CBS News: Roberts Was Going to Overturn ObamaCare But Changed His Mind
CBS News broke a huge story on Sunday's Face the Nation concerning the Supreme Court's Thursday ruling on ObamaCare.
According to Jan Crawford, CBS legal and political correspondent, Chief Justice John Roberts was initially going to strike down the individual mandate requiring citizens to buy health insurance, but changed his mind over the objections of the conservatives on the Court (video follows with transcript):
NORAH O’DONNELL, SUBSTITUTE HOST: We're going to start first with Jan because you've done some reporting. The big question was why did Chief Justice John Roberts do what he did? And you've learned some new details right?
JAN CRAWFORD, CBS LEGAL AND POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, that's right. What was striking about this decision was that it was the conservative Chief Justice that was providing that decisive fifth vote, joining the liberals to uphold the President’s signature achievement. And Norah that was something that no one would have expected back in 2005 when President George W. Bush put him on the Supreme Court, and that was something that not even the conservative justices expected back in March when the Court heard arguments in this case.
I am told by two sources with specific knowledge of the Court's deliberations that Roberts initially sided with the conservatives in this case and was prepared to strike down the heart of this law, the so-called individual mandate, of course, that requires all Americans to buy insurance or pay a penalty. But Roberts, I'm told by my sources, changed his views deciding to instead join with the liberals.
And he withstood-- I'm told by my sources -- a month-long desperate campaign by the conservative justices to bring him back to the fold, and that campaign was led, ironically, by Justice Anthony Kennedy. And why that's ironic is because it was Justice Kennedy that conservatives feared would be the one most likely to defect. But their effort, of course, was unsuccessful. Roberts did not budge. The conservatives wrote that astonishing joint dissent united in opposition, and Roberts wrote the majority opinion with the four liberals to uphold the President's signature achievement.
O’DONNELL: Has this there been anything like this on the Court before? I mean, that's extraordinary that the Chief Justice, according to your report about a month ago decided to do this and then was lobbied unsuccessfully.
CRAWFORD: Yes, that has happened before, and often in high-profile, controversial cases including Justice Kennedy who's changed his views in a very high-profile case involving a woman's rights on abortion back in 1992. And justices do change their mind. There is precedent for that. One justice told me that surprisingly enough it happens about once a term. But in the case of this magnitude with so much on the line, conservatives believed they had Roberts’ vote in this case, and there's quite a lot of anger within the hallways of the Supreme Court right now.
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Old News
Submitted by Jimbo on Sun, 07/01/2012 - 1:15pm.
This is old news...good job CBS.
I guess they are trying to get as much mileage out of the story where the big bad conservative (BS in and of itself) was persuaded by the proper minded progressives.
Yep, old news. And the left
Submitted by tcm14 on Sun, 07/01/2012 - 1:56pm.
Yep, old news. And the left and the MSM will have 30 pieces of silver for Roberts for his job well done.
Well
Submitted by GregE on Sun, 07/01/2012 - 9:34pm.
....I read it earlier today, and was the first time I had heard it.
It doesn't much matter now
Submitted by Dave. on Sun, 07/01/2012 - 1:29pm.
The damage is done, as the federal government will now be able to do pretty much whatever the Hell it wants, and we are all but powerless to stop it.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
What's Wrong With This?
Submitted by Bourbeau on Sun, 07/01/2012 - 1:53pm.
Look, Roberts can write whatever opinion he wants, on whatever issue he wants, as long as the issue applies to the arguments presented to the Court. He did not do that. He took this issue of 'taxes' and dumped it in the middle of this mess that was presented to him, and instead of opining on the merits presented, took the opportunity to present a 'gift' to the president to save health care reform. One judge, one opinion, one angle, and he unloaded it in his written opinion without proper judicial discourse. They're not angry that he changed his mind; that happens. They're angry that he created a 'tax' option when one hadn't been argued for; they're angry that he saved this monstosity by using an argument no other judge even considered. They're angry that it appears somehow, or someway, he was coerced into a position no one else even comprehended, never mind deliberated on. I'm not an expert on the Supreme Court, but when they take their authority, in this case one judge, to legislate from the bench, on something of this magnitude, every constitutional lawyer should be up in arms demanding an explanation. For Roberts to hide behind his robes on this one, is an absolute outrage and his thinking of resigning should not be off the table.
