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 ...
More pics I see of Roberts the more I think you are right
Maybe that is why they had to adopt
The above is now established in case law, thanks to that backstabbing fool of a judge. If that seems like a good move to you, then you need to get your head out of your ass.
[uncbob] Tried to point that out to a poster last evening and got an unpleasant reply
I was not saying the same thing as you, however. I believe God is with us always regardless of the appearance of evil; your comment seems to suggest you disagree:
[uncbob] Where was that GOD when Hitler was tossing them in the ovens
Thing is the GOP had been arguing all along during the bill proceedings that is was a tax
I do
Look at my post to Butterdezillion. It's the thoughts the originally popped in my head. If you have ever had to deal with a person who is unstable and had to do an intervention, it appears that Roberts called the Rats on their dysfunctional behavior....
Yes, it not up to “legal” standards, but few interventions are.....they muddy the water and often when done in relationships destroys it....Marriages end in divorce....Children get angry at parents and leave home.....muddy yes! Necessary Yes! Pray for healing and good to overcome evil.....It why AA families repeat the term “Let GO an Let GOD!”
I doubt you ever had your childrens’ lives put at risk. It’s not like little kids can have a say, so it is putting their lives at risk is without their consent.
Robert`s opinion on the Commerce Clause was his and his ONLY !
The other judicial activists saw no problem with the Commerce Clause whereas the Originalists did NOT join Roberts in his opinion regarding the clause.
Commerce Clause REMAINS in full effect in width and breadth ( tough luck Krauthammer, Will and all other you pinheads looking for the silver lining)
AND
Roberts expanded the power of Govt. beyond all recognition.
USA RIP
You do...disagree?
I have to post and run and I haven’t read through all the posts on this thread yet but, if he was threatened he had no need to try and “twist arms” later as the article reports he did.
He had the four liberals who went along with him.
If someone was threatening you wouldn’t you do the bear minimum?
Ex.
“Ok, Mr. Person Threatening me,
I’ll vote in favor of Obamacare with the four other liberals. It will pass but I’m too embarrassed to say or no one will believe the “commerce clause” excuse so I will make up the “it’s a tax excuse” for cover.
Fine. Done. End of story.
Months later, why would he be trying to sell it to Kennedy? When that failed, he tried to sell it to the other three conservatives. Why go the extra mile?
When paying a ransom note does the victim say:
“In addition to the ransom money, I’ve got some stocks and bonds in the safe upstairs you might be interested. Hey, take my car too.”
I think I read somewhere that they were digging into the kids he adopted.
The SCOTUS also ruled against the Stolen Valor Act and the Arizona case. The Stolen Valor decision made it legal for people to pretend to be war heroes with Purple Hearts etc. The only people this benefitted were those leftist slime balls who show up at protests against wars etc. pretending to be war heroes with their phony Purple Hearts. The beneficiaries of the Arizona decision were obviously Sinaloa and drug gangs.
They all point to influence by the hard left and their affiliated criminal organizations such as Sinaloa. Only 4 months ago a Supreme Court Justice (Breyer) was robbed by a machete wielding man while on vacation. That should not have happened. In 2004 Justice Souter was assaulted by a gang of thugs and beaten. That too should not have happened. Where was the security detail? The SCOTUS and their families are obviously vulnerable.
Remember Bush caved on many things shortly after his daughter was robbed while on vacation. I suspect that controlling the security means controlling everything. Please refer to this: Fast and Furious Favors http://dagnyd.wordpress.com/2011/10/20/fast-and-furious-favors-2/
Also these older articles at: http://www.dagnyd.net
Part 1 The Many Ways to Bribe Politicians
Part 2 The Dominican Connection
Part 3 The Leftist Criminal Elite’s Tropical Paradise
Part 4 The Curious Assistance of the Bush White House
Bookmark for later
Bookmark for later
"The Federal Government may enact a tax on an activity that it cannot authorize, forbid, or otherwise control."
J. Roberts
________________________________________________________________
"Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce."
J. Scalia, concurring in Raich
We've called it a tax for years here, before it was enacted and since. It is to be collected by the IRS, for gosh sake. Virelli argued it was a tax. Now you agree with Obama it isn't a tax ? BTW, the Massachusetts penalty under Romneycare is specifically called a "tax penalty" :
http://www.massresources.org/health-reform.html
So a big difference between Romneycare and Obamacare is that the Romneycare penalty was called and passed as a tax, whereas Obamacare tax was "taxation with misrepresentation."
I think I read somewhere that they were digging into the kids he adopted.
Underneath Their Robes: More Grist for the "John Roberts Is Gay" Mill
Please post the source on that or have you put quotes around some paraphrase of your own construction an attributed it to Roberts ?
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.