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.

[4Liberty]

Just about anything & everything will be ‘included’ in Healthcare coverage.

Mental health — for example, many goofy leftist psychologists will start issuing “objective research” showing that ‘depression is caused by not having money & nice things.” We need to give them stuff, to “alleviate mental illness.”

How about THIS “psychology study” — one showing that the ‘disincentive’ provided by the 2nd Amendment: a shotgun pointed in your face by an angry home owner, will ‘cause’ you to be less “depressed” about having nice things, and MORE Depressed about DEATH — and INSTEAD be Motivated to WORK!!!!!

Where’s THAT study?

We’ll never see it (except from John Lott)...

Folks, we are in for major Nork-style socialism if this isn’t STOPPED.

[HerrBlucher]

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

And that doesn't bode well for getting this monstrosity repealed. The left will isolate a few pubbies and threaten them, and especially any dems thinking of joining. We are in a war with an enemy that has no morals, only political goals. They truly are nazi/commies.

It is going to be one helluva ride next November. Hang on!

[Paladin2]

Find the opinions here.

[OwenKellogg]

Just about anything & everything will be ‘included’ in Healthcare coverage.

---

Including what you eat and drink, gun ownership, religious and sexual preferences, membership in unapproved organizations.... the list goes on.

Think of how many things the AMA and the CDC and the Surgeon General have weighed in on.

[ronniesgal]

that is beautiful!!!!( pic w/ holder)
Thank you

[Boogieman]

Well, the Supreme Court is one place where you would never expect to get a “named source”, at least not until well after the fact.

[Las Vegas Ron]

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.

I got married here in Vegas in 1985 (long before I came to live here)

We flew up from So Cal to do it. Playing craps and losing big, on a spastic hunch I threw $50.00 on the hard twelve.

SOB if it didn't hit, paid 32 to 1

Point is, it was a sucker bet.

Fact is, I won...but anyone who gambles on the dice table will tell you it is a foolish bet.

OTOH, if I didn't bet, I never would have won.

Tough choice this time around for sure.

BTW, that is a true story....and don't ask how the marriage turned out!

[Boogieman]

If he was really threatened, and has any principles left, then we should see him step down as soon as a Republican president takes office. After all, he would have to know that he has been compromised and cannot reliably fulfill his oath of office anymore. If he doesn’t step down, then he either wasn’t threatened, or doesn’t have any principles.

[4Liberty]

Right. The phoney “Psych-mental health studies” will come fast & furious. A real pseudo-science, psychologists will open the door wide to intervention, wealth transfers.

[MayflowerMadam]

“If he doesn’t step down, then he either wasn’t threatened, or doesn’t have any principles.”

It’s probably both — threatened and unprincipled. A principled person, even if threatened, would have done the right thing. Look at all our Founding Fathers sacrificed in order to do the right thing.

This guy’s a weasel.

[uncbob]

This effect never works the other way. NO ONE is afraid of us. And that doesn't bode well for getting this monstrosity repealed. The left will isolate a few pubbies and threaten them, and especially any dems thinking of joining. We are in a war with an enemy that has no morals, only political goals. They truly are nazi/commies. It is going to be one helluva ride next November. Hang on!

The reason they aren't afraid of us is because we don't have a MSM or Hollywood or TV shows to constantly keep the pressure on, to cover up, to slant and distort etc etc etc like the democrats do

With even a half way ethical MSM in this country the democrats would have gone the way of the dodo bird

And if 2008 set records for democrat propaganda by the MSM , 2012 will make that look mild

It is maddening and yes the Internet can help but ABC CBS NBC still wield the big club

[caddie]

I respectfully disagree.

Clinton is seriously disturbed that he was impeached, even if the Senate caved.

If Roberts is concerned about what the silly New York Times thinks about him, he sure is going to driven nuts about being impeached.

Senate conviction or not.

Let the impeachments begin.

[Praxeologue]

the coward ran away to Malta hoping the dust settles.

It is ironic that Malta is an historic symbol of resolute resistance overcoming seemingly overwhelming evil. How can Roberts bear to be among the graves of those brave knights?

[milagro]

The only silver lining in Robert's decision is that it did limit Congress' power under the Commerce Clause, and does scream loud and clear in the faces of Obama and the Dems in Congress who thought they could keep from the American people their dirty little secret about Obamacare:

"IT IS A TAX"!

[Gene Eric]

Did he report any threats to the FBI?

[Spunky]

"In reading the dissent one gets the clear impression that Roberts pulled the "tax" angle out of his ass at the last minute and caught everyone off guard,......"

Not quite true.

Quote from below link: "-- For all the awkward, nervous or frog-in-their-throats public speakers just having a bad day, there's hope. The Supreme Court's decision to uphold the health care law, despite widespread criticism of Solicitor General Donald Verrilli's performance in the courtroom, proves that oral arguments are less about putting on a good show than making viable points and that, more significantly, oral arguments aren't always what seals the deal. Verrilli did, in fact, argue the mandate as a tax, but Roberts's endorsement of this argument reminds us that votes are cast and opinions are written based on much more than courtroom crossfire. Perhaps there's a reason the high court is one of the last venues in American politics still averse to live recordings and modern media technology."
What We Learned: The Tax Argument Cometh

[LongWayHome]

I think it’s a good guess that Robert’s fell for the whole: the court looks to right-wing crap that the left was talking about all spring. We’ve been in trouble in this country fo a long time....this is just another slap in the face. It seems the public just never wakes up.

[AnotherUnixGeek]

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

Sorry, I saw the reference to CBS in the post and went looking for the article. It's here, top of page 2:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57464549/roberts-switched-views-to-uphold-health-care-law/

[Praxeologue]

The ruling did not limit the Commerce Clause, despite Roberts' unshared opinion. Further, the mandate was upheld as a tax, but it was passed as a penalty and Obama is, correctly, sticking to that position.

The decision is an unmitigated disaster for us all.

[nanetteclaret]

***I’d be willing to wager more than a couple of boxes of popsicles that Kagan was the leaker***

Of course she was, since she was Solicitor General when the law was passed and then refused to recuse herself. She had a vested interest in seeing it upheld. For liberals, the end justifies the means. So much corruption on so many levels!