Salon: Roberts wrote most of the conservative dissent in the ObamaCare case too

posted at 5:01 pm on July 3, 2012 by Allahpundit

I wondered about this on the afternoon of the decision. It stands to reason: If, as most everyone believes, Roberts initially assigned the majority opinion to himself and then ended up flipping at the eleventh hour, the four conservative dissenters would have had to scramble to come up with an opinion of their own while handling the rest of their caseload. (Roberts authored no other opinions over the final two months of the term so he and his clerks could conceivably have drafted something new from scratch late in the process.) The easiest way to do that would be to salvage Roberts’s orphaned majority opinion — or, at least, the bits he wasn’t keeping for himself — and re-work as necessary. Maybe they took the sections he discarded on the tax power and severability, tacked on their own section rejecting the Commerce Clause argument, and called that a dissent. Using Roberts’s own words against him would have been a pointed rebuke to him for flipping, even if the Court and its clerks are the only ones with enough background on this process to fully appreciate it.

My source insists that “most of the material in the first three quarters of the joint dissent was drafted in Chief Justice Roberts’ chambers in April and May.” Only the last portion of what eventually became the joint dissent was drafted without any participation by the chief justice.

This source insists that the claim [in Jan Crawford’s CBS story] that the joint dissent was drafted from scratch in June is flatly untrue. Furthermore, the source characterizes claims by Crawford’s sources that “the fact that the joint dissent doesn’t mention [sic] Roberts’ majority … was a signal the conservatives no longer wished to engage in debate with him” as “pure propagandistic spin,” meant to explain away the awkward fact that while the first 46 pages of the joint dissent never even mention Roberts’ opinion for the court (this is surely the first time in the court’s history that a dissent has gone on for 13,000 words before getting around to mentioning that it is, in fact, dissenting), the last 19 pages do so repeatedly.

That’s lefty law prof Paul Campos writing for lefty web zine Salon. Did a mischievous liberal clerk leak to them in order to embarrass the conservative dissenters? Could be, except that … this is more embarrassing to Roberts than to Scalia and company. The idea that his words are on both sides of the Court’s decision makes the outcome seem that much more bizarre and his supposedly principled change of heart seem that much more dubious. He’s talking, almost literally, out of both sides of his mouth. It’s a shot at his credibility and the Court’s institutional legitimacy, which was supposedly the basis for his decision, more than it is a shot at the conservative dissenters. Why would a liberal clerk want to sandbag him for siding with them on the biggest case they’ll ever rule on?

Then again, if this is true, why wouldn’t the (presumably conservative) Court sources who leaked to Jan Crawford have simply said so? Obviously, they didn’t borrow his discarded opinion because they’re lazy. They borrowed it because they were pressed for time and/or because they wanted to make a point — or, just maybe, because they held out hope to the bitter end that he’d switch back and join them in striking down the law. By keeping the dissent intact as a potential majority opinion rather than larding it up with language lashing out at Roberts, the four conservatives made it as easy as possible for him to reconsider and climb back aboard right down to the wire. To my mind, that’s the best explanation for the tone of the opinion, the inclusion of the otherwise gratuitous severability section, and the lack of any references to Roberts’s opinion. They weren’t working on a dissent, they were working on a shadow majority, ready to go right out of the box in case Roberts came back into the fold. (Crawford notes that Kennedy was lobbying Roberts up to the last minute, in fact.) That doesn’t settle the issue of who authored most of the eventual dissent — maybe it was mostly Roberts’s draft or maybe it really was co-drafted by Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito with an eye to winning Roberts back over — but it settles most everything else.

Here’s Krauthammer accusing Roberts of letting the left intimidate him. Exit question via TNR: Were Thomas and Kennedy the CBS leakers?



Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

normally reserved for zero, I give “social” justice roberts my standard response …

he sucks

Lost in Jersey on July 3, 2012 at 5:04 PM

Proof of Reincarnation. He’s Roger Taney.

lorien1973 on July 3, 2012 at 5:04 PM

Traitor Roberts: George W. Bush’s legacy and why we don’t want another Bush in the White House.

wildcat72 on July 3, 2012 at 5:06 PM

I’m a schizophrenic… and so am I. /Roberts

ElectricPhase on July 3, 2012 at 5:07 PM

John (Can’t we all just get along) Roberts thinks he can curry favor from the wholey owned subsidiary of the DNC (the MSM) by selling out his principles to get invites to beltway parties.
They laugh at your supidity and will mock and hate you in the end.

