BOMBSHELL - Roberts Switched Vote On Obamacare
New video from tonight's CBS News broadcast.
Not sure how many readers saw this blockbuster story yesterday. Justice Roberts buckled to an accusatory media and political pressure from across the judiciary.
What a mammoth, vaudevillian pussy.
We still believe the GOP will succeed in striking down Obamacare after the November elections, but this law, which pisses all over the Constitution, while simultaneously fellating the entire Managed Care, Insurance-HMO, Big Pharma constituency, should have been shredded by SCOTUS. We ought not have to rely on the November elections to fix what the courts could have already flushed.
---
Excerpt
(CBS News) 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.
"He was relentless," one source said of Kennedy's efforts. "He was very engaged in this."
But this time, Roberts held firm. And so the conservatives handed him their own message which, as one justice put it, essentially translated into, "You're on your own."
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.
The inner-workings of the Supreme Court are almost impossible to penetrate. The court's private conferences, when the justices discuss cases and cast their initial votes, include only the nine members - no law clerks or secretaries are permitted. The justices are notoriously close-lipped, and their law clerks must agree to keep matters completely confidential.
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.
It required individuals to buy insurance or pay a penalty. Congress had never before in the history of the nation ordered Americans to buy a product from a private company as part of its broad powers to regulate commerce. Opponents argued that the law exceeded Congress' power under the Constitution, and an Atlanta-based federal appeals court agreed.
The Atlanta-based federal appeals court said Congress didn't have that kind of expansive power, and it struck down the mandate as unconstitutional.
On this point - Congress' commerce power - Roberts agreed. In the court's private conference immediately after the arguments, he was aligned with the four conservatives to strike down the mandate.
Roberts was less clear on whether that also meant the rest of the law must fall, the source said. The other four conservatives believed that the mandate could not be lopped off from the rest of the law and that, since one key part was unconstitutional, the entire law must be struck down.
Because Roberts was the most senior justice in the majority to strike down the mandate, he got to choose which justice would write the court's historic decision. He kept it for himself.
Over the next six weeks, as Roberts began to craft the decision striking down the mandate, the external pressure began to grow. Roberts almost certainly was aware of it.
Some of the conservatives, such as Justice Clarence Thomas, deliberately avoid news articles on the court when issues are pending (and avoid some publications altogether, such as The New York Times). They've explained that they don't want to be influenced by outside opinion or feel pressure from outlets that are perceived as liberal. But Roberts pays attention to media coverage. As chief justice, he is keenly aware of his leadership role on the court, and he also is sensitive to how the court is perceived by the public.
There were countless news articles in May warning of damage to the court - and to Roberts' reputation - if the court were to strike down the mandate. Leading politicians, including the president himself, had expressed confidence the mandate would be upheld.
Some even suggested that if Roberts struck down the mandate, it would prove he had been deceitful during his confirmation hearings, when he explained a philosophy of judicial restraint.
It was around this time that it also became clear to the conservative justices that Roberts was, as one put it, "wobbly," the sources said.
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.
Some informed observers outside the court flatly reject the idea that Roberts buckled to liberal pressure, or was stared down by the president. They instead believe that Roberts realized the historical consequences of a ruling striking down the landmark health care law. There was no doctrinal background for the Court to fall back on - nothing in prior Supreme Court cases - to say the individual mandate crossed a constitutional line.
The case raised entirely new issues of power. Never before had Congress tried to force Americans to buy a private product; as a result, never before had the court ruled Congress lacked that power. It was completely uncharted waters.
To strike down the mandate as exceeding the Commerce Clause, the court would have to craft a new theory, which could have opened it up to criticism that it reached out to declare the president' health care law unconstitutional.
Roberts was willing to draw that line, but in a way that decided future cases, and not the massive health care case.
Moreover, there are passages in Roberts' opinion that are consistent with his views that unelected judges have assumed too much power over American life, and that courts generally should take a back seat to elected officials, who are closer to the people and can be voted out of office if the people don't like what they're doing.
