Posted on 07/02/2012 1:21:05 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Amazing what happens while your internet connection gets wiped out, isn't it. Today's breaking news is that Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts originally voted to strike down the mandate in Obamacare, but then changed his mind and sided with the liberal members of the court. Or so CBS reports.
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.
"He was relentless" one source said of Kennedy’s efforts. “He was very engaged in this.”
But this time, Roberts held firm. And so the conservatives handed him their own message which, as one justice put it, essentially translated into, “You’re on your own.”
It’s a four page article with a lot to go through, but if you haven’t read it already, it’s probably worth your time. At least… maybe. This story may be true in its entirety, or at least in part, but there are a couple of things which have me holding back on it. First, it relies entirely on two “unnamed sources” which always throws up a red flag. And when it’s something this juicy regarding proceedings which are normally held closer to the vest than anything else in the nation, I have to wonder.
Second – as you’ll find out after you read through all the tawdry details – this is a dream story for CBS or anyone looking to derail conservatives. It’s got all the elements of a Victorian bodice-ripper: alliances, denials, betrayal, and most importantly it features prominent national conservative figures fighting with each other. The breathless entry about the rest of the “conservative justices” telling Roberts “you’re on your own” is the stuff of liberal journalistic legend.
When something looks too good to be true, it’s generally worth checking out further. But if it is, the conclusion the authors draw is stunning. The clear implication is that Roberts initially wanted to do away with the mandate but was reading the tea leaves of public opinion and abandoned his initial, principled stand under outside influence and out of a desire to maintain his reputation and that of the court. That’s a pretty serious charge.
Based on the Admin’s public denials that this is a tax, the plaintiffs have three weeks from today to file a motion to reconsider with SCOTUS.
And the constitutional application there is WHAT, Roberts??
So you sold the country`s future for praise from the media??
A**hole...
JMO, but I don’t think CJ Roberts ever had any intention of throwing out the whole bill.
I think he was initially in favor of removing the mandate and leaving the rest of the law intact. When the conservatives rejected his argument, he jumped sides and used tangled reasoning to get around his main objection, overreach of the Commerce Clause.
It’s FUBAR anyway you look at it.
Perhaps Kagan influenced ROBERTS to change his mind to fulfill her appointment mission.
Here's a story that discusses it:
Sunday on Face the Nation, Jan Crawford of CBS News said that two reliable sources told her that Roberts originally voted, in late March, with the four conservative justices to invalidate the individual mandate. According to Crawford, Roberts suddenly changed sides some six weeks later and then resisted “a month-long desperate campaign by the conservative justices to bring him back to the fold.”
I’ve learned from my own sources that after voting to invalidate the mandate, the chief did express some skepticism about joining the four conservatives in throwing out the whole law. At the justices’ conference, there was discussion about accepting the Obama administration’s argument, which was that, if the individual mandate was removed, the provisions governing community rating and guaranteed issue of insurance would have to go too but that the rest of the law might stand. The chief justice was equivocal, though, in his views on that point.
Stop it! You are saying that all over the board. Unless you KNOW...keep it to yourself.
The two “unnamed sources” were likely Scalia and Kennedy who were talking to CBS on background because they are ticked off at Roberts.
Here is what I don’t understand
The democrats and Obama are completely dedicated to disarming America going as far as the Fast and Furious scandal
Yet in the Heller decision Roberts voted with the conservatives
If there was any vote the Dems wanted to pressure him on why not then
If there was any vote the Dems wanted to pressure him on why not then
"Overwhelm and crash the system"... obamataxcare will do this.
Needs repeating.
Maybe. It's also possible that Kennedy agreed with Roberts and they decided to let Roberts take the heat for the decision. I don't have any evidence for that, but this part of the story looks a little fishy to me.
Romney’s total lack of response to Roberts betrayal of the Constitution makes me wonder if there is some collusion between the two to throw the election to obama.
Romney’s total lack of response to Roberts betrayal of the Constitution makes me wonder if there is some collusion between the two to throw the election to obama.
I’ll say it if I want to, girlie.,.....GOOOGLE it....the info is THERE.
No, there are some other stories out suggesting that Kennedy is royally ticked off at Roberts, and that he’s talking about it on background to some media acquaintances of his.
I'm thinking more along the lines of a hamster.
Occam’s Razor: He’s a liberal, and it will not be his last liberal vote.
Way back in April, I predicted to my brother in law that Kennedy would not be the problem and that if there was any concern it was what Roberts would do.
Like I said, I don't have any evidence or any real knowledge of the personalities involved in this specific case, just a gut feeling.
When things get leaked to the press, I tend not to believe the story that somebody got angry or indignant and suspect that somebody is trying to advance an agenda, to create a spin, or to deceive the public.
That just seems truer to my experience of leaking. It's more the cold-blooded and devious who leak than the righteously angry people who have actually been offended. In my experience, the latter tend to stew in their own juices.
Time will tell, I guess.
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.