Just as conservatives do now…

Kuffar on July 3, 2012 at 5:08 PM

Proof of Reincarnation. He’s Roger Taney.

lorien1973 on July 3, 2012 at 5:04 PM

Mark Levin last night made a good point about some justices and cases were despicable. I wouldn’t say that about Roberts but chicken shit works for me.

arnold ziffel on July 3, 2012 at 5:08 PM

Here’s Krauthammer accusing Roberts of letting the left intimidate him

Would this be the same Krauthammer that called this one of the great constitutional finesses of all time a couple of days ago?

Kataklysmic on July 3, 2012 at 5:09 PM

He should change his name to Sybil.

Ward Cleaver on July 3, 2012 at 5:10 PM

I saw that movie.

de rigueur on July 3, 2012 at 5:12 PM

Would this be the same Krauthammer that called this one of the great constitutional finesses of all time a couple of days ago?

Kataklysmic on July 3, 2012 at 5:09 PM

The RINO Bush worshipers prefer these Souter/Roberts type backstab the conservatives nominees and will protect the Bush that appointed them.

wildcat72 on July 3, 2012 at 5:12 PM

Next we’ll learn that Roberts poured lemon juice on the back of the constitution and found secret instructions from Alexander Hamilton talking about how he installed a loophole in the constitution allowing for the federal government to tax inactivity.

gwelf on July 3, 2012 at 5:13 PM

Wow, we have two wait for at least three centuries until we can see if this guy is brilliant or not.

In the meantime…

the new aesthetic on July 3, 2012 at 5:13 PM

So where is Karl Rove I ask for the fifth or sixth day? I understand he was head Roberts cheerleader? I excuse his absence if he too has been out of the country, but tearing his old good friend a new opening over the phone.

Marcus on July 3, 2012 at 5:14 PM

Good Gawd,its the Roberts NeverEnding HealthCare
Debackle Story!!
(sarc).

canopfor on July 3, 2012 at 5:15 PM

Would this be the same Krauthammer that called this one of the great constitutional finesses of all time a couple of days ago?

Kataklysmic on July 3, 2012 at 5:09 PM

Yup, Krauth has officially hit a-hole status.

cajun carrot on July 3, 2012 at 5:16 PM

I don’t care about the inside baseball speculations anymore, we will never know. My gut tells me he didn’t want bad press and the bodes ill for all future rulings.

Cindy Munford on July 3, 2012 at 5:17 PM

I saw that movie.

de rigueur on July 3, 2012 at 5:12 PM

de rigueur:Now thats,Precious!:)

canopfor on July 3, 2012 at 5:17 PM

Traitor Roberts: George W. Bush’s legacy and why we don’t want another Bush in the White House.

wildcat72 on July 3, 2012 at 5:06 PM

No Roberts, no Alito. I guess you have to decide whether batting 500 is better than batting zero.

RBMN on July 3, 2012 at 5:18 PM

Kataklysmic on July 3, 2012 at 5:09 PM

I think a lot of conservatives, real and imagined, wanted to silver lining this ruling. In the end, you just can’t.

Cindy Munford on July 3, 2012 at 5:19 PM

Can someone please wipe that smirk off of Roberts’ face? He looks way too pleased with himself by half.

UnrepentantCurmudgeon on July 3, 2012 at 5:20 PM

If Kagan had had the ethical standards to stand down and recuse herself this would not have mattered.

LarryinLA on July 3, 2012 at 5:20 PM

I saw that movie.

de rigueur on July 3, 2012 at 5:12 PM

Jeez we’re old, aren’t we?

Ward Cleaver on July 3, 2012 at 5:21 PM

How is New Zealand this time of year? I mean, minus the earthquakes.

the new aesthetic on July 3, 2012 at 5:22 PM

No Roberts, no Alito. I guess you have to decide whether batting 500 is better than batting zero.

RBMN on July 3, 2012 at 5:18 PM

The thing is, you can’t predict what someone’s gonna do, years down the road.

Ward Cleaver on July 3, 2012 at 5:22 PM

wildcat72 on July 3, 2012 at 5:06 PM

He was appointed by George Bush. He isn’t controlled by him.

hawkdriver on July 3, 2012 at 5:22 PM

If Kagan had had the ethical standards

Ethical standards…? Applying to Progressives…?

On what planet are you on…?

Kuffar on July 3, 2012 at 5:23 PM

lorien1973 on July 3, 2012 at 5:04 PM

How is that? One big bad decision?