As Roberts explained in his opinion:
"The framers created a federal government of limited powers, and assigned to this Court the duty of enforcing those limits. The Court does so today. But the Court does not express any opinion on the wisdom of the Affordable Care Act. Under the Constitution, that judgment is reserved to the people."
Regardless of his thinking, it was clear to the conservatives that Roberts wanted the court out of the red-hot dispute.
---
DB here. Check out this chart on United Healthcare since Obamneycare passed:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=UNH&a=02&b=19&c=2010&d=05&e=28&f=2012&g=m
Jul 4, 2012 at 12:30 AM
Reader Comments (34)
During the presidential administration of George H. W. (the Elder) Bush, I knew a deputy solicitor general of peerless conservative pedigree and prudential outlook named John Roberts. He wears a black robe now, but he’s the same lawyer, more or less.
http://www.wcvarones.com/2012/06/insiders-got-advance-word-on-obamacare.html
http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/28/stock-trades-may-show-obamacare-leak-from-supreme-court
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyLU9-VqVxY&feature=youtu.be
This is interesting. Start watching at the 2-minute mark. It's short from there.
Here are a couple of somewhat related items.
http://bangordailynews.com/2012/07/02/business/maines-bureau-of-insurance-says-companies-sold-fraudulent-health-insurance/
http://bangordailynews.com/2012/07/02/news/state/drugmaker-to-pay-3-billion-fraud-settlement-maine-to-get-4-4-million/?ref=regionstate
http://www.ijreview.com/2012/06/9398-why-chief-justice-roberts-made-the-right-long-term-decision-with-obamacare/
Long live fascism
Not only are we ruled by frauds, charlatans and snakes, but also complete idiots.
In light of this, it makes no sense for Roberts to rule in favor just because he decided it was a tax. It was already established that no ruling was proper until the tax was levied. Clearly I'm not a lawyer or even have a legal mind, but how is a ruling in favor logical when it contains within it the assumption that no ruling is proper?
Roberts rewrote the law that Congress passed, changing the penalty to a tax, one which Congress specifically did not legislate. The media is now telling to tell us some gossip story of how the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the highest legal authority caved to cable teevee. Oh yes, my faith in the system is restored... totally.
Since the story broke, it has gone cold. No reporter risks to be Arkincided by investigating the story. Naturally, the state propaganda arm, the criminal lap dog, better known as the lame stream media, is mute.
Robert's account was noted to be the largest of all the bought a paid traitorous criminals in government. According to the CFO it contained one billion dollars.
Certainly fits the MO of gangland Chicago mobsters. Buy off the judge, buy off the government, but in this case, no flowers when they engage in extra judicial murder.
It's a macro theft involving trillions of dollars. You think the gang is just going to walk away peacefully?
Déjà vu all over again.
It's over, people: Death panels and broccoli all around. Anyone pushing back at the ACA beyond next week will look like States' Rights Governors from not long enough ago. Embracing wildly speculative conspiracy type theories prob'ly ain't great for one's perception either.
If this were about "broccoli," we could easily subsidize broccoli for the poor without making the entire citizenry cash cows for the insurance, pharmaceutical and medical device industries, while simultaneously giving .gov the authority to do basically whatever it wants to us through the power to tax. This ain't about "broccoli." Surely you jest.
Only 22% of likely voters believe that the government has the consent of the governed, as stipulated in the Declaration.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/june_2012/22_believe_government_has_consent_of_governed
---
Polish
That's a stretch. It's going to be a campaign theme, so I think we will hear a lot about it. And what about the negative noise from the progressives who also don't like the law. FireDogLake, Naked Capitalism plus some voices at TPM and Kos have been pretty critical. So I think you will see the furor die down, but it will remain an issue thru november.
Also, I don't think it's a conspiracy theory. It's a fact that he changed sides. The only question is why. And I think the sources for this story answered that clearly. It was media/political criticism and pressure. I posted a Bloomberg story from one of Roberts former clerks that confirmed that Roberts is very concerned with his reputation and the reputation of the court.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/cashin-constitution-and-obamacare
Their goal as self stated is to repeal and replace, I am for a straight up repeal. Now that a new pool of money has been generated, it looks like the GOP can't wait to take a dip. It is after all what they all do in the various pools of money created like S.S. as an example.
http://news.yahoo.com/gestapo-maine-gov-blasts-massive-expansion-irs-agents-051608267.html
[snip]
Governor Paul LePage of Maine is making news for allegedly referring to the IRS as the “new Gestapo” Saturday, after blasting the president’s overhaul of our health care system.