Yeah and I am sick of hearing
Submitted by tcm14 on Sun, 07/01/2012 - 2:00pm.
Yeah and I am sick of hearing about "consolation prizes" like limits on the commerce clause. Roberts JUST SHOWED US that limits and precedent are no obstacle to a political judge who wants to get around them. That's what's so corrupt about what he did.
No different
Submitted by Jimbo on Sun, 07/01/2012 - 2:14pm.
Like I wrote yesterday - what Roberts did is no different than a college professor marking a student's grade with an F because the student missed the mark entirely. The, instead of handing the graded paper back to the student, the professor completely rewrites the paper on behalf of the student, gives it a grade of A+ and then gives it back to the student.
No different.
That
Submitted by oldfart on Sun, 07/01/2012 - 4:45pm.
sure as hell never happend to me, even as a undergrad. As a grad student I came to understand that the Professors had a sadistic streak to make you sweat blood.
I agree - Roberts legislated from the bench.
When you've got a guy like
Submitted by killa37 on Sun, 07/01/2012 - 1:54pm.
When you've got a guy like Kennedy - who actually NAILED IT with regards to this power-grab and tax-increase (OK, go ahead, call it a 'penalty' - which is a great word, filled with warmth and compassion - either way, we pay) - trying to talk a queebie-assed tilley turn-coat like Roberts OUT of his disasterous, and treacherous, decision...............then you KNOW that this traitor is no 'conservative', and no believer in the fundamentals of the US Constitution, and is, in fact, just a big-government Washington insider who wants to make some kind of name for himself, regardless of common sense or ethical value. Hell, he spent his whole 'opinion' trying to explain his convoluted thinking - whereas it could have been written in one (NO!!) word, or maybe two (HELL NO!!) words.
Pathetic...........................I look at this guy, and I see 'wimp' written all over his face.
I'm told......
Submitted by Herbster on Sun, 07/01/2012 - 2:11pm.
I'm told by my "Unnamed sources" that CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, PBS, NPR, etc., are nothing more than propaganda mills for the leftist agenda.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Stated
Submitted by Conservator on Sun, 07/01/2012 - 2:16pm.
"Those who know don’t talk. And those who talk don’t know." Thus, I'm skeptical about the so-called "two sources with specific knowledge of the Court's deliberations" that Jan Crawford quoted.
That's pretty ironic, coming
Submitted by killa37 on Sun, 07/01/2012 - 2:48pm.
That's pretty ironic, coming from a flap-jawing little shrew like her...............
The Language of the Court
Submitted by Jimbo on Sun, 07/01/2012 - 2:22pm.
The day the opinion was released, there were talking heads that have supposedly read countless SCOTUS decisions who immediately started saying that Roberts switched his view very late in the game. They based this on how the document was written. It was lengthy, and much of it was written in terms that are typically used for overturned decisions. There were parts of it that did not seem to fit with the rest of the language, most notably Roberts' portions, that lead them to believe he switched sides late in the game and the opinion was changed only with regard to Roberts' views. The judges who remained convinced that it should be overturned did not amend their language to fall in line with the ultimate decision.
Take it for what its worth, but I heard that opinion by more than one person on more than one news channel. And on the web if I remember correctly. That's why I was saying that Roberts jumping ship was old news.
It Doesn't Matter How We Color It!
Submitted by Bourbeau on Sun, 07/01/2012 - 2:34pm.
Roberts imposed his opinion, rightly or wrongly, on the other eight justices, without proper discourse. They can tell me there was proper discourse within the hallways of the Court, and I guess that might be. But to me, the proper discourse for an issue of this magnitude was in the oral arguments. And except for some fleeting references to taxes, it was barely mentioned by the participating attorneys. For him to construct the argument from the bowels of his own mind is beyond reprehensible; moreover, it makes one wonder how in hell something like this can happen, in this day and age, and not cause a major rebuttal from his fellow justices. If Elena Kagan had pulled a stunt like this, we'd be screeming for her head, and rightfully so. No justice should have the power to impose his opinion on the country in this manner; it should be accepted, it should be allowed, and it shouldn't be tolerated. For the other justices not to have recourse on this matter in mind-boggling.
