CBS News: Roberts Was Going to Overturn ObamaCare But Changed His Mind

News Buster.org ^ | July 1, 2012 | Noel Sheppard

[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 O’DONNELL, 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 President’s 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.

O’DONNELL: 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.

[ChildOfThe60s]

Roberts sold the country out. Whether it was because of a carrot or a stick (threats and intimidation are usually all Obama’s people know) is only peripherally relevant.

My money is on fear. These are Hitler-esque thugs in the White House.

Do I sympathize with Roberts? NO. He shouldn’t be on the bench if he’s not willing to stand up to Obama’s thugs. This is the kind of crap we see all over the 3rd world. And now it’s business as usual in our country.

Anyone betting on a President Romney and Republican Senate to repeal ObamaCare would be better off playing roulette.

[butterdezillion]

Not necessarily. One justice told her that there’s a defection about once a year, but the other claims are not directly tied to anybody specific.

I don’t buy that Roberts changed his mind a month ago though. I think this is trying to make it seem that Roberts didn’t hate the decision he ended up reading. The report that his eyes were red and he was visibiy unhappy while reading “his” decision suggests otherwise though. And the opinions read as if nobody had time to change their arguments to reflect the final vote. For instance, the dissent doesn’t rebut the majority opinion, as is usual. And it refers to Ginsburg’s opinion as the dissent rather than the majority. If Roberts had changed his mind a month ago the opinions would/should have been adjusted to reflect that.

I think the media is realizing it is too obvious that Roberts changed his vote on this, and they are spinning to make it appear that it was something Roberts deliberated about long and hard - not at the last minute as a result of threats. Again, though, the red eyes and unhappy demeanor when Roberts read the decision doesn’t fit that story very well. And if there was a bitter, month-long deliberation to try to get Roberts to change his mind back to overturning Obamacare, I would expect the dissent to drill home those points. But they didn’t. And I would expect at least one of the conservative justices to give a scathing dissent that they read out loud. But Scalia’s scathing dissent was used up on Monday with the AZ decision.

I think we’ve entered the spin zone. The media has to acknowledge that Roberts changed his vote but they desperately want to make us believe it wasn’t because of threats.

And they’re using unnamed sources to make the claim, while briefly mentioning a justice as a source for a different claim.

[Melinda in TN]

there's a lot of anger over this in my family in rural Tennessee right now

Mine too!

[Girlene]

Yes, she does.

[Lancey Howard]

To hell with the law, to hell with the Constitution, to hell with America... John Roberts is more concerned about John Roberts than anything else. “Look at me, everybody! I’m John Roberts, and I really shocked everybody, didn’t I, huh, huh, didn’t I? Look at me, everybody, look at ME!”

He’s the new David Souter, and he can never be trusted again.
What a scumbag.

[Alberta's Child]

Someone here on FreeRepublic speculated this was the case by citing an odd passage in the dissent in which it refers to Ginsberg’s opinion as a “dissent” when in fact it was part of the majority opinion.

[Cowgirl of Justice]

If he was threatened, I am thinking - as a previous FRer had noted- that it was about the adoptions of his two children.

If so, ‘out’ the adoption. Who, what, why, where, when. Get to the bottom of those adoptions. Find out what may have been used against him or be prepared to bend over with many more rulings like that compliments of Roberts.

[G Larry]

“I’m more and more convinced that he was threatened in a way that had teeth.”

That’s the only thing that makes sense to me.

The reasoning was too tortured and inconsistent with any approach Roberts has used in the past.

[Churchillspirit]

I am more and more convinced that he was threatened in a way that had teeth.

May be clutching at straws but I agree with you.

[Coyote Choir]

We should never have gotten to the point in this country that our future came down to one elite sitting in an office who was personally going be unaffected personally by the health care legislation he approved as constitutional.

[Momto2]

Lyrica, Gabapentin, Tegretol, etc. Yes, It does make you groggy, and slow on the uptake at first - but you get used to them and after a while you are normal again. I can assure you it does not turn you into a liberal thinker.

Exactly! My husband takes those,too. I can assure you - he has NOT become a liberal or lost his ability to think. Do you have Trigeminal Neuralgia? (i hope not)

[pricilla]

"liberal thinker"

HAH!!!now THERE'S an oxymoron!!!

[Las Vegas Ron]

((((Hugs))))

So glad to hear your good news!!

[butterdezillion]

Roberts knows his decision is being reviled. I see no way that he would choose this vote in order to have a legacy.

[Alberta's Child]

The problem here is that Roberts' opinion is filled with thigns that will become part of the plaintiffs' arguments in future challenges against ObamaCare.

Personally, I think Roberts knew damn well that ObamaCare is unconstitutional but couldn't come to grips with the idiocy of the legal arguments that were brought in this particular case. For example, if I were a Supreme Court justice I'd be asking myself how I could have Attorneys General from 28 states filing legal briefs to overturn ObamaCare when it had originally been passed in the U.S. Senate by a 60-39 margin.

[Enough is ENOUGH]

John Roberts, Harvard College, Harvard Law School, Managing Editor of the Harvard Law Review....

Sound familiar???

[SE Mom]

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.

You should see the anger in the hallways of citizens who love their liberty...

[Nifster]

Exactly. But there is no clear reason as to why he changed his mind. what does O Team have on Roberts????

[conservative sympathizer]

Roberts found a “behavior tax” in the Constitution? Wow, I wonder how Congress is going to use it’s new “behavior tax” power.

Well they've been using for decades already.

There were warnings in 1912 about this when the 16th amendment was being debated. It took one hundred years before congress went far enough that a large number of people finally noticed.

[rabidralph]

This is too funny. As much as men on this site like to complain about women getting the right to vote as the downfall of this country, what’s not brought up enough is the spineless, chicken-hearted men who are running this nation into the ground. Just sayin’...