[Dan Nunn]

Interesting analysis. I wonder what kind of pressure Roberts was under, and from whom.

[ilgipper]

Now, we may know why there was a public bashing of the court and Roberts the past couple months. It wasn’t in anticipation of the election, but to pressure Roberts. It is more clear than ever that Kagan spoke about the internal wrangling and knew Roberts could be swayed.

[A.A. Cunningham]

I wonder what kind of pressure Roberts was under, and from whom.

If he did indeed cave to the pressure, it certainly didn't come from his spine.

[NativeTxn]

I really believe that is what happened. Obama threatened Judge Roberts and he folded. Maybe there's something about The judge that we don't know. Just Saying??

[jwalsh07]

Roberts rewrote the statute, it is the worst kind of judicial activism. Shameful behavior.

[Bizhvywt]

I don’t care what pressure Roberts was under. He’s a traitor. The signer’s of the Declaration fo Independence were under pressure too, but they still risked there lives and sacred honor for their country.

[txrefugee]

Oh great...Roberts is revealed by such a scenario as the weakest link in the SCOTUS, someone who can be threatened by America’s enemies into caving to the Left. That is a tragic situation.

[VikingMom]

“I wonder what kind of pressure Roberts was under, and from whom.”

That’s what I’ve been asking all morning - there are three possible scenarios:

1) Threats to his family (he does have young children, I believe)
2) Blackmail - go read John Grisham’s The Firm - I think it happens in DC all the time!
3) Huge deposit to a offshore account - this is the least likely option as it would be easily traceable and I don’t think Roberts would be swayed by money alone.

I said three years ago there was a problem with the swearing-in and Roberts was “persuaded” to re-do it in secret in order to protect Bambi’s past. This just confirms to me that they have a hold on Roberts and he will do their bidding when ordered to do so!

[Huskrrrr]

Are any of Robert’s family members “missing”?

[Nifster]

If Roberts folded, then he should not be a boy scout much less a judge or in charge of the supreme court. The man is a gutless leech, a spineless toad, a boot licking harradan.

Frankly I wish him no good thing

[Nifster]

If Roberts folded, then he should not be a boy scout much less a judge or in charge of the supreme court. The man is a gutless leech, a spineless toad, a boot licking harradan.

Frankly I wish him no good thing

[LALALAW]

Roberts is a traitor. Read the Dissent fka the Majority Opinion. Clearly the individual mandate is backed up with a penalty, not a tax.

In answering that question we must, if “fairly possible,” Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22, 62 (1932), construe the provision to be a tax rather than a mandate-with-penalty, since that would render it constitutional rather than un- constitutional (ut res magis valeat quam pereat). But we cannot rewrite the statute to be what it is not. “‘“[A]l- though this Court will often strain to construe legis- lation so as to save it against constitutional attack, it must not and will not carry this to the point of perverting the purpose of a statute . . .” or judicially rewriting it.’” Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Schor, 478 U. S. 833, 841 (1986) (quoting Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U. S. 500, 515 (1964), in turn quoting Scales v. United States, 367 U. S. 203, 211 (1961)). In this case, there is simply no way, “without doing violence to the fair meaning of the words used,” Grenada County Supervisors v. Brogden, 112 U. S. 261, 269 (1884), to escape what Congress enacted: a mandate that individuals maintain minimum essential coverage, enforced by a penalty.
Our cases establish a clear line between a tax and a penalty: “‘[A] tax is an enforced contribution to provide forthe support of government; a penalty . . . is an exaction imposed by statute as punishment for an unlawful act.’” United States v. Reorganized CF&I Fabricators of Utah, Inc., 518 U. S. 213, 224 (1996) (quoting United States v. La Franca, 282 U. S. 568, 572 (1931)). In a few cases, this Court has held that a “tax” imposed upon private conduct was so onerous as to be in effect a penalty. But we have never held—never—that a penalty imposed for violation of the law was so trivial as to be in effect a tax. We have never held that any exaction imposed for violation of the law is an exercise of Congress’ taxing power—evenwhen the statute calls it a tax, much less when (as here)the statute repeatedly calls it a penalty.

[wolfman23601]

Umm no, he also sided with the libs in every other case this session. This wasn’t due to threats, he is a lefty.

[subterfuge]

Bottom line is america’s demise and fate was in the hands of a few people. The globalists knew the only had to “get to” one of them—and they did. Doesn’t matter how anymore

[BuckeyeTexan]

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.