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.

[EQAndyBuzz]

“It’s what happens when you elect RINOs.”

No argument here.

[Noamie]

Hillary had the FBI files on her political opponents in the private residence of the White House during the Clinton years. Do we really think that she and/or Obama doesn’t have them now?

Can you think of any plausible reason that a traditionally conservative jurist would step so far out of what is normal and rule in such a weird way that even legal scholars have been left scratching their heads?

[chris37]

**** you very much, John.

[TalBlack]

“Until those clowns are afraid of We the People .. We the People will be stuck with this nonsense..”

From your lips to God’s ears...

[SamuraiScot]

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

If what you say is true, it's necessary. We must do it. As Christians and patriots, it's our job to defend the truth and our families and neighbors, at the cost of our lives, if necessary. Anything else is, I'm sorry to say, cowardice. Unless someone has a better way to achieve the same end, it's our duty. The fact that it's difficult is just part of the landscape.

[LucyT]

Article, and # 61.

Thanks, azishot. The Pelican Brief was also mentioned yesterday on another website, fwiw.

[Paladin2]

"Robert’s judicial philosophy....."

From The MAN his self:

""I don't necessarily think that it's the best approach to have an all-encompassing philosophy.""

[Paladin2]

"if Roberts used that reasoning then he should have taken into account the results of the 2010 election "

My observation too.

Had Chicken smacked the law down and sent it back to Congress for rework as a tax, it would have died due to the Peoples' most recent actions.

Roberts' line of argument here is specious. He needs to be called out on it.

[wintertime]

a genius play
^^^^^^^^^^^^

I must not be as smart as you.

[thecodont]

Thanks for the ping.

[thecodont]

Nice!

[hoosiermama]

We're dealing with checker players .....They don't understand the sacrifice of a pawn to win the game. Mark my word something larger is in play in the near future.

During church today..at the alter taking communion...it hit me how often God has answered a prayer, not the way I'd asked, but it a convoluted round the barn, down the lane and through the woods kind of way.

If He'd done it my way, it may have met needs for a while, but by doing it HIS way much more was accomplished.So I have learned to let go and let God.

Just as I trust in God's will for my life, I will trust that for whatever reason, Roberts made a convoluted decision because he knew another matter needed attention and would need this sacrificial pawn to achieve it. It's not like he didn't tell us how to solve the problem....VOTE THE BASTARDS OUT!

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?

[thecodont]

But Scalia’s scathing dissent was used up on Monday with the AZ decision.

Kagan wasn't a participant in the AZ decision. Is this significant?

[rolling_stone]

http://pauldavisoncrime.blogspot.com/2010/03/obama-what-me-worry-about-approval.html

someone needs to shop this, it wont take much they are both idiots.

[Paladin2]

I just started looking for Rove’s dicta on the ruling. Haven’t found anything yet.

[Praxeologue]

That the Times sees this as a greater priority than The Won’s birth certificate is all any one needs to know about the partisan Fourth Estate in America.

That the owners of the Times feel secure in their treason is the fault of We the People.

A "conservative" chief justice breaks on the most important issue facing the country after blackmail relating to irregular adoptions, outing as gay or similar trivial matters, yet a socialist President who isn't even eligible for office not only continues his abhorrent policies, but successfully blackmails the chief justice over these trifles.

Roberts is a weak, other-directed, scared rabbit, afraid-of-his-shadow, obsessed with his reputation conformist who is, and always has been, terrified of being out of step with the dominant forces in society. He is no match for street thugs like Obama or Clinton who have no reservations about anything so long as it doesn't get them impeached.

We need more Scalias who will, like the socialist justices, wear their fiercely-held politics on their sleeves, and no more titular conservatives who vainly think filling pages with obiter dicta, i.e. commerce clause, will influence anyone.

/conjecture

[thecodont]

Thanks, good perspective.

[rolling_stone]

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.

so what about patriots protesting the idiotic decision ? why not?

[sheana]

There you go. That’s my view on it and she said it well.

[Girlene]

Latest FR thread with original article, Roberts Switched Views..... with more background.