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 ...
1. He took the Commerce Clause out of the equation.
the entire article is absolute pablum written by an elitist. He is trying fool Constitutional Conservatives into believing this was a good ruling.
Mark Levin explained in very great detail how the Commerce Clause argument was not taken out of the equation at all. It wasn't touched. Others in this thread explain the why too.
Please go and and listen to Mark's show from Thursday and Friday. He explains in great depth the hows and whys of this ruling -- he calls it a terrible ruling that has NO silver lining.
Conservatives should not be fooled by the smoke and mirrors that the Statist GOP-e is trying to shovel out.
Roberts is a very evil man who willingly and knowingly made a judgement that will cause untold misery to 10's of millions of Americans.
Ten years out we will all see the utter evil of this decision.
Mark Levin on his Friday show explained in great detail how the Commerce Clause was NOT touched at all. Levin was very upset with some on the right pushing this outright lie.
Levin's show from last Thursday and Friday was quite an educational experience. He stated he read through through the entire ruling three times.
Levin stated that there is absolutely NO silver-lining in this ruling. At best, he said it will take many decades to undo the damage from the precedent set down in this ruling.
Post 266 has a link to the segment where Levin discusses how the Commerce Clause was not touched. Check it out.
In the end, Roberts decided that he didn’t want to Fosterized.
to be
The Federal government already has that power.
married couples pay a higher tax rate than single people.
you could consider it... a divorse mandate with a penalty for remaining married.
See post #271 on this thread for a comparison of how Madison and Roberts viewed I.8.1
He was threatened.
Maybe, or he may be dirty.
Guess what, though. We got Obamacare and the mandate to go with it. It's just that it's partly based on I.8.1, instead of entirely on the Commerce Clause. The bottom line is that the reach of fedgov just got longer thanks to Roberts, Kagan et al.
Thanks for the background; the Randy Barnett (actually Philip Klein)article I posted the other day said Roberts relied on flimsy reasoning, thanks for showing how. I never agreed, BTW, with the decision;I’ve just said I was glad it was labeled a tax.Perhaps the stronger part of the opinion was in showing the mandate is not allowed under the commerce clause?
It’s one thing when you are physically threatened. It’s quite another when your kids are threatened. The Left always knows what it is doing.
Roberts may envision himself as the second coming of John Marshall, but if this report is true, he’ll go down as one of the biggest cowards in history.
“Demographics are very much against us. We need to think to survive.”
TRUER WORDS HAVE NEVER BEEN SPOKEN ON THIS IS FORUM.
Actually, he HAS declared war on the United States. He’s said publicly that he doesn’t want the US to win the war on terror because then America and capitalism would be strong, and he has said that America and capitalism are the 2 great evils that he - as God, he says - has to get rid of.
So yes, the guy who says he owns the democratic party has publicly declared war on the United States of America.
And in September of 2008 he showed the world that he meant it, and has the allies to make good on his threats.
I know of no democrat who has renounced him or his war on America.
Roberts is gay, in my opinion.
I posted this last week, and at that time, it was just my pure speculation....i had heard NOTHING about this as a rumor.
But I could see his smirk, and totally bewildered about the opinion, this was the only thing that made sense.
Anyone that smirks like he does, and has this history, and behaves jurisprudentially like this, is definitely a fag who has been blackmailed.
adoption in this context = “intimacy issues”
More seriously, all of the “Is John Roberts gay?” speculation strikes A3G as pretty pointless, since it’s doubtful that we’ll ever get a definitive answer to the question.”
in my life exeperience, I have never encountered a rumor of “is such and such gay?” where such and such didn’t turn out, in fact, to be gay. Even if years down the road, it has always played out that way.
Rumor that Robert is gay = Roberts is gay...you can bank on it.
Did Dictator Obama use “The Bully Pulpit” to intimidate the weakest member of the SCOTUS, and therefore unfairly Nationalize the Medical and Insurance Industries?
Is “Weak-Knees” Traitor John Roberts building a State-Of-The-Art epileptic clinic and personal retirement home in Kenya?
Will Dictator Obama need to continue his brutal fund-raising schedule now that Chief Justice John Roberts has been paid off?
” 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.”
Roberts either was threatened, or blackmailed or both. His argument for the law was intellectually contemptible....way beneath his ability to reason. Roberts has profoundly hurt this country, and may he rot in hell for having done so.
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.