CBS News: Roberts Was Going to Overturn ObamaCare But Changed His Mind

News Buster.org ^ | July 1, 2012 | Noel Sheppard

[Kaslin]

CBS News broke a huge story on Sunday's Face the Nation concerning the Supreme Court's Thursday ruling on ObamaCare.

According to Jan Crawford, CBS legal and political correspondent, Chief Justice John Roberts was initially going to strike down the individual mandate requiring citizens to buy health insurance, but changed his mind over the objections of the conservatives on the Court (video follows with transcript):

CBS News: Roberts Initially Wanted to Strike Down ObamaCare Mandate But Changed His Mind

NORAH O’DONNELL, SUBSTITUTE HOST: We're going to start first with Jan because you've done some reporting. The big question was why did Chief Justice John Roberts do what he did? And you've learned some new details right?

JAN CRAWFORD, CBS LEGAL AND POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, that's right. What was striking about this decision was that it was the conservative Chief Justice that was providing that decisive fifth vote, joining the liberals to uphold the President’s signature achievement. And Norah that was something that no one would have expected back in 2005 when President George W. Bush put him on the Supreme Court, and that was something that not even the conservative justices expected back in March when the Court heard arguments in this case.

I am told by two sources with specific knowledge of the Court's deliberations that Roberts initially sided with the conservatives in this case and was prepared to strike down the heart of this law, the so-called individual mandate, of course, that requires all Americans to buy insurance or pay a penalty. But Roberts, I'm told by my sources, changed his views deciding to instead join with the liberals.

And he withstood-- I'm told by my sources -- a month-long desperate campaign by the conservative justices to bring him back to the fold, and that campaign was led, ironically, by Justice Anthony Kennedy. And why that's ironic is because it was Justice Kennedy that conservatives feared would be the one most likely to defect. But their effort, of course, was unsuccessful. Roberts did not budge. The conservatives wrote that astonishing joint dissent united in opposition, and Roberts wrote the majority opinion with the four liberals to uphold the President's signature achievement.

O’DONNELL: Has this there been anything like this on the Court before? I mean, that's extraordinary that the Chief Justice, according to your report about a month ago decided to do this and then was lobbied unsuccessfully.

CRAWFORD: Yes, that has happened before, and often in high-profile, controversial cases including Justice Kennedy who's changed his views in a very high-profile case involving a woman's rights on abortion back in 1992. And justices do change their mind. There is precedent for that. One justice told me that surprisingly enough it happens about once a term. But in the case of this magnitude with so much on the line, conservatives believed they had Roberts’ vote in this case, and there's quite a lot of anger within the hallways of the Supreme Court right now.

[x]

The Supreme Court has great power, but only on the condition that they use it sparingly.

This reminds me of people who argue state legislators should choose senators once again as they did a century ago.

If state legislatures did pick the senators, the unelected Senate would have less power. Given current thinking about majority rule, unelected bodies have to tread lightly or risk losing the power they do have.

I suspect Roberts thought about repealing the law, but decided he didn't want to risk sticking his head out on this matter.

That's the way the Supreme Court has always been. Marbury v. Madison established the Supreme Court's right to decide whether laws were constitutional.

The court found with Marbury, but at the same time ruled that the law that mandated that Marbury receive his appointment was unconstitutional.

The Court is always doing things like that -- splitting hairs, splitting the difference between the two sides in a dispute, asserting its right to decide while avoiding making decisions which might be divisive or controversial.

My own (wholly ungrounded) suspicion is that Roberts "swapped places" with Kennedy, allowing Kennedy to cast a vote with the conservatives, and taking the heat himself for giving the liberals their majority.

[Las Vegas Ron]

Do I sympathize with Roberts? NO. He shouldn’t be on the bench if he’s not willing to stand up to Obama’s thugs.

It's soooo much fun to be a keyboard warrior with no consequences.

Can you say that when your pretty wife or your child has a cross hair painted on their back and the prick in control are threatening to pull the trigger?

Then you ask yourself who is going to support you when you stand up and reveal it, is the risk WORTH IT?.

We in this Country and on this forum always criticize those who do not take a stand then never back up those who do....George Zimmerman anyone?

Would YOU sacrifice your Life, Liberty and Property, the safety of your beloved Family when it has been demonstrated time and time again that no one will back you up?

I don't mean to aim this personally at you but I'm just presenting this for thought.

[ExNewsExSpook]

....which begs the salient question, what does the White House have on Roberts to make him blink?