Cindy Munford on July 3, 2012 at 5:24 PM

Wow, we have two wait for at least three centuries until we can see if this guy is brilliant or not.

That is, if our civilization, and any remnant of this nation still exists then. If we continue to leave education in the hands of leftists, three centuries from now the likes of Joe Biden will be considered an elite among the intelligentsia.

hawkeye54 on July 3, 2012 at 5:24 PM

hawkdriver on July 3, 2012 at 5:22 PM

yes, Bush appointed a squishy moderate “balls and strikes” guy

Slade73 on July 3, 2012 at 5:25 PM

Get that jerk’s smug mug offa my lawn!

annoyinglittletwerp on July 3, 2012 at 5:25 PM

How is that? One big bad decision?

Cindy Munford on July 3, 2012 at 5:24 PM

….”might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit”

lorien1973 on July 3, 2012 at 5:27 PM

hahaha

Slade73 on July 3, 2012 at 5:27 PM

Roberts used to look so handsome to me. Now, I can hardly stand to look at him. Frankly, the possibility that he authored the dissent as well is like rubbing salt in the wounds. Ugh.

KickandSwimMom on July 3, 2012 at 5:27 PM

He should change his name to Sybil.

Ward Cleaver on July 3, 2012 at 5:10 PM

Or Deborah Blau, the schizophrenic heroine of “I Never Promised You a Rose Garden”. Roberts might find himself following Anterrabae, Blau’s imaginary “god” perpetually falling in flames into the abyss.

King Louis XVI of France once boasted “I am the State”.

Roberts can now say: “I am the Supreme Court. I am the majority, and the minority, the Yes and the No.”

Exit question: Can a Supreme Court Justice be impeached for mental illness?

Steve Z on July 3, 2012 at 5:28 PM

Roberts has become a Twilight Zone episode.

MTF on July 3, 2012 at 5:29 PM

I think a lot of conservatives, real and imagined, wanted to silver lining this ruling. In the end, you just can’t.

Cindy Munford on July 3, 2012 at 5:19 PM

No, you can’t, but the superpacs need to get to work telling the voters exactly how this now “constitutional” piece of garbage is going to actually affect their health care and pocket books once it’s implemented and how it will turn us into Greece post haste.

It really doesn’t matter anymore how it became law; it matters as to how it will destroy the country going forward.

TXUS on July 3, 2012 at 5:30 PM

Would this be the same Krauthammer that called this one of the great constitutional finesses of all time a couple of days ago?
Kataklysmic on July 3, 2012 at 5:09 PM

Roberts argues against himself in his ruling, to be criticized by Krauthammer just days after being praised, also by Krauthammer.

It’s like whatever madness possessed the former hotair commenter Race Card is spreading to the population at large!

RINO in Name Only on July 3, 2012 at 5:30 PM

Next we’ll learn that Roberts poured lemon juice on the back of the constitution and found secret instructions from Alexander Hamilton talking about how he installed a loophole in the constitution allowing for the federal government to tax inactivity.

gwelf on July 3, 2012 at 5:13 PM

Now that wouldn’t surprise me! Salon? Good grief!! So Crawford at CBS got it all wrong? Hmmmm

bluefox on July 3, 2012 at 5:31 PM

Here’s Krauthammer accusing Roberts of letting the left intimidate him

Would this be the same Krauthammer that called this one of the great constitutional finesses of all time a couple of days ago?

Kataklysmic on July 3, 2012 at 5:09 PM

Yeah, seriously. He’s as bipolar as Roberts seems to be in these rumours.

dgarone on July 3, 2012 at 5:32 PM

I guess if you can rule the mandate a tax and constitutional and at the same time rule it “not a tax” so you don’t have to throw the case out, it’s no problem to write both the majority and dissenting opinions.

Apparently Chief Justice Roberts was constitutionally against the mandate before he was for it.

Perhaps he’ll move to Massachusetts, marry a very rich widow, and then become the Democratic nominee for president one day. That certainly is no more farfetched than his ruling.

MessesWithTexas on July 3, 2012 at 5:32 PM

I’m sure the Krauthammer was just temporarily confused

Slade73 on July 3, 2012 at 5:32 PM

I think Roberts ruling was horribly wrong but I’m going to see how it develops over time before I judge him too harshly. Perhaps his decision, by leaving Obamneycare on the table, will lead to a landslide victory for President Gary Johnson, and freedom, liberty and fiscal responsibility will finally make progress for a change against the constant advance of tyranny.

