Appearances can be deceiving....indeed. Here's McGreevy as NJ Gov.
Posted on 07/01/2012 12:16:38 PM PDT by 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."
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
There is a huge body of law going back to the New Deal establishing the (inappropriate) sweep and abusive power of the clause. It won't be "gutted" by a passing comment in a decision about something else (the power to tax), and especially given the shakey nature of the overall opinion in which it is embedded. No justice with any sense is going to want to touch any part of this "majority" opinion for a long long time..
Only the polls and the election will tell us for sure, but forcing Obama to defend the lie this was not a tax sure seems like a good move to me , whether that was Roberts’ intent or not.
Someone got to him and turned him. Plain and simple.
Appearances can be deceiving....indeed. Here's McGreevy as NJ Gov.
So I think you're wrong on this one.
The lobby authors, 08 bailout benefactors, will never come off Stratos voluntarily...ever.
Right out of the Cloudminders, zienite i.e fines, threats, duress.
I don’t think the Bible or any religious consideration influenced Roberts. The more I look at his decision, the less sense it makes.
If he really had wanted to uphold obamacare, he would heve gone with the libs and accepted it on the basis of the Commerce Clause - but he didn’t. I don’t get the feeling that he wanted to uphold it at all. Yet he actually ended up doing something much worse and really muddying the waters.
Frankly, I’m just mystified.
Why yes, I suppose you should./s For 80 years the democrat party has run on a one plank platform: "Vote for us-- we'll take other people's money and give it to you."
Still works like a charm.
Just a thought:
If Roberts had written what is now the decent but was then the majority, maybe he didn’t like what the original decent said. Maybe it did not achieve his goal....To make those in congress, the rats, responcible for their own manipulations ......SO as the highest ranking he writes the second opinion..pointing out that he is aware of their verbal games; calling them on their stripping of the original bill, taxing without using the tax word etc. IOW he out Alinskies them.,,,,
His Message to congress: “You want to play games with the powers given to you by the American people? OK We’ll play!Let me lock you in a cage and call the citizens in to deal with you! Here Bubba!”
McGreevy looks like he would fit right in with that trio in the pic
Gthat is all I need to know.
Yep...the prevailing force in DC is actually a socialist Federal tsunami. No R or D or branch of "government" has emerged with out the approval of the ruling socialist class.
We are now nothing more than an extension of Europe with central rulers deciding our every move from birth to death....as was planned by the communist party aided by the global investors, years, decades ago.
And because Roberts is a coward who wanted to win a popularity contest he caved.
If the media had investigated 0bama’s past, WE WOULDN’T BE IN THIS PREDICAMENT BECAUSE HE’D NEVER BEEN PRESIDENT! He is INELIGIBLE to hold office because his father was a British subject.. Roberts’ adopted children are worthy of MORE scrutiny? HELL NO.
I actually agree with you. I think Roberts should have voted with the conservatives. After all, we’re the ones that put him there.Paradoxically, I’m glad we’re on offense on this issue going into the campaign, because Obama had already signaled he was all set to run against the Supreme Court. I’d still rather have Roberts on the Court than the two or three justices the next Presidential term would give Obama a chance to appoint, very likely including Kennedy.
One of the most clear-cut examples of judicial political-activism we have ever seen; “We must uphold an unconstitutional law because we must not contradict the criminal conspiracy of the executive and legislative branches of government that gave it to us.”
We don’t know what changed his mind.
I have wondered if he ultimately decided to take the ultra-conservative stand and reject judicial activism, refusing to legislate from the bench.
In essence, what Roberts did was hold elected representatives responsible for passing a terrible piece of legislation (which he alludes to in his opinion), bounce it back to them to clean up their mess, but also give them a way to reverse their mistake by ruling the mandate a tax, a budgetary item. which can be repealed with a simple majority.
He also slapped down fradulent use of the Commerce Clause, as in Wickard vs. Filburn, bolstered states 10th Amendment rights with the Medicaid ruling, and handed the Romney campaign a boatload of good campaign material.
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.