I’ve said it before, and it bears repeating again. Filegate was the seminal scandal of the Clinton Administration. FBI background files on over 900 Republican elected officials and political appointees. Having served in the Reagan Administration, there’s a 100% chance the FBI has a file on Roberts, which made it way to DNC operatives during Filegate.

If nothing else, the material in those FBI files served as a starting point for opposition research on Roberts and other Republicans. With Terry Lenzer and the boys on the case, there’s no telling what might have been discovered to prompt Roberts’ sudden conversion.

The dissent in Thursday’s decision reads like a majority opinion, while Roberts’ “majority” summation looks like something that was originally drafted as a dissent. Now, we’re told that Roberts was a late convert to upholding the law. What caused the sudden switch? Was it an ideological conversion, a desire to uphold the “integrity” of the court, or did the Dims discover some deep, dark secret about Roberts?

Yeah, it’s a conspiracy theory, but I’m not buying the idea that Roberts switched so he’ll get a favorable story in the Washington Post “Style” section.

[uncbob]

What has that to do with my post

[hoosiermama]

It seems to have gotten lost in all the _______________

[Jeff Chandler]

I’m more and more convinced that he was threatened in a way that had teeth.

What could the White House have on him?

[uncbob]

Like I said using that excuse he should have used the 2010 election results and the fact the GOP repealed OBAMACARE after that elecetion

[rolling_stone]

if he copuldnt stand the heat he should ahave left the kitchen and resigned or recused himself he took an oath and betrayed it. Out tounders put everything they had including their lives at risk so this a$$ clown could give it away to feel good.

[Las Vegas Ron]

As much as men on this site like to complain about women getting the right to vote as the downfall of this country,

The premise of your argument is false, women were never denied the opportunity to vote.

They couldn't vote because in those days they typically didn't own property....a requirement for anyone, man or woman to vote.

[fso301]

Anyone know about Roberts’ wife? Is she a conservative or something else?

[Jim Noble]

This is good to know. When the Republicans are in charge, they will be able to intimidate Roberts into making decisions that will uphold the constitution.

No such luck, I'm afraid.

CJ Roberts is, like George W. Bush, more afraid of the Left than he is of us. Imagine for two seconds that on Thursday, the Court had thrown out PPACA 5-4.

Do you know what would have happened to Roberts and his family by today, only 72 hours from the decision?

I'm sure you do.

He turned out to not be man enough to face what WOULD ABSOLUTELY HAVE COME HIS WAY if he stuck to his original vote.

This effect never works the other way. NO ONE is afraid of us.

[cuban leaf]

—What could the White House have on him?—

I’m not saying blackmail. I’m saying “horse head in the bed”.

[butterdezillion]

What article was that from? I didn’t see that.

[uncbob]

Too bad you weren’t on the court back after 94 when the GOP trounced the dems and took over the congress and then passed Term Limits and the Line Item Veto BOTH of which Clinton signed and the court declared them BOTH unconstitutional

You could have persuaded them they were constitutional since a GOP dominated congress passed them yet they were signed by a democrat president

[phockthis]

sfl

[Eva]

Yep, Roberts’ has no core philosophy that he uses to decide judicial cases because he operates under the assumption that the state is all powerful. Roberts doesn’t believe in a higher power than the state.

If that sounds like a communist philosophy, it is. Look where Roberts came from, Harvard.

[butterdezillion]

Is there a way to read the entire transcript of what Kennedy said from the bench?

[Las Vegas Ron]

Out tounders put everything they had including their lives at risk so this a$$ clown could give it away to feel good.

That part of our Country has been lost for some time now and you are correct imo.

if he copuldnt stand the heat he should ahave left the kitchen and resigned or recused himself he took an oath and betrayed it.

Shirley, you jest....give up a lavish life, pension, fame, noteriety, place in the history books?

For what....principle?

Ain't happening in this time of life.

And why should you sacrifice it when you will be impugned for it, laughed at, scorned and ridiculed.

NO ONE cares.

Today we live for today, not an ideal. Take your principles and shove them, get what you can because hey, everyone else is.

/noted, necessary sarcasm

[altura]

The annoying thing about all this is that it will be tossed around here and maybe on Fox News for a week or two and then it will make way for other news and we will never know why Roberts made the decision he did.

All we can do is hope for Romney to win and to gain the Senate and also hope Romney appoints conservatives which he will surely get the chance to do in the next 8 years.