Scalia says no fallout with Roberts over healthcare decision

WASHINGTON Wed Jul 18, 2012 10:22pm EDT

Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler (R) speaks to Justice Antonin Scalia (L) and Chief Justice John Roberts of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, in this courtroom illustration made March 28, 2012. REUTERS/Illustration by Art Lien/Handout

Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler (R) speaks to Justice Antonin Scalia (L) and Chief Justice John Roberts of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, in this courtroom illustration made March 28, 2012.

Credit: Reuters/Illustration by Art Lien/Handout

Related Topics

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said there was no bad blood between himself and Chief Justice John Roberts, who stunned conservatives by voting to uphold President Barack Obama's healthcare law.

In a rare interview that aired on Wednesday night, Scalia also told CNN he had "no regrets" over the court's 5-4 decision that swung the 2000 presidential election to Republican George W. Bush.

Scalia's response to critics of the ruling, which he says is the one most frequently raised with him, is "get over it."

"Especially because it's clear that the thing would have ended up the same way anyway. The press did extensive research into what would have happened if what Al Gore wanted done had been done, county by county, and he would have lost anyway," he said.

Scalia said he slept well at night and had a crystal-clear understanding of his role on the bench.

"I'm not king and I haven't been charged with making the Constitution come out right all the time," he said.

In the landmark June 28 healthcare ruling that was an election-year victory for President Barack Obama and fellow Democrats, Roberts surprisingly joined the court's four liberal members to uphold the law's key provision requiring that most Americans buy health insurance or pay a tax.

The decision was a setback for Republicans who mounted opposition in Congress to the law before its 2010 passage. They dubbed it "Obamacare" and called it an unwarranted intrusion into the lives of individuals and a burden on states.

Media reports suggested tempers flared between Scalia and Roberts - both conservative jurists - over the matter after the decision, but Scalia said that was not true.

"You shouldn't believe what you read about the court in the newspapers. No I haven't had a falling out with Justice Roberts," Scalia said.

(Reporting By John Crawley; Editing by Peter Cooney)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see
Comments (9)
Tothiwim wrote:
Of course not. Scalia got to keep his Republican creds, Roberts saved the mandate for the insurance companies. Same team.

Jul 19, 2012 9:25am EDT  --  Report as abuse
jeff81201 wrote:
Justice Scalia – you can’t put a corporation in jail. You can’t execute it. It is not a person.

A corporation is a creation of statute, granting individuals the right to undertake a business venture without exposing themselves to personal financial ruin if it fails. That’s gift enough.

Reverse Citizens United.

Jul 19, 2012 10:00am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Randy549 wrote:
@jeff, I agree with your views on how a corporation is different from a person. The difficulty is that the Citizens United decision didn’t actually claim that “corporations are people;” it only said that groups of people can get together, pool their resources, and fund activities that influence how voters might vote.

The original action that led to the Citizens United decision was Michael Moore’s production of the movie Fahrenheit 911 by his corporation. All the Supreme Court did was to clarify that if it’s OK for Michael Moore’s corporation to produce political speech like Fahrenheit 911, it has to be OK for other people’s corporations to do similar things as well. Otherwise the Supreme Court would have been choosing sides in what is essentially a political battle to influence voters, and of course they can’t do that.

Jul 19, 2012 11:03am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.