Sad but so true. Watching the theatrics in the beltway from both sides of the aisle this year has been disheartening and disgusting....and they know no shame.

or maybe he was just doing his job and correctly assessed that the act did not violate the Constitution.

It is pretty sad when a SCJ is raked over the coals for making a legal determination.  It is even sadder when we've gotten to the point where everyone is "labeled" either "liberal" or "conservative" as if there were only two viewpoints of the world.  Then once we are labeled we get graded on our loyalty to the "party", sounds like an old song from the Communist Party.  Oddly Marx may have been philosophically correct, capitalism foundering in its own greed. 

I hate to say it, but I still suspect Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts voted in favor of Obamacare to keep the issue alive for the GOP during the election season. His reasoning of it being a tax is sketchy at best. And the issue could be similar to Roe v. Wade: If the Republicans ever win on overturning it, they lose it as a political issue.

As for NJ Governor Christie, I think we all know his sudden affection for Obama had Sandy relief funds written all over it. Though it is nice when two leaders from opposite sides can work together for a common cause. Now can they do it for vital issues like the fiscal cliff and fighting climate change? Let's hope we don't need superstorm-level tragedy to inspire such cooperation.

It is sad that bipartisanship has become so rare.  Joan is among the worst offenders in the pundworldly, as her vile hatred of Mitt Romney and other Republicans goes beyond policy, it is truly personal.  Her declaration here that it was a partisan ruling that "awarded" the presidency to George Bush is more of the same.  12 years later, she still cannot get over the FACT that Bush won Florida.   Even if Gore got the recount he's sought, he still would have lost.

Sometimes it's difficult to compromise and even nonsensical. If one side is saying the answer to random attacks in schools is to arm teachers and janitors and the other side is saying assault rifles have no place in private hands, where is the compromise? To restrict assault rifles to principals and superintendents only?

Dear Joan,

I can't agree that the actions of Roberts and Christie are "bipartisan", nor can I agree that no democrats are pursuing bi partisan solutions to American problems.  I think this piece suffers from an uncharacteristically weak reliance on the "counterintuitive" viewpoint to cause a splash.

The Obamacare decision by Roberts was not "political"; there is a Constitution, Roberts interpreted the Constitution, and as the Court famously puts it "declared what the law is."  In principle at least, this is an apolitical act.  Of course, no one should be so obtuse as to assume that the Court's decisions are not swayed by politics (the opinions of the dissenting justices, departing from more than two centuries of precedent, including decisions by those very justices) being a case in point.  But under the circumstances this was an example of a justice eschewing politics in favor of a correct legal decision.  

Regarding Christie, there was little bipartisanship in his praise of Obama, and I think we have a definitional problem here.  You seem to be characterizing "bipartisanship" as "anything your side doesn't like".  Bipartisanship in political terms must be more narrowly defined if we are to hold our leaders to actual "bipartisan" compromise on matters of substance.  Christie did nothing regarding Sandy that can be so characterized.  A bipartisan decision (as Obama will tell you) garners disfavor from your side due to the policy choices you've agreed to in compromise.  Christie enhanced his own reputation-- and the impact on his status as a potential 2016 candidate could not have been greater.  He guaranteed himself an opportunity, which is more a kind of selfishness (undermining his party's candidate at a critical moment while gathering accolades for himself) than it is bipartisanship.  More charitably, Christie did no more than recognize that Obama was personally ensuring that the assistance NJ badly needed was provided quickly and without bureaucratic hangups.  That's just gratefulness.  To characterize Christie's actions as bipartisan under the circumstances would necessarily require the same analysis about Obama's actions-- was it "bipartisan" of Obama to ensure that New Jersey got federal aid quickly and expeditiously after Sandy hit?  I hope not.  

The only major actor in our political scene who has given up something of substance on policy-- something his party wanted-- was Obama. In 2010, Obama rejected the most cost-effective, efficient, and progressive method of insuring all Americans (a simple expansion of medicare to everyone-- i.e., single payer), as well as a "government option" that would have effectively brought about the same result.  Virtually all health care economists agreed that these methods would have been the smartest policy decision in terms of coverage, cost and choice for consumers as to medical care.  Obama rejected them out of an effort to find a bipartisan solution, adopting instead the Massachusetts plan that was, in substance and origin, a creature of the right.  Do not be hoodwinked by the subsequent flight of the right from Obamacare (a grossly political action) and its Heritage Foundation-conceived individual mandate into thinking that Obamacare was somehow a leftist conspiracy.  You're falling into their trap.  The same goes for budget/debt ceiling discussions.  Obama has repeatedly and (seemingly) fearlessly conceded hugely important Democratic principles to Republicans in these negotiations.  From agreeing to adjustments in the calculation of COLA for Social Security, to agreeing that incomes in excess of $250,000 are somehow "middle class" and not subject to tax increases (furthering the inequity problem that is undermining our social fabric), to agreeing to trillions of dollars of spending cuts that would have benefited our economy, Obama has consistently done what the policy gurus of the left, or at least the Democrats, have identified as the right ones.  That is bipartisanship, because it drives us insane over here on the "left" (said "liberally" as I am hardly a "lefty").  Same goes even for the Stimulus package.  Why so many tax cuts?  Why not more infrastructure investment-- something that generates more than a dollar of economic activity per dollar spent (per CBO) (where tax cuts generate substantially less than a dollar per dollar spent).  Where's the carbon tax?  Great broad based-minimum impact-revenue generation, beneficial effect on greenhouse emissions-- non starter because Obama won't put it on the table.  Where's the financial transactions tax?  Great incredibly broad based revenue generator, taxes a hitherto ungoverned sector (whatever Dodd Frank may achieve), a non starter because Obama won't put it on the table.  

Again and again, Obama declines sensible policy decisions because they have been framed as "Democratic" policies.  Again and again, Obama is the bipartisan actor-- bringing, I might add, the rest of the Democrats along with him.  The only reason he doesn't get credit for it is that the Republicans have successfully redefined every concession he and the Democrats make as liberal orthodoxy, which makes actual democratic policy types pull their hair out.  Don't let them get away with that by writing stuff like this.   

"Whatever the motivation, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts provided the crucial fifth vote last June to uphold President Obama’s landmark health care reform law." here's some "Motivation". The liberal press and Barack Obama publicly BASHING the Supreme Court beforehand...And since when is the Court supposed to be "Partisan or BiPartisan ast all? The Justices are supposed to be above politics and just uphold the Constitution, good or bad...And speakling of "Partisan" Sonya Sodermeyer recently denied a Catholic charity's emergency request for exemption from Obama's ruling about contraception. BUT, before her confirmation, Sonya told the Senators that we must have religious freedom. So Sonya LIED in order to win confirmation.

Excellent piece.   I dare you to continue praising proven bi-partisan cooperation and voting if Scott Brown enters the Senate race.

The column is a more credible treatment of bipartisanism because Scott Brown's name was omitted from noted practitioners and examples, the full-page treatment on the back page notwithstanding.

Bipartisanship isn't about 'voting across the aisle' now and then. Bipartisanship is what happens when members of both parties work together to craft legislation. That just doesn't happen anymore. 

Lieberman has been the senator from Isreal and a DINO for a long time. This is typical Joannie crap not based in fact. Typical yuppie , out of touch , poorly written column by tis stiff.