Commerce Clause vs Tax vs Penalty
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Sun, 07/01/2012 - 4:21pm.
It all boils down to enforce-ability. If the federal government says that citizens must buy electric cars, but has no penalty or enforcement for the edict, then the law is pointless. So basically, there is no point to having the federal government have authority over individuals based on the commerce clause. Any fine imposed on a person who doesn't obey a "commerce clause" edict passed by the feds is now, by this ruling, a tax, and thus allowable under the taxing authority of the Constitution.
The only exception to this is if the penalty isn't monetary. You must buy an electric car or go to jail. Right now that would probably be viewed as unconstitutional. For now anyway
Way to go Roberts. Uphold Obamacare, and render the Commerce Clause pointless, all in one ruling..
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Maybe slightly off topic.
Submitted by ahusser on Sun, 07/01/2012 - 5:12pm.
Isn't it a shame that we pretty much vote for a President just to ensure a choice for Supreme Court Justice(s). Why is the supreme court running this country? We now have legislation and debacle after debacle hinging on the vote of ONE person. Who will use whatever specious argument to justify their position(s). Now the greatest weakness in our Constitution is the lifetime appointment of Federal Judges (think Ginsburg in her 90's). Of course at one time most didn't make it out of their 60's but who knew. Even my liberal spouse is afraid. As an employee of a small business concern ( with razor thin profit margins) figures layoffs will be imminent with the full implementation of ObamaCare. Only higher taxation, more unemployment or raising costs (inflation) or all three will be able to even approach paying for this Obamacare mess. The recovery (haha) is toast. The madness of magical thinking which is liberal lala land reason believes that somehow this will work out and we wont have the unemployment problems of Greece, Spain, France etc. which is around 20+ percent and they riot whenever the government, out of necessity, tries to reign in their cradle to grave entitlements. Someone has to pay for all the permanent deadbeat population. I figure doctors will leave their practices in droves or move offshore to the Caribbean, Mexico, India etc. and that is where your healthcare dollars will really go.
"Somehow, I told you so, just doesn't quite say it." Will Smith in 'I, Robot.'
I don't hear any
Submitted by gailannr on Sun, 07/01/2012 - 8:55pm.
MSM blaming this one on good ole George "W". Why is that? Surely his (Bush's) appointee has to be wrong with his opinion because I haven't heard good ole George's name mentioned during this debacle, let alone being blamed for his choice of Chief Justice.
I remember a time when they did criticize him about selecting Roberts! Oh Yeah!
It's been 4 days now and I am still just as stunned...
Submitted by PrairieSky on Mon, 07/02/2012 - 1:31am.
at this decision as I was the moment that I heard it. I am more disappointed and dismayed than I can express at Justice Roberts' action in this. I never expected Obamacare would have been struck down in the manner that it was, and by the supposedly conservative chief justice siding with the liberals on the court by casting the deciding vote...It's just unbelievable that he would actually do this. And why?? Why would he side with the rest of the conservatives, and then do an about face like this? I just do not understand it. I would love to hear him explain why he chose to do this...It is just inexplicable to me. One thing is for certain...I have lost all faith in this court and all trust in Justice Roberts.
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction...It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them (our children) to do the same." ~President Ronald Reagan
Justice Roberts
Submitted by oldfart on Mon, 07/02/2012 - 8:22am.
In his effort NOT to go down in history as another Justice Taney - he (Roberts) has done just that. Legislated from the bench and used creative reasoning to placate the masses.
I guess when he was in law school he slept through the class that a judge DOES NOT legislate. A judge does NOT 'help out' the legistlature by re-writing the law.
Frankly, when Romney is elected in November, after he is sworn in, the House should bring letters of impeachment against Roberts.
