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.

[jpsb]

Roberts found a “behavior tax” in the Constitution? Wow, I wonder how Congress is going to use it’s new “behavior tax” power. GOP appointed Justices screwing us and the Constitution yet again. But of course we just have to keep voting GOP, lol, same old same old, one more time.

[Eye of Unk]

An image comes to mind of Obama with the same look and saying nearly the same thing that Yamamoto said shortly after the attack on Pearl Harbor.

[Cherokee Conservative]

screw you. I had a brain tumor, and I NEVER did idiotic things like Roberts just pulled. And before you start an epilepsy mimi, know you’ll be insulting about 2% of the population. Moron.

[Signalman]

Obama celebrates his Supreme Court Victory:

[Bratch]

IMO, the President and his party threatened to unleash hell on the conservative justices.

They for the most part are pretty obscure to the general public away from the court; imagine what they’d face having the Occupy crowd down their throats all the time.

Guess we’ll never know.

[Dick Bachert]

[Clock King]

I still have nothing but disgust for the other 4 justices, especially the liberal progressive women. None of them are qualified to do anything. They are ideologues who know nothing of nor care nothing for the law. They honestly believe in making it all up as they go along. And they seem to know nothing about the lives of ordinary Americans whom they are supposed to serve.

[lodi90]

Roberts’ legacy was threatened and he has made a personal assessment that progressives will prevail in the political struggles.

That is my take also. He thinks the dims have the winning hand due to demographics and hitched his wagon to them.

I don't think he was threatened. I think he lies awake at night thinking about the "Roberts Court" and its place in history. He wants to be in the pantheon of noted Chief Justices.

His vote was all about John Roberts and nothing else. No need for the tin foil when occam's razor gives the answer.

[montag813]

OR this could just be spin by Kennedy clerks to try and rehab his damaged image after his despicable Arizona SB1070 decision, among others.

[SamuraiScot]

With the Court ignoring the Constitution, session by session, to give itself and the Federal government more power—with no restraint imposed from the other branches—the day had to come, which may be today, when the limit is reached. If defying the Constitution is not a high crime or misdemeanor for officials sworn to uphold the Constitution, what is?

It's time to bite the bullet, grab the "third rail" and start impeaching Federal judges for violating their oaths, right up through the Supreme Court. It's our right and duty. We know what the Constitution says; it's purposely written in everyday language so that ordinary men and their representatives can understand it.

It is a disservice to our country, and to the many honest judges up and down the levels of the judiciary who have to deal with these irrational, corrupt fruitcakes and their shoddy work, not to impeach the offenders. Let the campaign begin today. House indicts, Senate convicts—is that right?

[Rca2000]

They probably told him to watch “the pelican brief” and said...”might be careful here, Roberts... hate to see the things in that movie happen to you”...( several SC judges are killed in that movie)...

[jeffc]

I would dearly love to know what Scalia and Thomas think of Roberts right now......

[onyx]

Calm down. I posted my comment in all seriousness.

[AnotherUnixGeek]

From the article:

Some of the conservatives, such as Justice Clarence Thomas, deliberately avoid news articles on the Court when issues are pending (and avoid some publications altogether, such as The New York Times). They've explained that they don't want to be influenced by outside opinion or feel pressure from outlets that are perceived as liberal.

But Roberts pays attention to media coverage. As Chief Justice, he is keenly aware of his leadership role on the Court, and he also is sensitive to how the Court is perceived by the public.

There were countless news articles in May warning of damage to the Court - and to Roberts' reputation - if the Court were to strike down the mandate. Leading politicians, including the President himself, had expressed confidence the mandate would be upheld.

And there we have it - perhaps the lamest and most pathetic basis for a decision that a Supreme Court justice has ever relied on. If true, Roberts is an unprincipled coward who chose to violate his own views and any sensible reading of the Constitution to appease Obama's media water-bearers. Utterly disgusting - the system of checks and balances has failed.