The decision is wrong, but maybe it will work out for the best if people react to it by doing their civic duty, IMO, and voting for Gary Johnson who is the only candidate that didn’t have anything to do with Obama/Romneycare.

FloatingRock on July 3, 2012 at 5:32 PM

It’s like whatever madness possessed the former hotair commenter Race Card is spreading to the population at large!

RINO in Name Only on July 3, 2012 at 5:30 PM

Nonsense! Don’t be ridiculous.

RINO in Name Only on July 3, 2012 at 5:32 PM

It’s like whatever madness possessed the former hotair commenter Race Card is spreading to the population at large!

RINO in Name Only on July 3, 2012 at 5:30 PM

I blame it on Cyber’s collie.

lorien1973 on July 3, 2012 at 5:34 PM

It’s like whatever madness possessed the former hotair commenter Race Card is spreading to the population at large!

RINO in Name Only on July 3, 2012 at 5:30 PM

TRC wasn’t a bad dude on the rare occasion that he was discussing something other than politics. And compared to this new batch of trolls he was a gentlemen and scholar.

Kataklysmic on July 3, 2012 at 5:34 PM

lorien1973 on July 3, 2012 at 5:27 PM

Oh, good Lord! Save me from all that these people want to do for my benefit.

Cindy Munford on July 3, 2012 at 5:35 PM

Is this a thread where we tear Robert’s to pieces for ignoring The Constitution for frivolous reasons or is this one where we agree he was right and everyone should push his narrative on it being a tax?
Confusing times.

lowandslow on July 3, 2012 at 5:35 PM

King Louis XVI of France once boasted “I am the State”.

Roberts can now say: “I am the Supreme Court. I am the majority, and the minority, the Yes and the No.”

Steve Z on July 3, 2012 at 5:28 PM

Le cour c’est moi?

Good Solid B-Plus on July 3, 2012 at 5:35 PM

Something tells me the first Monday in October is going to be more than a little awkward after Roberts’ defection and betrayal of the Constitution. Yes, I said and meant it.

Roberts tag teamed with the left to rip a hole in the US Constitution. He’s appointed for life but utterly unfit for the office he holds. He is right up there with Chief Justice Roger B Taney who wrote the majority opinon that the Congress had no authority to restrict the spread of slavery into federal territories, and that such previous attempts to restrict slavery’s spread as the 1820 Missouri Compromise were unconstitutional. There is little difference between this astounding view and the idea that a Chief Justice would sit down with a blank legal pad and re-write a law to make it “constitutional” based on something other than the government’s case.

Did I mention the bastard was unfit for office? And we thought we dodged a bullet when Harriet Meirs’ nomination was withdrawn.

Happy Nomad on July 3, 2012 at 5:35 PM

FloatingRock on July 3, 2012 at 5:32 PM

yeah, er…perhaps that

Slade73 on July 3, 2012 at 5:35 PM

I don’t know when the Dissent opinions were given, but read that the deadline to turn them in was June 15, 2012. I find it hard to believe that Roberts wrote the Dissents.

bluefox on July 3, 2012 at 5:36 PM

TXUS on July 3, 2012 at 5:30 PM

I agree, more information needs to hit the airwaves. Now!

Cindy Munford on July 3, 2012 at 5:36 PM

…now he’s just a P O S politician!

KOOLAID2 on July 3, 2012 at 5:37 PM

Oh, good Lord! Save me from all that these people want to do for my benefit.

Cindy Munford on July 3, 2012 at 5:35 PM

Never thought it was interesting that people wanting to save you from yourself are making the identical arguments of the people who wanted to keep the blacks as slaves?

lorien1973 on July 3, 2012 at 5:38 PM

Roberts should stay on the island where he is. He did more damage to our our Constitution..than any other justice.

Redford on July 3, 2012 at 5:38 PM

Back in 2009-2010 I got fired-up about this kind of crap. RINO and liberal hunting was fun. Now, after a disappointing (to me)primary, the upholding of Obamacare, flying gay pride rainbow flags in the military, granting defacto amnesty to illegals and on and on . . . I’m just becoming (un)comfortably numb. This administration is just bombarding this country with transformation and my brain and emotions are in overload. Is anyone else feeling this way or do I just need a strong adult beverage????

KickandSwimMom on July 3, 2012 at 5:38 PM

lowandslow on July 3, 2012 at 5:35 PM

Like all of them, it’s both depending on whether you are an optimist or not. Oddly enough, I use to think I was an optimist.

