Roberts Switched Views to Uphold Health Care Law (Original CBS Report)

CBS News ^ | Sunday, Juy 1, 2012 | Jan Crawford

[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."

[CaptainMorgantown]

Mr. Roberts is truly a cowardly man who should never have been entrusted with the office that was granted him.

[Don Corleone]

He was threatened.

"You have a nice family there your honor. It'd be a shame if anything happened to them wouldn't it?"

Far fetched? Think Marcy Park.

[itssme]

Correct. Regardless of his reasons, Roberts is a traitor, a man who values his legacy more in the process of selling out We the People, a man who should know what the stakes are in his position on the SCOTUS, a man who should have had the courage and fortitude to do the right thing IF he was threatened. But he chose otherwise, and now he belongs to the damned known as traitors.

[Bratch]

The reporter on the Fox News panel from the Washington Post says “Roberts plays chess while everybody else plays checkers.” He notes that Roberts got 2 of the liberals to go along with him against Medicaid expansion and is reaping what amounts to “strange new respect” from the left as a “reasonable guy.”

He claims that sets him up to be able to return to the conservative side in upcoming votes next year on affirmative action and some provisions of the voting rights act. Plus , it appears to me the left recognizes he really handed them a hot potato with the “taxation with misrepresentation” decision.

Chrissy Mathews panel of experts voted 8-4 that Romney would be wise to downplay Obamacare , so that tells you Romney should do the opposite. So even if unintentional, Roberts is going to help the Republicans re-take the Senate and the White House.

[Terry Mross]

From all the “arm twisting”, it’s obvious Roberts’ decision was strictly political. What I don’t understand is if he was blackmailed why did rule it’s a tax? You’d think when you blackmail someone you can make him do anything you want.

[SE Mom]

This is one of the most alarming things to happen in a long damned time. And I know every DAY there’s another assault on our liberty but this is really beyond anything.

...When Obama heard the ORIGINAL mis-reporting on CNN that it was overturned- he was “puzzled and surprised”....

...Roberts was red-eyed and upset while reading the ruling...

Seriously- what the HELL went on here?

[gusopol3]

Put up or shut up, I say within the week Obama’s numbers are down and Romney leads.

[Girlene]

WOW.....this dude’s “legacy” is over, IMO. THe Supreme Court doesn’t leak like this normally. If his eyes were red and he seemed unhappy when he read his opinion on Thursday morning, it was likely because he knew the other conservative justices were done with him.

[piytar]

Here’s the chess: Roberts officially made this a tax. Well, when the IRS tries to collect the tax, the issue of procedural due process will come into play due to the waivers (equal protection), and the Court will strike it down then. But wait, the waivers have been issued, you say? True, but they don’t do anything procedurally yet.

It’s a Texas two-step. The “win” is illusory.

[muleskinner]

So Justice Kennedy was the one trying to get Roberts to see straight? Where were Alito, Scalia and Thomas?

[E. Pluribus Unum]

They may have a photo of him french kissing a poodle.

I'd rather stick my finger into an electric socket than kiss John Kerry.

[gusopol3]

Bottom line, the ruling hurts Obama. A rejection would have hurt him , too. But upholding on the commerce clause would have helped him. IMO.

[piytar]

Oh, ans as to why do this? Roberts just got two libs on the Court to help gut the Commerce Clause, and not in dicta. That’s binding precedent now.

If I’m correct, this will all have ended up being a huge win for us. Bonus: Obamacare will be a millstone around obastard’s and the Demscums’ necks come election time.

Chess indeed...

[Brown Deer]

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.

NY TIMES INVESTIGATES ADOPTION RECORDS OF SUPREME COURT NOMINEE'S CHILDREN

[Jim Noble]

Roberts just got two libs on the Court to help gut the Commerce Clause, and not in dicta. That’s binding precedent now. If I’m correct

You are not correct.

The vote on the commerce clause argument was 4-1-4, NO ONE joined CJ Roberts' opinion on that (perhaps his switch was so late that there was not enough time), but Roberts' musings about the commerce clause had exactly ONE vote, it is therefore NOT precedent, and when the next communist is appointed to the court it will be flushed down the crapper anyway.

[faucetman]

“It is not known why Roberts changed his view on the mandate and decided to uphold the law”

He found a horses head in his bed.

[faucetman]

“Regardless of his thinking, it was clear to the conservatives that Roberts wanted the Court out of the red-hot dispute. “

I guess we know where he would stand on eligibility.

[mkjessup]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2901219/posts?page=76#76

[Girlene]

So Justice Kennedy was the one trying to get Roberts to see straight? Where were Alito, Scalia and Thomas?

Did you read the article? Kennedy led it, but he wasn't alone.

As a final shout-out to Roberts :

The conservatives refused to join any aspect of his opinion, including sections with which they agreed, such as his analysis imposing limits on Congress' power under the Commerce Clause, the sources said.

Instead, the four joined forces and crafted a highly unusual, unsigned joint dissent. They deliberately ignored Roberts' decision, the sources said, as if they were no longer even willing to engage with him in debate.

[avacado]

Another lawsuit needs to be brought before the Supreme Court: Can the federal government tax a citizen for inactivity while giving waivers to others for the same inactivity?