By Tim Graham | October 6, 2015 | 10:54 AM EDT

As the Supreme Court term begins, NPR court correspondent Nina Totenberg played dumb on Monday’s Morning Edition, much like Adam Liptak at The New York Times. Why would conservatives dislike “consistently conservative” chief justice John Roberts?

Desperately employing rickety rationales twice to uphold Obamacare somehow doesn’t undermine “consistency.” Totenberg forgot Roberts being hailed by Time magazine in 2012 as similar to  Beethoven, Willie Mays, and King Solomon: “Not since King Solomon offered to split the baby has a judge engineered a slicker solution to a bitterly divisive dispute.”

By Clay Waters | September 30, 2015 | 10:15 AM EDT

New York Times Supreme Court correspondent Adam Liptak filed a liberal pleasing analysis Tuesday, fervently insisting Chief Justice John Roberts is a staunch conservative, despite what ridiculous right-wingers may think. His reported opinion piece, based on voting analysis by law professors, strained to show Roberts as a loyal conservative Justice, but the evidence is hardly as cut and dried as Liptak's charged tone would suggest. Liptak has always trended left, as when he faulted the "terse" old U.S. Constitution as outdated for failing to guarantee entitlements like health care.

By Tom Johnson | July 3, 2015 | 4:35 PM EDT

Conservatives have an ideological fever, and the only prescription is to wait until their crazy ideas vanish. That’s the word from Washington Monthly blogger Martin Longman, who opined in a Wednesday post that many on the right have suffered from a sort of “heat-fever” when confronted with President Obama and his policies.

Longman explained that “a fever is something that comes over you suddenly, causing addled thinking, hallucinations and other delusions, but which eventually breaks and goes away as quickly as it arrived...[T]he Obama Era has been marked by an unusual number of these outbreaks of mass insanity,” such as rage against the Affordable Care Act.

By Tom Johnson | July 2, 2015 | 9:17 PM EDT

In the week since the Supreme Court upheld certain Obamacare subsidies, some on the left, applying the wisdom that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend,” have gratefully praised majority-opinion-writer John Roberts. But now liberals need to put their warm fuzzies for the chief justice behind them and guard against “complacency” regarding the court, advised Brian Beutler in a Tuesday article.

“Nothing inspires spasms of rage on the right quite like Obamacare, which explains why the conservatives feel as if Roberts has betrayed them on a Shakespearean scale,” wrote Beutler. Nonetheless, Roberts has established his right-wing bona fides on many other matters, including “affirmative action, voting rights, [and] campaign finance regulations,” and conservatives see the Roberts court as a “useful tool” in their effort to “litigate federal regulatory laws.”

By Tom Johnson | June 29, 2015 | 9:10 PM EDT

It’s likely that most NewsBusters readers are familiar with the grimly humorous saying “the beatings will continue until morale improves.” Last Friday, UCLA professor of public policy Mark Kleiman opined in so many words that the Republican party’s beatings in presidential elections will continue until its mental health improves.

In a Friday Washington Monthly post, Kleiman mocked conservatives for their allegedly fanciful belief that their “frivolous” arguments in King v. Burwell would carry the day and predicted that Republicans probably have a few more years of delusion and defeat ahead of them: “It’s possible that a convincing [Hillary] Clinton win and a Democratic recapture of the Senate in 2016 will shock the GOP back to reality. But I wouldn’t bet on it. Feeding right-wing fury is a profitable venture financially, and it works well enough electorally in off-years to keep the hustle going. My guess is that it will take a Clinton re-election landslide in 2020 to do the job.”

By Tim Graham | June 28, 2015 | 7:19 PM EDT

When the Left erupted in outrage over the Supreme Court decision on campaign financing in Citizens United, they never thought their resistance to the result could be described as “treason.” But that’s not the way they’re playing on the new gay-pleasing decisions.

At The Daily Beast, contributor and gay activist Jay Michaelson asked “Did The Four Dissenting Justices In Gay Marriage Case Just Suggest Treason? The conservative justices’ incendiary dissents in Obergefell are a shocking betrayal of judicial responsibility.”

By Tim Graham | June 28, 2015 | 8:16 AM EDT

Last year, The Washington Post gave a gay activist named Steven Petrow a regular column called “Civilities.” This quickly became a farce, since Petrow was a fan of outing...and Dan Savage.

The original conceit was that this gay Mr. Manners was going to explain to the readers how to negotiate the Brave New World of mangled pronouns and how to address gay newlyweds on your Christmas cards and so on. Instead, Petrow often just pounds the table complaining about the slow pace of the “revolution.” On Saturday, he wrote a trash-talking column about “The Supreme Court’s Sore Losers.”

By Matthew Balan | June 27, 2015 | 1:07 AM EDT

On Friday, ABC's World News Tonight aired a completely one-sided report on the Supreme Court's ruling that legalized same-sex "marriage" in all 50 states. Terry Moran hyped how Justice Anthony Kennedy "wrote today's landmark opinion describing the stakes in this case in the loftiest terms." Moran failed to include any soundbites from social conservative opponents of the decision, and hyped how "Justice Scalia, in a rage, scorning Kennedy's poetic opinion as little more than a 'fortune cookie.'"

By Curtis Houck | June 25, 2015 | 11:23 PM EDT

Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling in favor of President Obama in the ObamaCare subsidy case, the “big three” of ABC, CBS, and NBC were out in full force during their Thursday evening newscasts to cheer the “historic ruling” and labeled Chief Justice John Roberts as a “conservative” after having “saved” ObamaCare “from a devastating blow.” CBS anchor Scott Pelley assured viewers in an opening tease that “[m]illions of Americans will keep their health insurance as the Supreme Court today saves the President's signature law.”

By Ken Shepherd | June 25, 2015 | 6:16 PM EDT

The Supreme Court's opinion authored by Chief Justice John Roberts in the King v. Burwell case was classic conservative judicial philosophy, argues the Daily Beast's Jay Michaelson.

By Tom Johnson | June 25, 2015 | 5:35 PM EDT

In the lead-up to the King v. Burwell decision, not a few liberals claimed that most Republicans secretly wanted the Supreme Court to uphold certain Obamacare subsidies because quashing them would have caused major political hassles for the GOP. The SCOTUS ruled Thursday morning, and before noon we had examples of the updated conventional wisdom: Republicans are happy with the decision, which will spare them harm in the 2016 elections.

One post in this vein came from Steve Benen, a producer for MSNBC’s The Rachel Maddow Show and the main writer for the TRMS blog. Benen asserted that chief justice John Roberts, who wrote the majority opinion, “did the GOP an enormous favor -- had the court created systemic chaos, and scrapped benefits for millions of red-state families, Republicans would have confronted an incredible mess they were woefully unprepared to clean up. Worse, there’s a big election coming up, and the GOP was poised to be on the hook for hurting a lot of people out of nothing but spite.”

By Matthew Balan | June 25, 2015 | 12:39 PM EDT

Thursday's CNN Newsroom hyped the Supreme Court's decision that again upheld ObamaCare as a "huge win for the President of the United States," as Wolf Blitzer put it. Gloria Borger and John King tied the Court decision to Congress passing the President's fast-track trade legislation earlier in the week. Borger trumpeted, "You have trade legislation being approved – huge win for the President. You have this reaffirmation of ObamaCare...huge for his legacy." King added, "This may well be the best week of his second term."