Roberts Switched Views to Uphold Health Care Law (Original CBS Report)

CBS News ^ | Sunday, Juy 1, 2012 | Jan Crawford

[kristinn]

Chief Justice John Roberts initially sided with the Supreme Court's four conservative justices to strike down the heart of President Obama's health care reform law, the Affordable Care Act, but later changed his position and formed an alliance with liberals to uphold the bulk of the law, according to two sources with specific knowledge of the deliberations.

Roberts then withstood a month-long, desperate campaign to bring him back to his original position, the sources said. Ironically, Justice Anthony Kennedy - believed by many conservatives to be the justice most likely to defect and vote for the law - led the effort to try to bring Roberts back to the fold....

But in this closely-watched case, word of Roberts' unusual shift has spread widely within the Court, and is known among law clerks, chambers' aides and secretaries. It also has stirred the ire of the conservative justices, who believed Roberts was standing with them.

After the historic oral arguments in March, the two knowledgeable sources said, Roberts and the four conservatives were poised to strike down at least the individual mandate. There were other issues being argued - severability and the Medicaid extension - but the mandate was the ballgame.

SNIP

It is not known why Roberts changed his view on the mandate and decided to uphold the law. At least one conservative justice tried to get him to explain it, but was unsatisfied with the response, according to a source with knowledge of the conversation.

SNIP

Roberts then engaged in his own lobbying effort - trying to persuade at least Justice Kennedy to join his decision so the Court would appear more united in the case. There was a fair amount of give-and-take with Kennedy and other justices, the sources said. One justice, a source said, described it as "arm-twisting."

[SoFloFreeper]

This is an "inside the beltway" circle jerk !
The bottom line is this: since it is now deemed a "tax" by the opinion and the ruling, it can be obliterated by a mere 50 votes (plus the V.P. as a tie breaker) in the Senate and a majority vote in the House along with a Republican president.

I am SO aware that the RomneyHaters here think he won't repeal Obamacare. I am betting he WILL repeal it--this law is THE MOST UNPOPULAR MASS LEGISLATION IN DECADES....last I saw, even 30% of Democrats don't like it...so let's quit watching these beltway know-it-alls (remember how they said the mandate would be killed? they got that wrong, didn't they?) and work to get a Republican House, Senate and White House.

Please.

(no offense to you kristinn...you're awesome.)

[a fool in paradise]

We are already being forced into compliance on televisions, toilets, and light bulbs.

Thermostat control is going away from our own hands.

But some only care that they can engage in same sex sodomy. All of the other bedroom/bathroom/kitchen police are “for our own good”.

[Georgia Girl 2]

Roberts was a stealth candidate just like O’Connor. Reagan got played by her and Bush got played by Roberts.

[Eagles6]

I believe you are correct.

[SoFloFreeper]

I don’t know about that. The exact reasoning for the court’s upholding for the law, as I understand the composition of the ruling, was that it was a tax.

Yes, I heard the caller on RL talk about how it was non-binding...but I’ve also been around long enough to know that the texts of decisions are used as precedents. You can bet the “tax” argument, citing this decisioni, will be around for a long time.

[meadsjn]

He was threatened.

Yes he was. One of the threats was posted and linked to from FR. I suspect the real threats were not so publicized.

[Girlene]

This was pure blackmail. Rush Limbaugh alluded to Roberts being under some type of unusual “pressure” before the vote, and clammed up on details.

If you read the article, Roberts was under unusual pressure from the other judges who wanted to throw the whole thing out. Kennedy kept trying to change Roberts' mind until the very end. That's likely what Rush was referring to.

What I find so odd is how this type of information is rarely seen/heard from the court. They usually keep their mouths shut. I bet Roberts was counting on that. Ooooops.

[piytar]

Hmm, that’s what I get for reading articles about the opinion instead of the opinion. My bad, thanks for the correction.

[tophat9000]

Everything with Obama has had a grand stink of corruption and conspirator...DC is now one giant Tammany Hall

[arasina]

Not a clue how he got pressured. Certainly it wasnt his waiting till his 40s to get married, when he realized he wanted to be a federal judge.

And it surely wasn’t his -Pro Bono- work to overturn to Colorado law excluding homos from EEOC minority status. And it certainly wasn’t his friendly ruling for gay marriage in DC.

And i’m almost SURE that the dems never had access to his FBI file from when he worked in GHW Bush’s white house counsel office.