[azishot]

...changed his views deciding to instead join with the liberals.

Okay, so he changed his mind. I want to know WHY he did so.

[1_Rain_Drop]

Roberts has a thing for obama.
He swore him in. Let a screw up slide.
He swore him in again, in private.

There’s no way he was going to go against his best bud now.

[Paladin2]

The one in the cross hairs is Roberts.

[Tex-Con-Man]

Jan Crawford is the woman who wrote “Supreme Conflict”, a very behind the scenes look at the SC during the end of the Renquist court. She has great access.

[timestax]

roberts is a coward. He was threatened that the commies would attack him if he didnt get the crap through. Roberts did not want to be a target of the commies, ny times etc and caved wobbly legged big time. It is absolutely sickening and of course the coward ran away to malta hoping the dust settles.

DITTO man, DITTO !

[ModelBreaker]

There’s always chickening out.

[Jane Long]

...there's quite a lot of anger within the hallways of the Supreme Court right now.

And across America, too!

[Bratch]

Impeaching any government official is a waste of time unless you can get a conviction.

That’s not going to happen unless you get an overwhelming majority (60+, IMO) in the Senate.

Holding numerous impeachment hearings would yield nothing.

[nhwingut]

My head is about to explode reading this. Can you imagine his own staff must feel betrayed (I’m sure none wanted to see Obamacare upheld).

[goat granny]

Un named sources don’t exist...its the opinion of the person writting the article....trying to give credibility to their story...

[The_Media_never_lie]

Roberts yielded to threats.

[Joe 6-pack]

"Why would a man of principle cave like that?"

The answer to your question may be found in its faulty premise....

[nhwingut]

BS! Savage is an idiot.

I have a nerve disorder and I take the same drugs as someone with epilepsy — Lyrica, Gabapentin, Tegretol, etc. Yes, It does make you groggy, and slow on the uptake at first - but you get used to them and after a while you are normal again. I can assure you it does not turn you into a liberal thinker.

[Girlene]

Why would a man of principle cave like that?

A man of principle would not.

[Enough is ENOUGH]

The freakin' unbelievable way the ObamacareTAX bill was passed and the totally deceptive illogical way Roberts created a different legislation package to justify its approval in broad daylight and got away with it were not coincidences. And in government politics there ARE NO coincidences.

This now will help destroy our Constitution and our country faster than the communists who took over our country ever envisioned.

[mojito]

The next day obama has a fit about it after getting the leaked info.

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

[ChildOfThe60s]

Roberts sold the country out. Whether it was because of a carrot or a stick (threats and intimidation are usually all Obama’s people know) is only peripherally relevant.

My money is on fear. These are Hitler-esque thugs in the White House.

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. This is the kind of crap we see all over the 3rd world. And now it’s business as usual in our country.

Anyone betting on a President Romney and Republican Senate to repeal ObamaCare would be better off playing roulette.

[butterdezillion]

Not necessarily. One justice told her that there’s a defection about once a year, but the other claims are not directly tied to anybody specific.

I don’t buy that Roberts changed his mind a month ago though. I think this is trying to make it seem that Roberts didn’t hate the decision he ended up reading. The report that his eyes were red and he was visibiy unhappy while reading “his” decision suggests otherwise though. And the opinions read as if nobody had time to change their arguments to reflect the final vote. For instance, the dissent doesn’t rebut the majority opinion, as is usual. And it refers to Ginsburg’s opinion as the dissent rather than the majority. If Roberts had changed his mind a month ago the opinions would/should have been adjusted to reflect that.

I think the media is realizing it is too obvious that Roberts changed his vote on this, and they are spinning to make it appear that it was something Roberts deliberated about long and hard - not at the last minute as a result of threats. Again, though, the red eyes and unhappy demeanor when Roberts read the decision doesn’t fit that story very well. And if there was a bitter, month-long deliberation to try to get Roberts to change his mind back to overturning Obamacare, I would expect the dissent to drill home those points. But they didn’t. And I would expect at least one of the conservative justices to give a scathing dissent that they read out loud. But Scalia’s scathing dissent was used up on Monday with the AZ decision.