Cindy Munford on July 3, 2012 at 5:38 PM

Traitor Roberts: George W. Bush’s legacy and why we don’t want another Bush in the White House.

wildcat72 on July 3, 2012 at 5:06 PM

No Roberts, no Alito. I guess you have to decide whether batting 500 is better than batting zero.

RBMN on July 3, 2012 at 5:18 PM

In fairness to Bush, Roberts wasn’t a bad replacement for the retiring Sandra Day O’Connor, who also wrote some “squishy” opinions, even after being appointed by Ronaldus Maximus.

Bush’s big mistake was promoting Roberts (who was the youngest Justice, and releatively unknown at the time) to Chief Justice after Rehnquist’s death. Bush was trying to “kill two birds with one stone” by promoting an already-confirmed Justice to Chief Justice (to replace Rehnquist), then appoint another associate Justice (eventually Alito) to replace O’Connor.

In retrospect, Bush should have promoted Scalia to Chief Justice, then begun the search for Alito. This may have been more difficult, but Bush had 55 Republican Senators to help confirmations at the time. If Scalia had been Chief Justice, Roberts could not have assigned the “majority” opinion to himself, which probably would have been written by Ginsburg, with a “concurrence” from Roberts.

Steve Z on July 3, 2012 at 5:39 PM

voting for Gary Johnson who is the only candidate that didn’t have anything to do with Obama/Romneycare.

FloatingRock on July 3, 2012 at 5:32 PM

…FOL!

KOOLAID2 on July 3, 2012 at 5:39 PM

If Kagan had had the ethical standards to stand down and recuse herself this would not have mattered.

LarryinLA on July 3, 2012 at 5:20 PM

I can’t remember at the moment where I read it, but didn’t Roberts say she didn’t need to?

bluefox on July 3, 2012 at 5:39 PM

Is this a thread where we tear Robert’s to pieces for ignoring The Constitution for frivolous reasons or is this one where we agree he was right and everyone should push his narrative on it being a tax?
Confusing times.

lowandslow on July 3, 2012 at 5:35 PM

Put me down for the tearing Roberts to pieces camp. But beyond that, the fact that the administration is arguing that it isn’t a tax even though that is the sole basis for making Obamacare “constitutional” does indeed make for confusing times.

Roberts is a scumbag no matter what. That much is certain.

Happy Nomad on July 3, 2012 at 5:40 PM

KickandSwimMom on July 3, 2012 at 5:38 PM

Well, he said he would fundamentally transform the country and by golly, he has. I would consider taking up drinking if I thought it would help but I have met me.

Cindy Munford on July 3, 2012 at 5:40 PM

Give it time, folks –

The Dems are just starting to realize that they are royally screwed.
Either Obamacare is a tax or it’s unconstitutional.

And many of the states are going to pass on all of that “new” Medicaid money because they see it for the poison apple that it is.

That’s going to raise the cost to the Feds, and THAT will drive up the CBO score.

Be patient.

In the meantime, start drafting a Constitutional Amendment that can be stomached by EVERYONE in Congress (see the Comments section for a great suggestion):

http://is.gd/PZOHCM

TeresainFortWorth on July 3, 2012 at 5:41 PM

“As president, Mitt will nominate judges in the mold of Chief Justice Roberts …”

besser tot als rot on July 3, 2012 at 5:43 PM

Can someone please wipe that smirk off of Roberts’ face? He looks way too pleased with himself by half.

UnrepentantCurmudgeon

it looks like here’s a canary in there trying to get out…. oh, it’s the constitution he just ate with his mad hatter/ sybil ruling…

mittens on July 3, 2012 at 5:43 PM

On Republican Appointed SC Judges………………

…………..ahem,

********************** FREE WILL ***************************!!

canopfor on July 3, 2012 at 5:43 PM

The Dems are just starting to realize that they are royally screwed.
Either Obamacare is a tax or it’s unconstitutional.

TeresainFortWorth on July 3, 2012 at 5:41 PM

Should be unconstitutional either way.

besser tot als rot on July 3, 2012 at 5:43 PM

TRC wasn’t a bad dude on the rare occasion that he was discussing something other than politics. And compared to this new batch of trolls he was a gentlemen and scholar.

Kataklysmic on July 3, 2012 at 5:34 PM

Yeah, now that I think of it, I don’t think he was all bad politically either, if I remember correctly. He might have made some unjustifed accusations of bigotry at times, but he also called some trolls out for playing the race card, I think. I believe he was pretty firmly against affirmative action, as well. I don’t remember too well where he stood on other issues.

