Posted on 07/01/2012 10:47:39 AM PDT by 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 ODONNELL, 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 Presidents 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.
ODONNELL: 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.
Just wait until Willard replaces Scalia, Thomas and Alito with more John Roberts’.
Let's add # 3: an offer he couldn't refuse.
As for blackmail, one possibility is that whatever he was blackmailed about came from his FBI file, which could have been stolen by the Democrats in "Filegate" c. 1993. It's been reported that Bush 41 had been interested in appointing Roberts to a federal judgeship as far back as '92, so it's possible that the FBI routinely compiled a file on him as part of the standard vetting process.
I'm not saying the government didn't argue for it.
In fact, the government argued the tax angle before ALL the lower courts as well. They all rejected it.
What I am saying is that ROBERTS appeared to grab this argument late in the process. I think that is supported by way the other opinions are worded, for the reasons I gave.
**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.**
I agree with you.
Even though it may be the law, I totally doubt that it will every go into effect.
Thread winner.
Roberts is a coward who will fold under pressure, because he's afraid to be disliked. How pathetic.
I think he must have been blackmailed. I wish someone would investigate that angle.
|
For what it's worth, that's my take on it. Roberts was told he and his family would be killed in "tragic accidents" if the bill fell.
However Roberts, rather than simply going with the libs, got a little of his own back. He knew by calling this a "tax" that it was going to be an albatross around Obama's neck, likely to sink his re-election. That is why he could not explain his reasoning to another justice - there was no sound legal reasoning. Robert's took this path to keep from getting his family killed but, at the same time, handed the republicans' a huge club with which to batter Obama.
If he were worried about his "legacy", I think he would have given some thought to the fact that when people look back on this decision, they are going to say: "How in the hell did the court find it WASN'T a tax (for anti-junction purposes) and WAS a tax (for constitutional purposes) in the SAME DECISION!"
You only have two choices now, the ‘Kenyan’ or ‘Willard’. It’s a no brainer!
I wonder if he has the balls to return to America after his vacation.
Willard will need to be closely monitored.
That, I do not disagree with. Look how much ‘monitoring’ we had to do with both BUSHs, the 2nd one turned out to be worse than the first. I would even go so far as to say that Romney might turn out to be more conservative in his policies than the last BUSH.
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.