Posted on 07/03/2012 5:31:02 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
I wondered about this on the afternoon of the decision. It stands to reason: If, as most everyone believes, Roberts initially assigned the majority opinion to himself and then ended up flipping at the eleventh hour, the four conservative dissenters would have had to scramble to come up with an opinion of their own while handling the rest of their caseload. (Roberts authored no other opinions over the final two months of the term so he and his clerks could conceivably have drafted something new from scratch late in the process.) The easiest way to do that would be to salvage Roberts' orphaned majority opinion --- or, at least, the bits he wasn't keeping for himself --- and re-work as necessary. Maybe they took the sections he discarded on the tax power and severability, tacked on their own section rejecting the Commerce Clause argument, and called that a dissent. Using Roberts' own words against him would have been a pointed rebuke to him for flipping, even if the Court and its clerks are the only ones with enough background on this process to fully appreciate it.
My source insists that “most of the material in the first three quarters of the joint dissent was drafted in Chief Justice Roberts’ chambers in April and May.” Only the last portion of what eventually became the joint dissent was drafted without any participation by the chief justice.
This source insists that the claim [in Jan Crawford's CBS story] that the joint dissent was drafted from scratch in June is flatly untrue. Furthermore, the source characterizes claims by Crawford’s sources that “the fact that the joint dissent doesn’t mention [sic] Roberts’ majority … was a signal the conservatives no longer wished to engage in debate with him” as “pure propagandistic spin,” meant to explain away the awkward fact that while the first 46 pages of the joint dissent never even mention Roberts’ opinion for the court (this is surely the first time in the court’s history that a dissent has gone on for 13,000 words before getting around to mentioning that it is, in fact, dissenting), the last 19 pages do so repeatedly.
That’s lefty law prof Paul Campos writing for lefty web zine Salon. Did a mischievous liberal clerk leak to them in order to embarrass the conservative dissenters? Could be, except that … this is more embarrassing to Roberts than to Scalia and company. The idea that his words are on both sides of the Court’s decision makes the outcome seem that much more bizarre and his supposedly principled change of heart seem that much more dubious. He’s talking, almost literally, out of both sides of his mouth. It’s a shot at his credibility and the Court’s institutional legitimacy, which was supposedly the basis for his decision, more than it is a shot at the conservative dissenters. Why would a liberal clerk want to sandbag him for siding with them on the biggest case they’ll ever rule on?
Then again, if this is true, why wouldn’t the (presumably conservative) Court sources who leaked to Jan Crawford have simply said so? Obviously, they didn’t borrow his discarded opinion because they’re lazy. They borrowed it because they were pressed for time and/or because they wanted to make a point — or, just maybe, because they held out hope to the bitter end that he’d switch back and join them in striking down the law. By keeping the dissent intact as a potential majority opinion rather than larding it up with language lashing out at Roberts, the four conservatives made it as easy as possible for him to reconsider and climb back aboard right down to the wire. To my mind, that’s the best explanation for the tone of the opinion, the inclusion of the otherwise gratuitous severability section, and the lack of any references to Roberts’s opinion. They weren’t working on a dissent, they were working on a shadow majority, ready to go right out of the box in case Roberts came back into the fold. (Crawford notes that Kennedy was lobbying Roberts up to the last minute, in fact.) That doesn’t settle the issue of who authored most of the eventual dissent — maybe it was mostly Roberts’s draft or maybe it really was co-drafted by Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito with an eye to winning Roberts back over — but it settles most everything else.
Here’s Krauthammer accusing Roberts of letting the left intimidate him. Exit question via TNR: Were Thomas and Kennedy the CBS leakers?
Sounds like we didn’t suppress the illicit use of cocaine enough. Next time MORE BEAT DOWNS
Completely agree! Roberts is now a complete joke. His opinions/votes from now on will always be suspect. If he has any tiny speck of integrity left after this complete betrayal, he’ll resign after Romney is elected so he can be replaced with HOPEFULLY a TRUE conservative Consitutionalist.
In his book, The Hidden Power Of Kindness, the late Fr. Lawrence Lovasik urges that we all become members of the Fraternity of Kindness.
This “organization” has no officers, no meetings and no dues. In fact, its rules are simple. There are three little don’ts and three little do’s. Brilliant in their simplicity, these do’s and don’ts will put us on the right track for loving everyone:
DON’TS
1. Don’t speak unkindly of anyone.
2. Don’t speak unkindly to anyone.
3. Don’t act unkindly toward anyone.
DO’S
1. Do speak kindly of someone at least once a day.
2. Do think kindly of someone at least once a day.
3. Do act kindly toward someone at least once a day.
I have been out of the loop for 36 hours. Where did the homosexual angle come from? Can you give me the reference?
I had never heard of this homo thing either.
And I don’t think anyone on our side would make up a story like that.
Can I sell you a bridge sir?
Hilarious.
The GOP's just desserts for being unrepentant Bushbots.
“I have been out of the loop for 36 hours. Where did the homosexual angle come from? Can you give me the reference?”
I think they are referring to the Three Amigo photo, Roberts not getting married until he was 41 and the unusual adoptions. I haven’t heard anything new on those isssues.
In my opinion - Roberts voted what his conscience felt was best for the country. Never saw this coming. Thought it would have been Kennedy who was the swing vote...
Well, they became a bunch of freaking filthy hippies in the 60s, took over the government, destroyed education, and transformed the media into a communist propaganda machine, and then had kids.
My BS meter is pegged on this story.
I have seen the rumors about #2, but are there really rumors about #1?
“It was blackmail.”
Oh this is rich! Roberts wrote the dissent too? This has to be a first.
If true, the conservatives hung a noose around his neck. Using his own writing in the dissent -— Roberts owns this turd!
I daresay it appears that Obama vetted Roberts more aggressively than Bush did, to all our detriment......
“My BS meter is pegged on this story.”
How so? Could what has happened in the last three years with Obamacare not get any more bizarre?
It seems entirely plausible to me!
If he voted against it the whole thing would be in the trash can and the whole issue would be over. Makes it pretty clear who he is, doesn’t it?
RE: RINOS knew about Roberts’ homosexuality and the illegal adoptions and so did the ‘Rats.
Is this one of those Oliver Stone conspiracy theories? Or is there good evidence for this?
If the latter, where is the reliable source?
RE: It all makes sense now, knowing he’s a sodomite with a beard wife and two adopted beard children.
_____________________________
Is this one of those Oliver Stone conspiracy theories? Or is there good evidence for this?
If the latter, where is the reliable source?
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.