I also always figured the whole talking to himself was just part of a sort of quirky sense of humor.

He did seem to have a bit of a temper, though, and as I recall, he was banned for proposing a real-world fight with another commenter.

RINO in Name Only on July 3, 2012 at 5:43 PM

I can’t remember at the moment where I read it, but didn’t Roberts say she didn’t need to?

bluefox on July 3, 2012 at 5:39 PM

It’s a little more introspective than that. The SCOTUS sorta leaves it to the individual Justice to decide if they need to recuse themselves. Clarence Thomas came under fire because his wife actively worked against Obamacare and he voted too.

IMO Kagan clearly had a conflict of interest and should have recused herself but the only reason she ended up on the SCOTUS was because she was a sure vote for upholding Obamacare. You dance with the one that brought you.

Happy Nomad on July 3, 2012 at 5:44 PM

Seriously? He wrote both opinions? How much more ridiculous can this get? SC of One…good grief.

ellifint on July 3, 2012 at 5:45 PM

I’m still just stunned. It’s days later, and I just can’t wrap my mind around what was going through Roberts’ head. There are times when I actually pull on my tinfoil hat and wonder if he was threatened by someone. It’s THAT mystifying.

Krauthammer arrives, finally, at the only conclusion I’ve been able to draw myself though… that he did it because he’s insecure in his role and afraid to be accused of partisanship. I don’t know HOW he could look down the bench at the likes of Sotomayor and Kagan (Elena ‘let-them-eat-broccoli’ Kagan for pete’s sake!), and not feel confident in his judicial superiority to those two lightweight thinkers.

Murf76 on July 3, 2012 at 5:45 PM

So, if Bill’s theory is correct, Roberts is trying to be the anti-John Marshall? He’s trying to reverse Marbury? Get the courts out of the constitutionality business altogether and let the congress and president be the final arbiter of what is and is not constitutional?

besser tot als rot on July 3, 2012 at 5:45 PM

“As president, Mitt will nominate judges in the mold of Chief Justice Roberts …”

besser tot als rot on July 3, 2012 at 5:43 PM

This is where the public needs to insist on nominees who believe in original intent.

Happy Nomad on July 3, 2012 at 5:46 PM

TeresainFortWorth on July 3, 2012 at 5:41 PM

She’s right. It’s not a tax. And if you folks don’t want to live in chains and slavery, you’d better agree with that. Congress already has the power to tax you. If all it has to do is impose a monetary fine and have the IRS administer it, Congress can do absolutely anything to you and call it a “tax.”

You’re shooting yourself in the head to call the mandate a “tax.”

J.E. Dyer on July 3, 2012 at 5:11 PM

I think they are just trying to figure out ways to expand the use of the ruling.

Cindy Munford on July 3, 2012 at 5:46 PM

Roberts should stay on the island where he is. He did more damage to our our Constitution..than any other justice.

Redford on July 3, 2012 at 5:38 PM

Well, he did say this: “Malta, as you know, is an impregnable island fortress.” Maybe we can keep him from getting out:-)

bluefox on July 3, 2012 at 5:47 PM

Oh and can you imagine if he did this, but switched his vote *against* the bill?!

ellifint on July 3, 2012 at 5:48 PM

Why would a liberal clerk want to sandbag him for siding with them on the biggest case they’ll ever rule on?

This says it all. On the one case that we needed Roberts with us, he was a coward and a turncoat. On the case that really mattered he thoroughly capitulated. For shame.

besser tot als rot on July 3, 2012 at 5:50 PM

d1carter on July 3, 2012 at 5:46 PM

I don’t think they are alone in their thinking.

Cindy Munford on July 3, 2012 at 5:50 PM

This administration is just bombarding this country with transformation and my brain and emotions are in overload. Is anyone else feeling this way or do I just need a strong adult beverage????

KickandSwimMom on July 3, 2012 at 5:38 PM

I can relate to the overload. I am trying to cope by reminding myself that if you give some enough rope they will hang themselves.

Don’t partake of adult beverages, but if I changed my mind, I probably wouldn’t stop at one, LOL

bluefox on July 3, 2012 at 5:51 PM

Should be unconstitutional either way.
besser tot als rot on July 3, 2012 at 5:43 PM

The Democrats get to pick their poison.

Either they keep Obamacare – thus raising taxes exorbitantly on every American citizen – or they decide it isn’t worth it.

They are stuck.

Remember, THEY are the ones who wanted to have it both ways.

