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 ...
All this rationalizing is just plain nonsense. If Roberts had simply stopped with 'nix using commerce clause' we would not be searching under the couch for a little tid bit on which to snack.
Oh! And just when do you recall a SCOTUS justice re-writing a law to make it 'Constitutional'?
I'll tell you one more thing: The Democrap oligarchs will claim that the ACA is NOT a tax and thus reconciliation cannot be used to repeal it in the Senate - AND THEY WILL GET THEIR WAY, as usual.
I will be amazed if all this is changed thru election.
” Don’t care if he was threatened, don’t care if his family was threatened, don’t care if he was bought, don’t care if he was promised a date night and free room at the Four Seasons with Ruth Bader Ginsberg, don’t care if he’s a closet homosexual, and don’t care if he they have nude pictures of his family. He was wrong. No matter how it’s diced. He was wrong.”
BOTTOM LINE !!
” 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.””
Let us not forget that some 1200 companies(like McDonald’s) and unions (like SEIU) were EXEMPTED from Obamacare. How is THAT constitutional ?
Threats are all part of the Zero liberal fascist regime. I don’t care if he was blackmailed, etc... he joined the other court jesters and broke his oath to the Constitution. A five old could see this. All of a sudden we pay fines for not engaging in a mandated behavior? Oh, suddenly this is okay because a few court jesters ruled it so? Yeah right. It’s against everything America stands for. It’s our duty as free citizens to ignore this edict and it will be. Civil disobedience, unrest, and armed resistance is coming. It is now guaranteed.
What has this Nation come to, Indeed.
Now, as Kennedy said of Joe McCarthy: you may be on to something here. A lot of liberals hate America because they think it has deprived them of material success.
John G. Roberts is enough to make one respect Spiro T. Agnew, whose widow died last week.
cowardice takes many forms. This one being the most craven.
Roberts’ alleged “signaling” that something is wrong is not what was needed here. He took on the position. Even if he was threatened, he could have issued a rational ruling and revealed proof of a threat. Whether revealing a threat would have been unprecedented or not. What he DID do is equally unprecedented and much more damaging to the nation.
So his signaling, if that is what it is - rather than the product of poor reasoning, medication, or a mental breakdown, or a statist bent revealed - is just more evidence that he is a weak, self-absorbed man. Things have come too easily for him in life, whether he believes they have or not. He cracks in the face of adversity.
What he did is as if a General in the Civil War - when it was easier to become a General - had a chance to win a major battle, like Gettysburg.
Perhaps turning the tide of the war. Instead he rode over to the other side. Then he said that he wouldn’t pronounce on the merits of slavery, but it had
been made the law of the land for a while, and the country would just have to go back to deciding the issue at the ballot box, not on the battlefield. And the opportunity to win that battle was lost. That is not the role a
General plays. And if he cannot play the proper role, then he should resign. Since no one in a position to do so will have the guts to relieve him.
If this decision is signaling, anyone who knows what is behind it - be it Bork, Rush, whomever- is likewise putting themselves ahead of the country.
“so he was threatened.....lots of people are threatened yet don’t devastate their own countries...and honorable men would do the right thing, take the whack, or commit harikari...”
I’m with you. Don’t take the job if you can’t handle the pressure.
Awwww, jeez. Not another one! Is that why Souter thought he could retire?!
What the heck is it with the Bush family? Their Washington appointments and politics have simply been overrun with closeted homosexuals!
Mind you, I'm not buying .... yet ..... but it sure explains a lot of inexplicable things, damned fast. Which I'm starting to really disappreciate having to do, to understand majorly disappointing or unpleasantly surprising Manor Bush appointments, rulings, and decisions.
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.