Skip to comments.CBS News: Roberts Was Going to Overturn ObamaCare But Changed His Mind
Posted on 07/01/2012 10:47:39 AM PDT by 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 ODONNELL, 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 Presidents 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.
ODONNELL: 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.
Anyone know about Roberts’ wife? Is she a conservative or something else?
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.
—What could the White House have on him?—
I’m not saying blackmail. I’m saying “horse head in the bed”.
What article was that from? I didn’t see that.
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
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.
Is there a way to read the entire transcript of what Kennedy said from the bench?
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?
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
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.
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.
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!
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.
that is beautiful!!!!( pic w/ holder)
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.
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!
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.
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.
“If he doesnt step down, then he either wasnt threatened, or doesnt 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.
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.
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?
"IT IS A TAX"!
Did he report any threats to the FBI?
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
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.
The decision is an unmitigated disaster for us all.
***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!
Those yelling for Roberts skin are no different then the mobs of yore.
Re read what I wrote when you calm down and regain some sense.
UH...The FBI is under the direction of ....Eric WIthHolder
or perhaps a girl friend!
From what I read on the other thread, it looks like boyfriend would be a more appropriate "perhaps".
Occam’s Razor....that’s it!
This was the phrase I was trying to dredge up over all the intellectual pundits’ many explanations for Roberts’ decision.
Dear Lord George Will and Charlie Krauthammer want to make him the pope!
What the hay? These guys do not speak for me. Their day is long passed, they are not anywhere near my wave length.
For Roberts simply did NOT do his job. His job, which I will write here in simple language for George Will, Krauthammer, et al....so that they get it.
A Supreme Court Justice’s job is to interpret all legislation when appealed as to whether it is in sync with our constitution.
It ain’t rocket science no matter how their august selves and Krauthammer would have you believe.
Read the constitution and is this law as being contested in compliance with it.
Roberts did not do this.
His job is NOT to re-write the law so that it’s more in compliance with the constitution. That is the job of our duly elected legislators.
His job is NOT to save the supreme court or its reputation.
His job is NOT to keep John Roberts in good with the cocktail circuit crowd.
If you or I don’t do our job we get fired.
Only we can’t fire Roberts.
Now what do we do?
The man did NOT take a stand and why should he? He can’t get fired and its not worth the bother of scorn.
So he just makes up his job duties and there you have it.
One silly, silly man afraid to take a stand. If a Supreme Court Justice don’t take a stand than who can?
“What’ll they do, have the Speaker cry all over him?”
That would do it for me!
Ah, but you forgot one thing that WILL happen if this OBamacare is not repealed.
See Romney is likely to be reaching across the aisles because while he’s all we got, we know he’s a liberal, we don’t much like him.
But he’s got four years and I predict as soon as he begins reaching across aisles and becomes a RINO, the Tea Party will be activated.
Four years will be plenty of time to form a cohesive third party, goodness we got started on it already but wisely stepped aside for our two party system to work.
We got Romney.
Still and so we’ll wait, we’ll see, Romney knows how to wave his finger to see where the wind wafts.
Come the elections of 2016 if Romney disappoints, there WILL be a third party.
Yes I know all the pitfalls of third parties but if the two parties you got are both the same, what we got to lose?
So while you’re right, the Republicans might likely do nothing about OBamacare...but I do think there will be major consequences.
Just a hunch.
And to think many were worried about Harriet Miers.
Roberts turned out to be worse - at least Harriet Miers (though unqualified) had principles!
The Supreme Court nas now joined the ranks of the 9th Circus Court.
That’s about as twisted a rationalization as the one Roberts used to rationalize his decision.
We're pissing away everything they fought for.
Do I have the answer?
No, I wish to God I did.
And I'm not taking it personally, it is a valid question
I don't know if I'd be willing, but I can honestly promise you that I would NOT take the appointment if I wasn't willing to do so.
Is that a fair answer?
So, to complete the thought, Roberts voluntarily took the appointment,so yes, I do not sympathize. He shouldnt be on the bench if hes not willing to stand up to Obamas thugs.
I would not criticize him if he said he couldn't take the appointment for fear of his family.
We might say that he “DEEMED” it a tax? Whole lot of deem-ons these days.
Probably longer odds
She bought me and a couple of other FReepers a drink. Anyway, she told us how she was in the hole for some debts, but she wanted to come to 9/12. She took a small amount of money to a casino (I think she lived in Nevada) and told herself that she would gamble that money and if it was fated she would win enough to pay the debt and get a last minute ticket to DC and 9/11. Well, she won $5K, paid the debt and hopped on a jet for DC. It was a pleasure to meet another patriot and hear her story.
So, I guess lady luck does intervene for a reason now and then. I wish I could remember the other FReepers I met there. I did meet Jim Robinson, a true patriot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.