Now they do.
Roberts gave them two “ways” – neither of which is very palatable to the Democrats.

And remember, Obamacare ONLY covers insurance premiums – not co-pays or deductibles.

Keep driving that little factoid home, and you’re gonna have some royally pissed-off people on your hands.

TeresainFortWorth on July 3, 2012 at 5:52 PM

You’re shooting yourself in the head to call the mandate a “tax.”

J.E. Dyer on July 3, 2012 at 5:11 PM

I think they are just trying to figure out ways to expand the use of the ruling.

Cindy Munford on July 3, 2012 at 5:46 PM

It doesn’t matter what we call it. Legally and presidentially, it is a tax. So now, thanks to John “Bringer of Tyranny” Roberts, the congress has the power to mandate the crap out of us. Under the tax power. And what we call it doesn’t make a bit of difference.

besser tot als rot on July 3, 2012 at 5:52 PM

Cindy Munford on July 3, 2012 at 5:50 PM

Yep, it is heating up…can we even use the “R” word here..?

d1carter on July 3, 2012 at 5:53 PM

Is anyone else feeling this way or do I just need a strong adult beverage????

KickandSwimMom on July 3, 2012 at 5:38 PM

You aren’t alone. I feel the same way. A good, strong adult beverage might help, as long as you keep drinking. But, I don’t think there’s enough alcohol in the world to keep both of us in an adequate Obama stupor.

kakypat on July 3, 2012 at 5:53 PM

TeresainFortWorth on July 3, 2012 at 5:41 PM

First off, I gotta say that I love Fort Worth. I travel there several times a year and it provides sanity from the commies of my normal routine here in Northern Virginia.

That being said, I’ve got to disagree with you about being patient. Now is the time to be fired up! Patience was watching Obama go through the process to get a hearing by the SCOTUS where Benedict Roberts tore asunder the Constitution. Now is the time to double down on electing those who will destroy Obamacare.

Happy Nomad on July 3, 2012 at 5:54 PM

I don’t know, but I can’t take anything from Salon seriously.

MechanicalBill on July 3, 2012 at 5:55 PM

Someone said it earlier – but it bears repeating. This should have sealed any glimmer of hope that Jebediah Bush ever had at the presidency. I still like Dubya – but Roberts was his appointment. And CJ appointment at that.

A true conservative would have appointed Scalia or Thomas or Alito to the CJ seat and left this Roberts eighwhole as an associate. Go with the known commodity. Nope – Dubs wanted to be the guy who appointed the chief. He’s like Al Davis hiring an unknown coach. Wants to be the guy that found the diamond in the rough instead of hiring the guy that gave him a known result.

If the left had any idea what a gift Dubya was to them, they wouldn’t be so hard on him all the time.

CycloneCDB on July 3, 2012 at 5:55 PM

I was willing to, and did, give Roberts the benefit of the doubt at first. Thinking he was clever for putting the dems in a rather tight fitting box, and he did, but that’s incidental now I think. A side effect of his flippage.

I no longer give him the benefit of the doubt. I think he’s WEAK and fell for whatever pressure/promises/graft that was directed his way. It no longer matters what he says or thinks he did, not to me. To me he’s another RINO for sale.

Eff him.

Wolfmoon on July 3, 2012 at 5:55 PM

Is this a thread where we tear Robert’s to pieces for ignoring The Constitution for frivolous reasons or is this one where we agree he was right and everyone should push his narrative on it being a tax?
Confusing times.

lowandslow on July 3, 2012 at 5:35 PM

You don’t have to agree that Roberts was right when you use his same reasoning that won the day for the other side against them. Almost a form of reductio ad absurdum. David hacked off Goliath’s head with the Philistine’s own sword.

de rigueur on July 3, 2012 at 5:56 PM

The Flow Chart Thingy
_______________________

The Requirement to Buy Coverage Under the Affordable Care Act
**************************************************************

Along with changes to the health insurance system that guarantee access to coverage to everyone regardless of pre-existing health conditions, the Affordable Care Act includes a requirement that many people be insured or pay a penalty. This simple flowchart illustrates how that requirement (sometimes known as an “individual mandate”) works.

http://healthreform.kff.org/the-basics/Requirement-to-buy-coverage-flowchart.aspx
****************************

The Requirement to Buy Coverage Under the Affordable Care Act
Beginning in 2014

http://healthreform.kff.org/~/media/Files/KHS/Flowcharts/requirement_flowchart_2.pdf

canopfor on July 3, 2012 at 5:57 PM

Now is the time to double down on electing those who will destroy Obamacare.
Happy Nomad on July 3, 2012 at 5:54 PM

I just meant “Be patient” in regards to waiting for the Dems to figure out the tar pit that they just got tossed into.