I'm thinking the same way.
Submitted by celator on Mon, 07/02/2012 - 9:30am.
I'm thinking the same way. I've tried to find some light and good purpose in Roberts' decision and it just isn't there in plain view. There's a background story behind his strange decision to pivot away from the conservative decision, and we don't know what that is yet. Was he threatened? Was he always a stealth liberal? Or what?
What he is in the end
Submitted by jon_torlin on Mon, 07/02/2012 - 9:41am.
At this point, it doesn't matter what his motivations were, he was a coward. Apparently he was going to vote against it before changing his mind a la John F'ing Kerry flip flop style, but from what I've been reading and hearing, the style of writing that he used in his "decision" isn't very consistent throughout the whole thing and I'd have to say there's a strong possibility he might have been threatened. However, the thing about him being on medication for epilepsy is no small matter to ignore as well.
Whatever the case may be, whatever reasoning he chose to use, this makes him a coward for not standing up for what's right. I wouldn't say he was a conservative, but a Republican, at least the linguini spined variety.
Pandora's box has been not just opened but shattered.
-Jon
Jon, yes, he could have
Submitted by celator on Mon, 07/02/2012 - 9:47am.
Jon, yes, he could have killed it with one hammer blow, and he chose not to do it. And we're stuck with it. I'm still stunned.
I Just Don't Understand
Submitted by Jimbo on Mon, 07/02/2012 - 9:59am.
My emotions on this matter have gone from furious, to sad, to trying to understand why it happened. I know at the end of the day the latter is an exercise in futility, but I can't help but try.
Robert, whether he is a closet liberal, activist judge, or whatever other tag applies, cannot be called legally dumb. I refuse to believe that he did not look at the cause and effect of his decision before reaching a final conclusion. He must have realized that the "tax" he created did not fit into any category of tax allowed under the constitution. He must have realized that he was opening pandora's box by fundamentally altering the relationship between the government and the people. He must have realized that he was setting legal precedent against which future, similar, types of tyrannical taxation could be justified.
It is almost as if someone had a gun against his head (figuratively I hope) when he switched his decision. I just can't comprehend it.
Jimbo~
Submitted by GG_NB on Mon, 07/02/2012 - 10:58am.
I feel your pain. I want the "why" behind it as well. Not that it changes anything, but my brain feels the need to understand. I guess we are going through the stages of grief -- and I'm not necessarily joking! I'm not at the acceptance stage; that's for darn sure. I think I'm going back and forth between sadness, anger and denial. I also want to bargain with someone, but there's nobody to bargain with! LOL.
I really think it was a "court reputation" decision in the end for Roberts and he looked for a way out...sorry that I don't think it was a conviction thing, but there are enough clues in his opinion that more was at play. It read like a pretty emotional and personal decision in parts...and almost like he wanted no part in taking on this case. Many have spoken of the "Trojan Horse" theory, and I don't discount part of that, but I just don't believe you can split the baby (hide the baby?) on this, which is what he did.
I am also greatly bothered by him calling it a "tax" because who amongst us knows for sure what can happen to us down the road because of that? Taxing any of us for not purchasing something? Really? Floodgates now open. Also, it is a huge gamble on his part (if he has any sense of protecting constitutional rights of Americans) in assuming O will be voted out, if that even entered his thought process...if O is NOT voted out, does he really want the course of history of what becomes of America on his conscience? That's a heavy burden for trying to protect the "reputation" of the court.
I am not saying all this because "darn it -- we didn't get our way!" Although I do feel like having a little temper tantrum. ;) But I'm saying it because I truly feel he did not apply the law, in regard to what the Constitution was always intended to do. And yes, the Supreme Court was a major stop on the way to getting it squared away that we have rights. They had a chance to do both the lawful and right thing. Kennedy could have gone either way, and his decision really speaks volumes. Roberts blew it.
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
But Who Cares??
Submitted by Jimbo on Mon, 07/02/2012 - 4:53pm.
