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 ...
John Roberts in his decision:
“Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”
As a Freeper put it...
It should be be gratuitous, patronizing, and entirely superfluous (but apparently it isn’t) for anyone to have to remind the Chief Justice of the United States that there are areas of the law which elections may not touch.
We don’t live in a country with Parliamentary Supremacy. The Supreme Court is supposed to guard the Constitution, a duty in which the majority failed.
Very few individuals have had the opportunity to stand in the breach....with such an opportunity to defend FREEDOM.
John Roberts failed miserably. Failed his country, his countrymen ,and God himself. About that paid vacation on Malta he’s off to....he ought a seriously consider not returning.
The other three justices - Thomas, Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito - are seen as more solidly conservative and much less susceptible to pressure.
Clarence Thomas had already been mentioned in the article by first and last name. After that, all subsequent mentions of the same person are last name only. Since Scalia and Alito had yet to be mentioned, they got first and last name listings. From that point, all mentions of Scalia and Alito would also be last name only. There was no slight; the writer followed proper editorial etiquette.
That picture says it all.
After the election and swearing in
John Roberts can rot in hell with the other 4 justices and Obama.
John Roberts can rot in hell with the other 4 justices and Obama.
bump for later fuming
Saw this from u:
Like his unethical, unprecedented ex parte invitation to have Obama visit the Supreme Court - announced to the national press on the same day SCOTUS was deciding whether to hear Donofrio’s eligibility challenge.
There was no way in the world he could have made that action look worse. It was blatant. Too blatant to be an accident.
The same kind of thing happened with Judge David Carter - hiring a clerk from Perkins-Coie in the middle of a very visible eligibility case argued by Perkins-Coie, and exhibiting a 180-degree turnaround in his rulings and demeanor as soon as that clerk was on board with him. There was no way to appear more unethical than that. Again, too blatant to be an accident.
I’m trying to be careful not to suffer from confirmation bias, but I had suspected that Roberts was compromised on the eligibility stuff and that his actions (the ex parte invitation, the botched oath, and affirming Kagan and Sotomayor’s refusal to recuse themselves on cases where their very positions were at issue) were meant to be red flags, and now this Obamacare decision started out looking like a red flag but the more we hear, the more it looks to me like a flashing strobe light instead. And not just Roberts drawing attention to something fishy, but four other justices as well.
Not 2 b dumb but what do u mean?
But the dissenters were actually more sweeping in the Commerce Clause limitations than Roberts.
Well little do you know, nor am I going to tell you the specifics, but there were powerful people involved. I suggest you do a little research on me before replying because I am not going to go into public details.
http://wtpotus.wordpress.com/2012/04/28/crossing-obama-can-be-deadly/
Yes but,
minority opinion is ‘dicta’.
Irrelevant.
Robert`s opinion on Commerce was dicta
So, Wickard v. Filburn stand in total AND Roberts in NFIB v. Sebelius the Govt. unlimited powers via taxation .
Ah yes that’s true. Sorry I misread what you said. We’re on the same page. It’s dicta too because the result would’ve still been the same if they addressed or didn’t address the Commerce Clause.
It’s called “The Chicago Way.”
You could type “i’m a homo” in big letters at the bottom of that photo, and it would look just like the one with the CH I Ps guy.
He was threatened.
___________________
I agree.
Something happened.
We wont know the truth until there is a new administration in power.
I'm guessing that Reagan at least probably recognized he got played by Sandra Day O'Conner, plus Reagan had both a demoRAT House & especially a demoRAT Senate to deal with in making his SCOTUS nominee selection
Dumb ass doofus, head up his ass GW Bush OTOH, had both a Repub House & Repub Senate for 6 of his 8 years, and still couldn't make a right decision 99% of the time. GW Bush was and probably still is proud of his selection of John Roberts as another sellout of American's values & freedoms. Dumb ass doofus, GW Bush, the RAT bastard gift that just keeps on giving. He & 0dumb0 are neck & neck for worst president of the U.S. as far as I'm concerned.
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.