. And the Constitution's meaning, as understood at the time it was ratified or amended or interpreted before 2018, matters. The document, written mostly by farmers (smart farmers, but men steeped in the hard rules of agriculture), debated mostly by farmers and ratified mostly by farmers, is a plain document. It ought to be read plainly.

When the chief justice speaks plainly to the president or to political parties, people notice. Good. Roberts did to Trump last week what he did to President Barack Obama in the aftermath of the 2010 State of the Union address when 44 blasted the court for its ruling in Citizens United. Roberts sallied forth then with this comment: "The image of having the members of one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering while the court — according to the requirements of protocol — has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling." Roberts was right then. He was right Wednesday.

Now the chief justice has counterpunched the counterpunching president. Good, again. That's the job of the chief justice. He leads an independent branch of the Constitution's design, and independence is a dish best served hot. So it was.

Trump was wise not to provide a nickname for the chief justice. He'd be wiser still to leave off this particular debate. Get an attorney general the equal of the chief justice when it comes to intellect and constitutional chops and let them have at it. Bravo to the chief justice for calling a foul ball. We can hope the president doesn't swing on that pitch again.

Hugh Hewitt is a Washington Post columnist, hosts a nationally syndicated radio show and is a professor of law at Chapman University's Fowler School of Law.


Humans of Greenville


Local photographer Joe Pellegrino explores Greenville to create a photographic census of its people.

Op Ed

May 20, 2019

North Carolina appropriates less taxpayer money to state colleges and universities in real terms than it did before the onset of the Great Recession. Tuition has risen markedly and now accounts for a larger share of total revenue. But our state remains one of the most generous in the country when…

john hood.jpg

May 20, 2019

How many people have the ability to manipulate the stock market? One, and this isn’t a trick question. We’re watching how President Trump’s statements about slapping tariffs on China one day, or the great headway he’s making on a China trade deal the next day can tank the…


May 19, 2019

The Washington Post

The prime minister of New Zealand, Jacinda Ardern, has said she does not think anyone would argue that the perpetrator of the Christchurch massacre should have been able to livestream mass murder. Maybe that question elicits something close to unanimity — but in trying to…

May 19, 2019

Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes, adding his voice to calls to "break up" the social media giant, calls it a "powerful monopoly, eclipsing all of its rivals and erasing competition." In recent years, we've seen similar claims, and heard demands for similar remedies, aimed at Google, Amazon, and…


May 19, 2019

With a competent president in the White House, the escalating confrontation with Iran would not rise to the level of crisis. With President Trump calling the shots, we should be afraid. Very afraid.

A rational president, of course, would not have abandoned the landmark deal that halted Iran's…

Eugene Robinson

May 18, 2019

I’ve been watching the emerging election for North Carolina’s Senate seat and wonder if we are seeing symptoms of a larger trend. Our traditional tribalism — Republicans and Democrats — has morphed into contentious sub-tribes within each party. Instead of a sure re-…

Tom Campbell.jpg

May 17, 2019

Tom McCuin served two tours as an Army public affairs officer in Afghanistan and worked closely with local nationals hired by American forces.

"They were not only our language interpreters, they were our cultural interpreters," McCuin wrote on clearancejobs.com, a site that lists openings for…

Steve and Cokie Roberts

May 16, 2019

Congressional elections in odd-numbered years? Odd is certainly one way to describe what many North Carolinians are experiencing right now. But in some ways, the special elections of 2019 are confirming rather than breaking the political rules.

Those elections are in the 3rd District, which spans…

john hood.jpg

May 15, 2019

Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Economics at Ohio University Richard Vedder's new book, "Restoring the Promise," published by the Independent Institute based in Oakland, California, is about the crisis in higher education. He summarizes the three major problems faced by America's colleges and…

Walter Williams

May 14, 2019

We were hopeful that this would be the year North Carolina changed the way it does redistricting for congressional and General Assembly seats. After all, we’ve been slapped by the courts so many times we’ve lost count. Our record is so bad that the U.S. Supreme Court, which has long…

255 stories in Op Ed. Viewing 1 through 10.
«First Page   «Previous Page        
Page 1 of 26
        Next Page»   Last Page»