I am in agreement, however the notion of trying "to save the court" completely soars past me. Save it from what? It is one of the pillars of our government. If he had decided the other way, the court would not have closed shop and went home. The constitutions would still hold it as the highest court in the land and things would go on as they have since the constitution was written. Sure, the MSM would try to vilify the court, but in the end, who cares? Noone can take away the power the SCOTUS holds based on one of its decisions. Exactly what was he trying to save the court from??? Bad press that would be gone in the next election cycle (as Roberts himself alludes to)?? Who the hell cares about bad press or liberal panties in a bunch? If that is the new barometer for SCOTUS rulings, then they should all just go home and let Congress and the Monarch run roughshod over us and save us the pain of more decisions like this. In short, I'm still at a loss, even trying to see it from his point of view.
Prairie~
Submitted by GG_NB on Mon, 07/02/2012 - 8:16am.
I completely understand. I was so happy about this finally getting to the Supreme Court. It seems like it took so long, and I was so hopeful that the trampling of our rights would finally be protected. The lawyers representing the states were brilliant. The mandate was unconstitutional, but Roberts found a way to cram a square peg into a round hole. Reports are that Kennedy is furious, and that says quite a lot.
For me, we're running out of time and opportunities to turn this ship around. November is it now.
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
GG...I felt the exact same way...
Submitted by PrairieSky on Mon, 07/02/2012 - 3:59pm.
I really felt that the argument that the states made was terrific, and that the court would see how plainly unconstitutional this law was...I really had confidence that the majority would see that and would rule accordingly. What we got however was a ruling so far out in left field that it's breathtaking...Even the libnuts were taken aback by it. It's like Roberts went looking for some, or any, premise to uphold this law, and why?? Why did he do this?? No one expected a ruling like this, whether one was expecting Obamacare to be upheld or be killed.
I'm very confused and am SO angry at Roberts for his apparent flipping on this...I feel he's a coward and completely caved in to some motivation that hasn't been made clear yet...Hopefully in time, we'll know what his thinking on this was, maybe, but whatever it was that motivated him to apparently reverse course and in so doing abandon his supposed conservative ideals, he betrayed himself, the court, the conservative cause, and above all, the country, with this totally wrongheaded and tragically flawed ruling. Unless Obamacare can be repealed in congress, it will remain the law, and I wonder if Roberts really understands how much damage he has done.
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction...It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them (our children) to do the same." ~President Ronald Reagan
Prairie~
Submitted by GG_NB on Mon, 07/02/2012 - 4:18pm.
Here is the real irony. What we had here was (by any reasonable person's standard) an unconstitional mandate. The Independents are about as opposed to it as Repubs/conservatives, so it's not as though conservatives are just just these crazies not getting it. It is a BAD and WRONG and DISORGANIZED MESS and (still for me) UNCONSTITUTIONAL mandate/law.
And the ruling? It came down to politics (the Court's reputation, IMO). But the outcome of those politics was a LIBERAL decision of bias, from a supposed conservative judge! Oh, the irony. I know I'm stating the obvious, but I just can't believe Roberts forced this to work.
Well on another topic...I just gotta love the legislators and people like Attorney at Law Pam Bondi down in Florida. They are just completely fired up, saying they are NOT implementing this law. They are already hard at work.
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
GG...I know what you mean...No matter how many times...
Submitted by PrairieSky on Mon, 07/02/2012 - 4:53pm.
I think this through and talk it out with others, I still just can't believe that Roberts did this, and that he did it in the manner in which he did. It would appear that the strong arm, intimidation tactics and threats that Obama directed at the court about this ruling clearly worked, at least as far as Roberts is concerned. This was an activist decision on his part, and he completely caved. The fact that he chose to use this particular instance to go completely off the beam and cast what appears to be a politically influenced vote, is even more tragic because of the huge ramifications that it will have on this country forevermore, unless it can be repealed.
As for Florida, I am SO proud of my homestate right now!! They are holding firm on this, and I'm so happy to see it. Pam Bondi is nothing short of amazing...Go get em girl!! It will be interesting to see where this goes, and I'm loving the "we're not backing down" attitude that we're seeing there now...I hope it continues.