I think we’ve entered the spin zone. The media has to acknowledge that Roberts changed his vote but they desperately want to make us believe it wasn’t because of threats.

And they’re using unnamed sources to make the claim, while briefly mentioning a justice as a source for a different claim.

[Melinda in TN]

there's a lot of anger over this in my family in rural Tennessee right now

Mine too!

[Girlene]

Yes, she does.

[Lancey Howard]

To hell with the law, to hell with the Constitution, to hell with America... John Roberts is more concerned about John Roberts than anything else. “Look at me, everybody! I’m John Roberts, and I really shocked everybody, didn’t I, huh, huh, didn’t I? Look at me, everybody, look at ME!”

He’s the new David Souter, and he can never be trusted again.
What a scumbag.

[Alberta's Child]

Someone here on FreeRepublic speculated this was the case by citing an odd passage in the dissent in which it refers to Ginsberg’s opinion as a “dissent” when in fact it was part of the majority opinion.

[Cowgirl of Justice]

If he was threatened, I am thinking - as a previous FRer had noted- that it was about the adoptions of his two children.

If so, ‘out’ the adoption. Who, what, why, where, when. Get to the bottom of those adoptions. Find out what may have been used against him or be prepared to bend over with many more rulings like that compliments of Roberts.

[G Larry]

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

That’s the only thing that makes sense to me.

The reasoning was too tortured and inconsistent with any approach Roberts has used in the past.

[Churchillspirit]

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

May be clutching at straws but I agree with you.

[Coyote Choir]

We should never have gotten to the point in this country that our future came down to one elite sitting in an office who was personally going be unaffected personally by the health care legislation he approved as constitutional.

[Momto2]

Lyrica, Gabapentin, Tegretol, etc. Yes, It does make you groggy, and slow on the uptake at first - but you get used to them and after a while you are normal again. I can assure you it does not turn you into a liberal thinker.

Exactly! My husband takes those,too. I can assure you - he has NOT become a liberal or lost his ability to think. Do you have Trigeminal Neuralgia? (i hope not)

[pricilla]

"liberal thinker"

HAH!!!now THERE'S an oxymoron!!!

[Las Vegas Ron]

((((Hugs))))

So glad to hear your good news!!

[butterdezillion]

Roberts knows his decision is being reviled. I see no way that he would choose this vote in order to have a legacy.

[Alberta's Child]

The problem here is that Roberts' opinion is filled with thigns that will become part of the plaintiffs' arguments in future challenges against ObamaCare.

Personally, I think Roberts knew damn well that ObamaCare is unconstitutional but couldn't come to grips with the idiocy of the legal arguments that were brought in this particular case. For example, if I were a Supreme Court justice I'd be asking myself how I could have Attorneys General from 28 states filing legal briefs to overturn ObamaCare when it had originally been passed in the U.S. Senate by a 60-39 margin.

[Enough is ENOUGH]

John Roberts, Harvard College, Harvard Law School, Managing Editor of the Harvard Law Review....

Sound familiar???

[SE Mom]

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.

You should see the anger in the hallways of citizens who love their liberty...

[Nifster]

Exactly. But there is no clear reason as to why he changed his mind. what does O Team have on Roberts????

[conservative sympathizer]

Roberts found a “behavior tax” in the Constitution? Wow, I wonder how Congress is going to use it’s new “behavior tax” power.

Well they've been using for decades already.

There were warnings in 1912 about this when the 16th amendment was being debated. It took one hundred years before congress went far enough that a large number of people finally noticed.

[rabidralph]

This is too funny. As much as men on this site like to complain about women getting the right to vote as the downfall of this country, what’s not brought up enough is the spineless, chicken-hearted men who are running this nation into the ground. Just sayin’...