O.M.F.G.

Quote:

Roberts switched views to uphold health care law




(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.

Read the rest: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-574....

Still believe we aren't a banana republic?

Nasty and personal.

A1S8. Everything else is a distraction.

Roberts got sand in his pussy because people were referring to the court as the 'Kennedy Court' acknowledging that Kennedy made the deciding vote in many instances.

****

YOU

ROBERTS !

I am not defending Roberts, just questioning the source. This is CBS, after all, and the sources are "unnamed." This article reads more like an opinion piece than an objective news report. For now, I view this piece with skepticism.

Quote:

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.

No doctrinal basis to fall back on? In other words, constitutional law has so far deviated from the text of the Constitution that to fall back on the Constitution itself feels like "uncharted waters?" I give up.

COWARD!

The senior justice on the winning side gets to appoint the justice who writes for the majority. Burger did it all the time and really*****ed off the other justices. If someone else had written the opinion you might have liked it even less.

As someone on public radio said, "This is a 4-1-4 decision, not a 5-4 decision."

I posted a C-SPAN video yesterday of Louie Gohmert's take on the Obamacare decision. In the speech, he again brought up the point that according to law, Justice Elena Kagan had to recuse herself from this case. She did not recuse herself and thus broke the law. Now how do we get Elena Kagan off the bench?

Here is 28 USC 455. I don't see any penalties. Anyone know where to find them?

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/28/I/....

There are none. Meanwhile...

Quote:

The impeachment of a Supreme Court justice takes the same process as impeaching a president. The House of Representatives would impeach a justice, and the Senate would hold a trial on whether to convict and remove the official from office. Officials can only be removed from office after impeachment and conviction of “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors,” according to the Constitution.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/061....

This stuff only gets worse every day.

I don't see this Kagan situation rising to the level where impeachment would be a slam dunk. She never should have made it onto the court, but she's there now thanks to our senators. At least Cornyn spoke against her nomination and voted "no".

Quote:

In the speech, he again brought up the point that according to law, Justice Elena Kagan had to recuse herself from this case.

It gets even more absurd when you think about the fact that Kagan oversaw one of the departments responsible for advocating the position that this was not, as a matter of law, a "tax."

Quote:

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.

It is a sad irony that this is perhaps the first time in the history of the country when the regular guy on the street has actually read an opinion of the Supreme Court and has been led to the conclusion--not because of some opinion he has heard, but because of his own understanding and reasoning--that the Supreme Court has failed as an institution.

What I want to know is what the vig was.

He warned us.

Tickerfan wrote..

No doctrinal basis to fall back on? In other words, constitutional law has so far deviated from the text of the Constitution that to fall back on the Constitution itself feels like "uncharted waters?" I give up.

That's how I saw it. WTF? Yeah.

Curb wrote..

COWARD!

That is exactly what I was thinking the entire time while reading this article.

That being said, Godot has a point...and I'm not entirely sure that this article is reliable or merely some sort of speculation. I'm always leery of 'unspecified sources.' Of course, in this matter, that'd be the only way you would get leaks out of SCOTUS. They're that rare.

There is just so much wrong with this Opinion, I really don't know what to think. I've seen some bad ones and I've seen a bunch of decent to good ones...but I've never really seen SCOTUS actually MAKE **** UP, which is really what Roberts had to do to use the tax argument....because no one else did in oral arguments or briefs. I really have never heard of this ever happening.

Quote:

It is a sad irony that this is perhaps the first time in the history of the country when the regular guy on the street has actually read an opinion of the Supreme Court

Actually read the opinion? Ha. I was at a small party last night and seated next a "commoner" woman who had actually read the entire 2,000 page law. She is probably in her 30's and is fully engaged.

I pretty much wrote off the court in the Kelo Vs. New London. The more I learned the more I realized there is 2 goals of all 4 branches of .gov - expanding the blood flow from the productive into the proboscis of the .gov tick, and 2. continuing to consolidate control over the populating of Amerixan cattle.

This really isn't anything other than a continuing consolidation of Fascist power here in Amerixa. Wickard v. Filburn is a case that not even 9 nine-year-olds would support. But when you learn what the goals of our 'elites' are, there is nothing that will surprise you.

I don't know why people are surprised with this. This has happened over and over again. A so called constitutionalist appointed to the court, makes a few decent decisions and then goes full board progressive. It's been working this way since the 30s. Almost everyone we put into office is a god-state progressive. The GOP ones are simply lying about their beliefs until their vote is needed to advance the god state. We live in a one party state.

As low says: Keep voting.

Quote:

Actually read the opinion? Ha. I was at a small party last night and seated next a "commoner" woman who had actually read the entire 2,000 page law. She is probably in her 30's and is fully engaged.

The other thing I'm seeing is that these people are not just decrying the result; they are seeing the logical fallacies in the opinion and saying, "Hey, that's a sleight of hand." It's amazing how many "regular people" are coming up with the right legal arguments, entirely on their own.

Yeah, this one is really quite strange.

They printed a number of copies out here in the office...and yes, it's a law office, but normally, the attorneys here aren't reading SCOTUS opinions. We do corporate and estate law.

So roberts granted Congress unlimited power because he wanted to be liked by them.

Nice.

**** this douche

Roberts: Congress cannot regulate commercial inactivity, because there is nothing to regulate.

Roberts: But Congress can tax inactivity, because there is something to tax...er, wait, what?

This line of thinking is only possible to those most deftly skilled in the art of mental gymnastics.

And I reiterate: "Collapse, IS the solution".