I think he was told he was about to be given the Cain, Palin, Newt, treatment. Didnt want to be the next Governor McGreevey from New Jersey.

Young Roberts on left. Notice the natural expression of his open smile as opposed to the odd forced "phony grimace/smile" in the more usual photos. In fact it's difficult to find photos of him that appear candid and un-posed.

As to his 'wife and children', easily acquired by a wealthy gay as Huffington and McGreavey proved.

Ho.lee.cow. Thanks again, Dubya.

[DesertRhino]

Rush didnt say that. I believe the pressure he was referring to was whatever caused Roberts to go traitor, not efforts to retain him. But Rush aint talking.

[SquarePants]

“Bottom line, the ruling hurts Obama. A rejection would have hurt him , too. But upholding on the commerce clause would have helped him. IMO.”

That’s not the bottom line t all. The bottom line is we have a lawless Supreme Court, or at least a Chief Justice with no respect for the limits the Constitution places on government power. Either way, maybe it’s great for the Romney campaign, but it’s a sad day for our constitution, our republic, and our nation.

[butterdezillion]

I don’t buy the argument that he just wanted to make this issue go away - take the court out of the decision. He could not possibly have created a bigger red flag than he created by all this. If he wanted to hide in a corner somewhere he could have agreed with the liberals that it was a commerce clause thing and been done with it, or he could have agreed with the conservatives and Kennedy, that it wasn’t allowable by the commerce clause so if Congress wanted to give it a try as a tax they could go ahead later on.

The attempted arm-twisting of the conservative justices and Kennedy, the inability to articulate to the other justices any reasonable rationale for his decision, and his fanangling things around so he ended up deciding he could write the “majority” opinion (but then changing the majority opinion so Ginsburg should have been the one to decide who would write the majority opinion)... all suggests to me that he was desperate to come up with this result even though he knew he had no way to justify it. He wanted to hide behind Kennedy, as if Kennedy was the one to blame for upholding Obamacare - and the media (such as Jake Tapper) were providing the cover for him to do that, saying that Roberts would vote with Kennedy in order to make it seem more of a consensus, for the sake of the court’s reputation. Only trouble is, Kennedy was too solid to fall for it, so in the end Roberts couldn’t hide that he was the whole decision.

If Roberts was concerned about the court’s reputation and about the decision showing a consensus he could not have FAILED more miserably than he did in his handling of this. Why do the clerks all know about the arm-twisting, and why are there leaks about this? Between Roberts, the other justices, the clerks, etc.... there is no way there could be a bigger red flag for something really rotten going on. All this stuff seems to me to be about like a flashing whiz-bang for the whole world to see and know something is definitely wrong.

[SquarePants]

“Bottom line, the ruling hurts Obama. A rejection would have hurt him , too. But upholding on the commerce clause would have helped him. IMO.”

That’s not the bottom line at all. The bottom line is we have a lawless Supreme Court, or at least a Chief Justice with no respect for the limits the Constitution places on government power. Either way, maybe it’s great for the Romney campaign, but it’s a sad day for our constitution, our republic, and our nation.

[jpsb]

It’s all Bushs’ fault!

[uncbob]

What I don’t understand is if he was blackmailed why did rule it’s a tax?

Exactly --he could have used the Commerce clause--ruling it a tax ain't making Obama happy

[Covenantor]

Those guys in the photo seem to have a certain flamboyance...know what I mean?

Yeah,a sort of Village People thing.

[arasina]

Did the judge just ask the US to divide the baby. Will the true mother of the child come forward? Will the country be saved? Looks toward the Judges decision in the Bible...Even in the New Testament Christ could not have gone to the cross, and been resurected if the Judge had not done God's will. Giving the power to the people to make the decision is Biblical.

The Jews are considered the Chosen People, yet the Holocaust occurred.

[RightFighter]

The dissent is unsigned because Roberts wrote it - it was originally to be his majority opinion. When he switched sides, the conservatives left most of it in place and didn’t sign their names to it to give a clue that it was originally his opinion.

[Praxeologue]

the texts of decisions are used as precedents. You can bet the “tax” argument, citing this decisioni, will be around for a long time.

On the Commerce Clause, this was not Cardozo speaking for the majority or a minority of four. It was Roberts speaking solely for himself, his own flight of fancy. He was not joined in his opinion on the Commerce Clause by any other Justice. As for treating the mandate as a tax; yes it is a precedent, and a harmful one.