Two AJC editorials today

The two main op-ed columnists in today's Atlanta Journal-Constitution have something worthwhile to say.

Eugene Robinson, liberal, says that:

"Obama's great achievement is not any one element of the health care reform law -- not even the now-upheld individual mandate . . .  The important thing is the law's underlying assumption that every American, rich or poor, should have access to adequate health care. . . .  regardless of their ability to pay -- that it is not a privilege but a right.

"Progressive presidents since Theodore Roosevelt have tried to enshrine this principle.

"Obama did it."

On on the other side, conservative pundit Charles Krauthammer explored what could be John Roberts' motive in joining the liberals, calling Roberts' opinion "one of the great constitutional finesses of all time."

"He managed to uphold the central conservative argument against Obamacare, while at the same time finding a narrow definitional dodge to uphold the law -- and thus prevented the court from being seen as having overturned, presumably on political grounds, the signature legislation of this administration.

Krauthammer goes on to explain that Roberts "carries two identifies.   Jurisprudentially, he is a constitutional conservative.  Institutionally, he is chief justice and sees himself entrusted with the custodianship of the court's legitimacy, reputation and stature. . . .

"How to reconcile the two imperatives? . . .  Assign yourself the task of writing the majority opinion.  Find the ultimate finesse that manages to uphold the law on the most narrow grounds -- interpreting the individual mandate as merely a tax . . . .

"Law upheld, Supreme Court reputation for neutrality maintained.  Commerce Clause contained. . . .  Obamacare is now essentially upheld.  There's only one way it can be overturned.  The same way it was passed -- elect a new president and a new Congress.  That's undoubtedly what Roberts is saying to Congress:   Your job, not mine. . . " 

Pretty impressive analyses, both.   I like Robinson's thinking.   I can admire Krauthammer's clear-headed reasoning, while intensely disliking his opinions in general.  And I think he's right about Roberts' careful balance of conflicting aims.   He's not saying he approves of the health reform law;  he's saying to Congress:   'back to you;  you fix it.'

Ralph