He reportedly said:
This tax will add to the $500 billion in tax increases that are already in Obamacare. Now that Congress can use the taxation power of the federal government to compel behavior or lack thereof, what’s next? More taxes if we don’t drive Toyota Priuses or if we eat too much junk food or maybe even pea soup?
This decision has made America less free. ‘We The People’ have been told there is no choice. You must buy health insurance or pay the new Gestapo – the I.R.S.
Even more disheartening is that reviving the American dream just became nearly impossible to do. We are now a nation in which supports dependency rather than independence. Instead of encouraging self-reliance we are encouraging people to rely on the government. [Emphasis added].
Listen to the entire radio clip here, via Dirigo Blue.
Note: I support Governor LePage (and Charlie Summers who is running for Olympia Snowe's seat). Here is another gem from the good governor from awhile back... anyone else feel the same way?
Paul LePage: "I'd tell Obama to go to hell"
http://www.wcsh6.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=130182
"That's a stretch."
Really? You see no similarities between righty governors declaring they won't abide by the ACA and States' Rights Governors' openly rejecting Civil Rights. No parallels whatsoever? Really? I mean, I guess we could have a sit down and discuss this further, but it's pretty dadgum striking to me. You don't see the reaction from the right wing to Roberts as similar to the right wing reaction Earl Warren after Brown v. Board (see also above link)? Really? (Fun follow up question: Who are most threatened with losing health care in, say, Louisiana, if ACA is rejected?)
"Also, I don't think it's a conspiracy theory. It's a fact that he changed sides. The only question is why. And I think the sources for this story answered that clearly. It was media/political criticism and pressure."
So the stenographer who copied down one side of a story is definitely right? Unlike, say, the 2002 NBA Western Conference Finals, this ain't a done deal as far as I can tell. I'll withhold judgement for later. Hey, I'm as shocked as anyone that anyone who championed Citizens United would rule to uphold the ACA, but there you go. It would appear as though he did change his mind at some point. So what? People change their minds all the time? And this isn't a "vote", it's a Supreme Court Decision. If one were to take their time in what some consider a contested and complex judicial ruling, that's OK by me. I'm not gonna dismiss that History's Greatest Monster, John Roberts, wasn't somehow affected by a phone call or who knows what, but knowing what I know at this moment, this ain't the Lindburgh Kidnapping. (Another fun follow up: How does History view Earl Warren at this point?)
As I wrote above, I think this is all old news in short order in spite of the gobs and gobs and gobs of cash opponents of ACA will throw to overturn it (wonder where that comes from?). Sure, people don't like Death Panels or being told that they have to eat broccoli (neither of which, it turns out, is in the ACA), but they do like the idea of no recision, and staying on the units' plan until 26, and what have you. So the mandate's technically a tax. They're arguing about semantics now? Who cares? How about some jobs instead?
My, but what a classy governor they have there in The Pine Tree State.
My best 'educated guess' is that it came from Elena Kagan's office.
Now to find out who profited and was their blackmail involved...Seems to be a trend in certain circles.
And...so what? Hitler was a vegetarian and murdered people. Nineteenth-century Wisconsin supported States' Rights by saying to hell with the Fugitive Slave Act.
"One more fun follow-up question: Why, oh why didn't anyone think to ask John Roberts how he felt about the Individual Mandate when he was nominated to the Supreme Court by George Bush, Jr., in 2005?"
That's an easy one. 'Cause Mitt Romney and Noot Gingrich aren't radical Commy Muslims from Kenya, that's why. (Duh.)
Glad you're feeling better, SP.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/politically-vulnerable-democrats-plan-back-obamacare-repeal-191746511.html
As I said before, I think this will be an issue all the way thru November.