I wholeheartedly agree that we don’t sit on our hands and mope – that “Sleeping Giant” just got nudged again, and he isn’t happy about it.

As Sarah said, we’re not retreating, we’re reloading….

TeresainFortWorth on July 3, 2012 at 5:58 PM

This was most likely Justice Thomas re-paying Crawford for her fair and honest portrayal of him on PBS back in the day. I’ll take her source’s word for it a thousand times anyone working for Joan Walsh.

AmeriCuda on July 3, 2012 at 5:59 PM

KickandSwimMom on July 3, 2012 at 5:38 PM

You are not alone. We are all numb, and that is apart of the plan.

esr1951 on July 3, 2012 at 5:59 PM

IMO Kagan clearly had a conflict of interest and should have recused herself but the only reason she ended up on the SCOTUS was because she was a sure vote for upholding Obamacare. You dance with the one that brought you.

Happy Nomad on July 3, 2012 at 5:44 PM

Thanks. I’ll see if I can find what I read. I agree she should have recused herself, but then that would have negated the reason she was there:-)

bluefox on July 3, 2012 at 5:59 PM

So, if Bill’s theory is correct, Roberts is trying to be the anti-John Marshall?

besser tot als rot on July 3, 2012 at 5:45 PM

I posted this earlier today. I think it answers your question…

“Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.

- Chief Justice John Roberts, National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. ___ (2012)

“We admit, as all must admit, that the powers of the Government are limited, and that its limits are not to be transcended. But we think the sound construction of the Constitution must allow to the national legislature that discretion with respect to the means by which the powers it confers are to be carried into execution which will enable that body to perform the high duties assigned to it in the manner most beneficial to the people. Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional.

Should Congress, in the execution of its powers, adopt measures which are prohibited by the Constitution, or should Congress, under the pretext of executing its powers, pass laws for the accomplishment of objects not entrusted to the Government, it would become the painful duty of this tribunal, should a case requiring such a decision come before it, to say that such an act was not the law of the land.

- Chief Justice John Marshall, McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819)

So, while Roberts is correct that elections do have consequences, he seems to flippantly ignore that fact that elected officials do not have unlimited power between them. The Constitution protects the people from the government…even when the people have elected said government, if the latter acts in contradiction to the law. Furthermore, the Constitution protects minorities from “tyranny of the majority.” The United States is a Republic, not a democracy, and the Court’s job is to protect the 4 wolves from unconstitutionally eating the sheep at dinner.

Resist We Much on July 3, 2012 at 6:00 PM

Happy Nomad on July 3, 2012 at 5:54 PM

Look us up the next time you’re in Fort Worth – we’d love to buy you dinner!

TeresainFortWorth on July 3, 2012 at 6:00 PM

David hacked off Goliath’s head with the Philistine’s own sword.

de rigueur on July 3, 2012 at 5:56 PM

\

But David had to use his own sling and a rock to knock Goliath unconscious first. Even David had the good sense not to try and go toe-to-toe.

gryphon202 on July 3, 2012 at 6:00 PM

This administration is just bombarding this country with transformation and my brain and emotions are in overload. Is anyone else feeling this way or do I just need a strong adult beverage????

KickandSwimMom on July 3, 2012 at 5:38 PM

I suspect you are probably more polite than I am. What you see “transformation” I see the wholesale looting of everything this nation has stood for since 1789 and the adoption of the US Constitution. It seems to me like Obama and his radical administration has a sense they may be out of power soon and are doubling down with “transformation.”

Happy Nomad on July 3, 2012 at 6:03 PM

I think Roberts ruling was horribly wrong but I’m going to see how it develops over time before I judge him too harshly….

FloatingRock on July 3, 2012 at 5:32 PM

Judge him or not judge him, this is pure schadenfreude right now. He sacrificed the U.S. Constitution to burnish his image; however, every bit of news that drips out ensures quite a different place for him in the pantheon of U.S. Chief Justices.

PopsRacer on July 3, 2012 at 6:03 PM

But David had to use his own sling and a rock to knock Goliath unconscious first. Even David had the good sense not to try and go toe-to-toe.

gryphon202 on July 3, 2012 at 6:00 PM

November’s coming. Rock the vote?

de rigueur on July 3, 2012 at 6:03 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3