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.

[Kaslin]

-- snip --

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.

-- snip --

Here we go again. Unnamed sources. Surprise? No

[Meet the New Boss]

Reading the opinions supports this.

In reading the dissent one gets the clear impression that Roberts pulled the "tax" angle out of his ass at the last minute and caught everyone off guard, because they had spent almost no time considering the tax angle and all the lower courts had rejected it:

From the dissent:

“Finally, we must observe that rewriting §5000A as a tax in order to sustain its constitutionality would force us to confront a difficult constitutional question: whether this is a direct tax that must be apportioned among the States according to their population. Art. I, §9, cl. 4. Perhaps it is not (we have no need to address the point); but the meaning of the Direct Tax Clause is famously unclear, and its application here is a question of first impression that deserves more thoughtful consideration than the lick-and-a-promise accorded by the Government and its supporters. The Government’s opening brief did not even address the question—perhaps because, until today, no federal court has accepted the implausible argument that §5000A is an exercise of the tax power.”

[isthisnickcool]

Screw Roberts!

[Cowboy Bob]

This is good to know. When the Republicans are in charge, they will be able to intimidate Roberts into making decisions that will uphold the constitution.

Roberts "blinked" under pressure by the White House.

[Paladin2]

"..the conservative illogical, activist, partisan, liberal Chief InJustice.."

Much closer to the Truth.

[GOP Poet]

bookmark

[Uncle Slayton]

Read deeper into the story and you will find that her “Source” is one of the Supreme Court Justices.

[centurion316]

I suspect that this report is correct, but we will probably not know for certain for a number of years.

[I see my hands]

[Waryone]

I don’t think we can count on “republicans in charge” playing Chicago politics unless it is to defeat conservatives.

[Paladin2]

"Roberts wrote the majority opinion with the four liberals to uphold the President's signature achievement. "

Roberts wrote that piece of fiction all by his (ill)Liberal self. Ginsburg dissented.

[Copenhagen Smile]

“Screw him” isn’t strong enough in my opinion. What he has done to this country, the precedent he has set, is truly damnable.

[EQAndyBuzz]

This is what happens when you have a liberal activist Supreme Court.

[cuban leaf]

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

I see this as our country’s Reichstag fire. The implications are that this is not the last time the nuclear option will be used (things like HUGE voter fraud). The near future will be very interesting.

[onyx]

Check Roberts for a brain tumor.

[wardaddy]

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

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

betrayed and now stuck with a moderate at best court for the remainder of my life after decades trying to reverse past poor nominations by GOP presidents....Souter and O'Conner

unless we get a conservative POTUS...none running...and Kagan, Breyer, Sottomayer and Comrade Ginsburg all take up bath salts

[Cicero]

Yes, I haven’t read the whole thing, but I think Roberts wrote this opinion on his own, after changing his position. And the four liberals signed on board because it gave them what they wanted, even if they would have written it differently.

I can only think of two explanations for what Roberts did.

1. Blackmail.

2. Seizure medications. (Suggested by Michael Savage.)

Or both.

[biggredd1]

the original vote in late march was 5-4 to dump the piece of garbage. The next day obama has a fit about it after getting the leaked info. commie media and obama attack the court and roberts, knowing he is the target that must be reached. Obama threatens the court again and then a mid-May vote is taken with roberts switching his vote. From that point the 4 conservatives tried desperately to have roberts switch, with ginsberg later saying “it was contentious”.

[Eye of Unk]

Some people take great pleasure urinating in public swimming pools, well Roberts left a big brown floater, and its stuck on Obamas back as he is also in the swimming pool.

I am pretty much being convinced Roberts purposely changed his decision knowing that wile Obama won the issue it will be like swimming away from a sinking ship with a life preserver full of lead.

As long as Obama has to defend the definition of the penalty tax the more it will make him sink.

Call it what you want but I think their was a genius play made here that will truly cause Obama to fall blazing from ahigh and to sink to the lowest depths of the cold dark sea.

[familyop]

It’s a woman’s prerogative.