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction...It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them (our children) to do the same." ~President Ronald Reagan
Yep, brain freeze~
Submitted by GG_NB on Mon, 07/02/2012 - 6:16pm.
I feel the same way. I read other's comments and pumdits analyzing this, and it just still is the same shock for me. You know, I don't think I'm ever going to be able to absorb what Roberts did.
And I agree with Jimbo...save the Court from what?! What on earth is more secure than lifetime appointments? And if it's concern with the public opinion, the majority are not going to respect them more for wrangling this to make it work like a tax!
And how on earth could jabs before the decision work? How could any of them be intimidated? Could Roberts have been? Why?!
Wow, just not getting this. My head may explode.
P.S. Pam is fabulous. Whenever I hear her, I feel like somehow there is hope. She has a great combo of being very wise, insightful, calm, strong amd determined -- and still just seems like one of the nicest people left on the planet.
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
GG...If it was intimidation by Obama, concern about public...
Submitted by PrairieSky on Mon, 07/02/2012 - 9:10pm.
perception of the court if Obamacare was overturned, or some other asinine, lame reason that he would pull out of thin air, it's clear to me that Roberts doesn't belong on the court, let alone be chief justice.This decision of his is so wrongeheaded, so irresponsible, and so short-sighted in just about every way, that I question his ability to clearly disseminate an issue and make an intelligent, clear-eyed, and constitutional, judgement.
Roberts did not have the constitutionality of Obamacare in mind when he made his decision, that is clear. If he did, he would have ruled to overturn it. He, at some point after appearing to be in favor of striking it down, reversed course and changed his mind, inexplicably, and apparently went looking for a way, any way, to uphold it. Why he did this, we'll likely never know, unfortunately...But the fact that he did vote the way he did, and why he did, is nothing short of astonishing. As far as I'm concerned, Roberts completely disregarded the constitution in his decision and indicated how utterly blind he was and is to the horrendous consequences of allowing Obamacare to stand. In addition, due to his short-sightedness by finding that Obamacare can stand because, according to him, it's a tax, he has opened the door for future administrations and congresses who, looking for a way to mandate that the American people buy something, will only have to look to this decision and call it a tax. There just is no way to understate the damage that Roberts has done.
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction...It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them (our children) to do the same." ~President Ronald Reagan
Prairie~
Submitted by GG_NB on Mon, 07/02/2012 - 10:08pm.
I know. There really is just no excuse for this. If we can believe reports that are out (more than a few) Kennedy was just livid with Roberts...and he was the justice that worked harder than anyone to get Roberts to come to his senses. I still feel this says so much. If Kennedy could very clearly see this was unconstitutional and that the tax thing was a very dangerous dodge, we should all be pretty alarmed that Roberts made a horrendous mistake with untold consequences.
I am of the mindset that we lose our country if we don't fix this in November. I'm scared. I really am. I'll use that to fight for our rights, but I am so tired of waiting for justice. Obama has been the biggest national nightmare. We better get real serious to make sure he can't continue to destroy this country.
Last chance. November. Or it's over.
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
Cant be GG
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 07/02/2012 - 10:30pm.
Sorry GG, this cant be fixed in Nov. It can only be fought in ernest. If we cant get folks with real Heart and prudence in office, we simply cant recover Judge Roberts decision. The leftist on the Court are committed, we have got to quit letting those 9 folks make our decisions. We need a term limit, and a better way to vet them.
Make no mistake, the repeal of Obama care will be seen by this very court. This may take decades, with the never sleeping leftist fighting us all the way.
Im afraid to. Seems we are destine for another Un-Civil war.
GG...Exactly. I had really hoped that we could depend on...
Submitted by PrairieSky on Mon, 07/02/2012 - 10:34pm.
the SCOTUS to recognize what a catastophe that Obamacare is, and this is what we got instead. The fact that the other dissenting justices could plainly see this, and that Roberts could not or would not, is extremely worrying. None of us are going to agree all the time with the decisions of the Supreme Court, obviously. But with Roberts' vote, the court ruled not only to allow Obamacare to stand, but that it is a tax, and that just compounded the whole mess.
As you rightly said, this election in November couldn't be more important...It isn't just a matter of getting rid of Obama, but we must also keep the House and re-take the Senate in order to have any chance of repealing Obamacare. Obama has turned out to be more of a curse to this country than I thought he would be, and I expected him to be a disaster...It is imperative that he and the rest of the Democrats are defeated. The country's well being and future depend on it.
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction...It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them (our children) to do the same." ~President Ronald Reagan
Roberts waitied to see what the results were
Submitted by c5then on Mon, 07/02/2012 - 8:34am.
Then he sided with the opinion that would allow the government to grow and have a nearly unlimited supply of revenue. It's a Nationalist view point that is different than a Constitutional view point.
Their last two decisions have undermined the States soverignty and created a Federal Government that is supreme even in areas where the Constitution does not give it authority.
In addition, his re-writing of not only the law, but of the arguments that were presented to the court create an unconstitutional tax. Even if you agree that the "penalty" for not purchasing health insurance is a "tax", it does not fall into any of the categories of allowable taxes according to the Constitution. Those categories are, 1) import/export/exise taxes; 2) indirect apportioned taxes as per the last census; 3) direct income tax (per the 16th amendment).
So Roberts has created a new tax that is a direct "lack of action" tax. Where did he get that authority from?
Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it!
c5~
Submitted by GG_NB on Mon, 07/02/2012 - 9:01am.
Good question. Notice he never defined the tax?
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
I've been giving this some
Submitted by killa37 on Mon, 07/02/2012 - 1:21pm.
I've been giving this some more thought - in my little country-boy pea-brain - and I'm still rather astonished by the whole thing. ALL of these justices knew what was coming with this case - it wasn't like it just showed up. And we allready knew that the anti-Constitutional libs were going to vote for it - even the 'wise Latina' Sotomoyor, who actually HELPED the government lawyer rumble, bumble, and stumble throught his arguement - voted for it in the face of an argument that was basically laughed out of court.
And, according to everything we've heard and read, Roberts was going to vote against the bill - so he had gone through his own thought process and decision making, just like everybody else. But then - for some as yet unexplained reason (or coercion, or something else) he changes his mind, and gives an explanation for it that is coming from left field somewhere - and explanation for an excuse that NONE of the other justices ever came up with - and casts the winning vote to basically give the US Government the power to do whatever they want anymore.
As Boy Baraka (who is on record for trashing the Supreme Court, publically) crowed ; 'the highest court in the land has spoken'.
And here's the result...
Submitted by GG_NB on Mon, 07/02/2012 - 2:00pm.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/...
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
Michael Barone~
Submitted by GG_NB on Mon, 07/02/2012 - 2:15pm.
I do respect Barome's insights. I can't say it cheers me up much, but he does have a few items in here to reflect upon:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/comm...
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
I have always been a bit uncomfortable about SCOTUS justices...
Submitted by PrairieSky on Mon, 07/02/2012 - 4:40pm.
serving for life...The whole idea of a person with such an ENORMOUS amount of influence on the lives of Americans being able to exercise that influence for decades, has always bothered me. Now, in light of Chief Justice Roberts' vote upholding Obamacare (and opening the door for congress to impose more bad laws on Americans just by calling it a "tax"), I now believe that this idea of lifetime SCOTUS appointments is wrong and should be changed. The impact of bad decisions by those on this court can be and are so profound, and this is a perfect example. What makes it even worse in this case is Justice Roberts is the chief justice, and he is only 57 years old, so theoretically, he could be around to make more catastrophic decisions like this one for another 20+ years. I think the time may have come to seriously consider the idea of term limits for SCOTUS justices.
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction...It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them (our children) to do the same." ~President Ronald Reagan
Prairie~
Submitted by GG_NB on Mon, 07/02/2012 - 4:46pm.
I know. I've always felt there should be limits because as great as I've thought some of them have been, some of them scare me to death! And yes, I'm ever so excited about Roberts being the chief justice. {{^_^}}
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan