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

There is a very large snapping turtle floating belly up in my fish pond. I’ve named him ‘Roberts’.

The reasoning should be fairly obvious.

Wolfmoon on July 3, 2012 at 6:03 PM

Versatility.

Bipolar.

VorDaj on July 3, 2012 at 6:04 PM

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.

Allah

It just keeps getting worse.

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

Ummm…because liberals are lying, hypocritical nitwits?

Jaibones on July 3, 2012 at 6:04 PM

Freak for life.

Pork-Chop on July 3, 2012 at 6:05 PM

d1carter on July 3, 2012 at 5:53 PM

I believe it is off the moderator filter but thoughts like those will probably get it put back.

Cindy Munford on July 3, 2012 at 6:05 PM

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

You’ll have to forgive my complete and utter lack of enthusiasm. Fortunately, excitement is not a prerequisite to doing the right thing.

gryphon202 on July 3, 2012 at 6:06 PM

Bipolar.

VorDaj on July 3, 2012 at 6:04 PM

He plays for both teams….legally speaking. Not that there’s anything wrong with….oh, actually there is.

ElectricPhase on July 3, 2012 at 6:08 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

At a minimum, Romney needs to disagree with the opinion and update his website to remove Roberts as the model jurist for nomination. Romney is very, very weak on judges and his refusal to say anything about the merits of this case, or update his judicial model is an absolute deal breaker for me.

besser tot als rot on July 3, 2012 at 6:09 PM

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

Slade73 on July 3, 2012 at 5:25 PM

Yup. Now Roberts has no balls and one (1) strike. Could it be that Roberts has a streak of narcissism in him that he wants dibs in the history books regarding Obamacare?

timberline on July 3, 2012 at 6:11 PM

There is a very large snapping turtle floating belly up in my fish pond. I’ve named him ‘Roberts’.

The reasoning should be fairly obvious.

Wolfmoon on July 3, 2012 at 6:03 PM

Ben Nelson is a stand up guy compared to Traitor Turtle Roberts.

SparkPlug on July 3, 2012 at 6:12 PM

Multi-tasking Schizophrenic Court Justice Roberts.

He needs a medical exam to make sure this isn’t something organic.

Seriously.

He may have a brain tumor causing this bizarre behavior.

profitsbeard on July 3, 2012 at 6:12 PM

He may have a brain tumor causing this bizarre behavior.

profitsbeard on July 3, 2012 at 6:12 PM

You could be right. This is just plain fluffin nutty.

SparkPlug on July 3, 2012 at 6:13 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

bluefox:

Google (Elana Kagen canopfor),and all the goodies that I
posted will pop up,like the one below!!!:)

Radical?
===============

Dean Kagan accepts award from Equal Justice Works

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrJsh7O8z3s
=======
========
http://www.equaljusticeworks.org/

———————————————–

Lambda Legal Statement on the Nomination of Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court

“While we don’t expect a nominee to answer questions about how she would rule on specific issues that will come before her, we do expect that she will respond to questions about her judicial philosophy and her understanding of core constitutional principals of equal protection and privacy that are so crucial to the civil rights of people who face discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity and/or HIV status.”
==============================================

http://www.lambdalegal.org/news/pr/lambda-legal-statement-on-the-1.html

canopfor on May 15, 2010 at 12:42 PM

canopfor on July 3, 2012 at 6:13 PM

You’ll have to forgive my complete and utter lack of enthusiasm. Fortunately, excitement is not a prerequisite to doing the right thing.

gryphon202 on July 3, 2012 at 6:06 PM

We’re probably on the same wavelength. In the absence of enthusiasm, I tend to lower my head and push on anyway when the point is to get the job done. But we can enjoy the grim irony of using “the Obamacare mandate is a big fat regressive tax” (even though it’s a Roberts invention, unlike any tax defined n the Constitution or the tax laws) against the party and President that Roberts’ ruling benefitted.

de rigueur on July 3, 2012 at 6:14 PM

Bipolar.

VorDaj on July 3, 2012 at 6:04 PM

Agreed!

cajunpatriot on July 3, 2012 at 6:14 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

Absolutely! In fact, my minimum standard for a Justice or any other federal jurist would be that he or she must start every deliberation with the question, “What would the Founders do?” and “What would the Founders NOT do?”

Can you imagine handing Madison or Jefferson or any of the others a 2700 page bill that not a single MC or Senator read and was passed only via political bribes and kickbacks, a bill that would impose every conceivable control over the freedoms of the citizenry and with a price tag in the trillions (okay, I’ll inflation-adjust, “in the billions”), and say, “Hey guys, whatcha think, is this something like you had in mind, you down with this?”

I’d go even a step further. Once confirmed, each jurist would be required to wear two embossed bracelets, one for each wrist, whenever on official duty, inscribed “WWTFD?” and “WWTFND?”, respectively.

TXUS on July 3, 2012 at 6:14 PM

At a minimum, Romney needs to disagree with the opinion and update his website to remove Roberts as the model jurist for nomination. Romney is very, very weak on judges and his refusal to say anything about the merits of this case, or update his judicial model is an absolute deal breaker for me.

besser tot als rot on July 3, 2012 at 6:09 PM

Romney has other problems. Romney, Obama Agree: Health-Mandate Penalty Isn’t a Tax.

timberline on July 3, 2012 at 6:15 PM

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

When I read stuff like the following I just don’t believe that Obama is on the way out:

http://decoded.nationaljournal.com/2012/07/romney-campaign-avoiding-healt.php

Romney was and is the worst nominee to argue in the public arena against Obamacare and when I read that he may just punt on it to focus on the economy it sickens me. Even if he decides to fight the battle for repeal he has to rely on the twin boob generals: McConnell and Boehner. Does that look like a recipe for repeal to you? McConnell will wave the white flag while Boehner cries.

Be back soon. I’m definitely visiting my liquor cabinet -

KickandSwimMom on July 3, 2012 at 6:18 PM

When your Mom can’t get that surgery approved because of IPAB or one of the other death panels created by ObamaCare……

And she’s laying there dying…….remember Barry and chief justice roberts.

PappyD61 on July 3, 2012 at 6:19 PM

He was against it before he was for it.

Sooper Genius.

beatcanvas on July 3, 2012 at 6:20 PM

We’re probably on the same wavelength. In the absence of enthusiasm, I tend to lower my head and push on anyway when the point is to get the job done. But we can enjoy the grim irony of using “the Obamacare mandate is a big fat regressive tax” (even though it’s a Roberts invention, unlike any tax defined n the Constitution or the tax laws) against the party and President that Roberts’ ruling benefitted.

de rigueur on July 3, 2012 at 6:14 PM

I’m one of the old-fashioned fuddy-duddies who believe Marbury V Madison was itself a crock of shit, and that “judicial review” has no place in American jurisprudence. We should devolve the power back to the state legislatures where it belongs.

NULLIFY THE BASTARD.

So much for being on the same wavelength, eh?

gryphon202 on July 3, 2012 at 6:21 PM

When your granddaughter is told by the unionized doctor that the state will not provide any further care unless she aborts because the child has been identified as having a possible obesity gene…….

Remember Barry and chief justice roberts.

PappyD61 on July 3, 2012 at 6:21 PM

He may have a brain tumor causing this bizarre behavior.

profitsbeard on July 3, 2012 at 6:12 PM

You could be right. This is just plain fluffin nutty.

SparkPlug on July 3, 2012 at 6:13 PM

Bipolar.

VorDaj on July 3, 2012 at 6:04 PM

Agreed!

cajunpatriot on July 3, 2012 at 6:14 PM

Was thinking about that earlier. There are plenty of political thrillers in which it’s discovered that the ship’s captain or the General with the ICM launch codes or the Commander in Chief is insane. Anybody know of one about an out-of-whack Chief Justice?

de rigueur on July 3, 2012 at 6:22 PM

He may have a brain tumor causing this bizarre behavior.

Not unless all lawyers have brain tumors.

mkenorthshore on July 3, 2012 at 6:23 PM

When the last Catholic hospital in America closes because they perform Abortions…….

Remember Barry and chief justice roberts (not worthy of the respect to capitalize his title/name).

PappyD61 on July 3, 2012 at 6:24 PM

Romney has other problems. Romney, Obama Agree: Health-Mandate Penalty Isn’t a Tax.

timberline on July 3, 2012 at 6:15 PM

It’s not a tax. Of course, if it is not a tax, it also is unconstitutional, as the dissenters argued and with which Romney agrees.

Resist We Much on July 3, 2012 at 6:24 PM

Because they WON’T perform abortions….

PappyD61 on July 3, 2012 at 6:25 PM

Remember Barry and chief justice roberts.

PappyD61 on July 3, 2012 at 6:21 PM

PappyD61:That reminds me of Alan Grayson`s spectacle,on the
House Floor!

‘Republicans Want You To die’`…..!!!:)

canopfor on July 3, 2012 at 6:27 PM

Right where Roberts wanted to be.

All hail the Umpire!

Valiant on July 3, 2012 at 6:27 PM

Romney is very, very weak on judges and his refusal to say anything about the merits of this case, or update his judicial model is an absolute deal breaker for me.

besser tot als rot on July 3, 2012 at 6:09 PM

By coincidence (and a complete non sequitor), I watched the Roberts confirmation hearings on a trip to Boston in 2005 when Mitt Romney was Governor of Massachusetts. I was impressed with Roberts, anyone would be. He answered complex questions in the manner that you would want in a SCOTUS nominee. He has essentially lived up to that impression until now. Which is why I can’t figure out what changed.

I agree with you that Romney needs to weigh in on this ruling. If elected, Mitt Romney will have to impose this tax that is not a tax on the American public. He needs to have an opinion on this issue.

Happy Nomad on July 3, 2012 at 6:27 PM

I agree with you that Romney needs to weigh in on this ruling. If elected, Mitt Romney will have to impose this tax that is not a tax on the American public. He needs to have an opinion on this issue.

Happy Nomad on July 3, 2012 at 6:27 PM

I think Mitt is smart not to weigh in on this ruling. He should stick to talking about the economy (of which health care is 1/7 and growing, by the by). Viva Mitt!

/Rombots

gryphon202 on July 3, 2012 at 6:29 PM

Fox just did a story on HHS writing all their rules and regulations for what we must all now carry in the way of healthcare. There are 13,000 pages and they are just getting started.

Cindy Munford on July 3, 2012 at 6:29 PM

Why does this feel more and more to me like someone got to Chief Justice Roberts? Did the Dems get some dirt on him they missed or that wasn’t there during his confirmation hearing.

I’ve got nothing to back this up, it’s just a feeling I get from all the conflicting evidence and the twisted reasoning used.

FireDrake on July 3, 2012 at 6:29 PM

Why does this feel more and more to me like someone got to Chief Justice Roberts? Did the Dems get some dirt on him they missed or that wasn’t there during his confirmation hearing.

I’ve got nothing to back this up, it’s just a feeling I get from all the conflicting evidence and the twisted reasoning used.

FireDrake on July 3, 2012 at 6:29 PM

Ginsburg threatened to expose their affair.

TXUS on July 3, 2012 at 6:33 PM

So much for being on the same wavelength, eh?

gryphon202 on July 3, 2012 at 6:21 PM

What’s the frequency, Kenneth? Seriously, I still believe we probably have a similar attitude or approach to the immediate matter at hand. Maybe this can undone, repealed, reversed or constitutionally abolished. Maybe not. In any case, we’ll try. After that, devolve as much power back to the states as we can, yes, indeed.

As for going back to Marbury vs. Madison, history is full of wrong turns, and that’s a long way back to go to take the right fork on that one. Perhaps in your lifetime, certainly not mine. Some causes stay lost.

We cannot revive old factions
We cannot restore old policies
Or follow an antique drum.
These men, and those who opposed them
And those whom they opposed
Accept the constitution of silence
And are folded in a single party.

–T. S. Eliot, Four Quartets, Little Gidding

de rigueur on July 3, 2012 at 6:34 PM

He may have a brain tumor causing this bizarre behavior.

Not unless all lawyers have brain tumors.

mkenorthshore on July 3, 2012 at 6:23 PM

Nolo contendere.

profitsbeard on July 3, 2012 at 6:35 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

You are not alone. Exactly how I feel!

silvernana on July 3, 2012 at 6:36 PM

…history is full of wrong turns, and that’s a long way back to go to take the right fork on that one. Perhaps in your lifetime, certainly not mine. Some causes stay lost.

de rigueur on July 3, 2012 at 6:34 PM

I hope you’re wrong. I fear you’re right.

gryphon202 on July 3, 2012 at 6:38 PM

Absolutely! In fact, my minimum standard for a Justice or any other federal jurist would be that he or she must start every deliberation with the question, “What would the Founders do?” and “What would the Founders NOT do?”

Can you imagine handing Madison or Jefferson or any of the others a 2700 page bill that not a single MC or Senator read and was passed only via political bribes and kickbacks, a bill that would impose every conceivable control over the freedoms of the citizenry and with a price tag in the trillions (okay, I’ll inflation-adjust, “in the billions”), and say, “Hey guys, whatcha think, is this something like you had in mind, you down with this?”

I’d go even a step further. Once confirmed, each jurist would be required to wear two embossed bracelets, one for each wrist, whenever on official duty, inscribed “WWTFD?” and “WWTFND?”, respectively.

TXUS on July 3, 2012 at 6:14 PM

You honestly think that a bunch of Supreme Court justices sitting around thinking “what would James Madison think about attaching a GPS device to an automobile being used to carry gay porn across state lines for sale with the proceeds to be used to fund a corporate-backed Super PAC,” would yield consistent, useful results? You’re dreaming. No one knows, or can guess, what the Founders would think about most controversial issues (if it was easy, they wouldn’t be controversial) with any reliability and to believe otherwise simply trying to get famous dead people to seem to be on your side — all due respect for those famous dead people.

Less theoretically, how much credibility should we give — assuming they could be channeled by a certified attorney-medium via seance — to the guys who gladly wrote slavery into the Constitution but failed to write in basic rights for women, when The Voting Rights Act and Affirmative Action come before the Court next term?

When your granddaughter is told by the unionized doctor that the state will not provide any further care unless she aborts because the child has been identified as having a possible obesity gene…….

Remember Barry and chief justice roberts.

PappyD61 on July 3, 2012 at 6:21 PM

Of course, nothing even remotely related to any facet of this paranoid scenario is contained in Obamacare.

urban elitist on July 3, 2012 at 6:39 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

Yes, lots of others are feeling this way. Myself included. And yes, we all need several strong adult beverages quaffed as quickly as possible.

gryphon202 on July 3, 2012 at 6:39 PM

I think Mitt is smart not to weigh in on this ruling. He should stick to talking about the economy (of which health care is 1/7 and growing, by the by). Viva Mitt!

/Rombots

gryphon202 on July 3, 2012 at 6:29 PM

..gryph, your sarc notwithstanding, this time three days from now this will be a bad dream (albeit one of those childhood nightmares that is NEVER erased from one’s memory) and The Head Booby (Obama) will be staring down the barrels of a June jobs report and possible upwards drift of his much-massaged-and-tortured unemployment figures.

From now until the election it figures to be bad jobs numbers, stuttering clusterfark EO commandment or other type of giveaway, rinse and repeat.

The War Planner on July 3, 2012 at 6:44 PM

Of course, nothing even remotely related to any facet of this paranoid scenario is contained in Obamacare.

urban elitist on July 3, 2012 at 6:39 PM

It doesn’t have to be. 2,000+ pages of actual bill have given rise to over 13,000 pages of regulations, and they’re not done yet. Every place in the bill that says “as the secretary shall determine” is ripe with the potential for regulatory abuse and every politician on Capital Hill, elected or no, knows this.

gryphon202 on July 3, 2012 at 6:44 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

..like the old Jewish Mother admonition about chicken soup, “It couldn’t hoit!”

The War Planner on July 3, 2012 at 6:45 PM

Of course, nothing even remotely related to any facet of this paranoid scenario is contained in Obamacare.

urban elitist on July 3, 2012 at 6:39 PM

You’ll find it in the “the Secretary shall determine” clauses. You’re going to have to pass the bill wait for the SCOTUS decision wait for the Secretary to determine to find out what is in it.

de rigueur on July 3, 2012 at 6:49 PM

Remind me again, why have 9 SCOTUS judges when this was a one man jury?

There just HAS to be a legal way to strike this whole crap down.

riddick on July 3, 2012 at 6:50 PM

gryphon202 on July 3, 2012 at 6:44 PM

You’ll find it in the “the Secretary shall determine” clauses. You’re going to have to pass the bill wait for the SCOTUS decision wait for the Secretary to determine to find out what is in it.

de rigueur on July 3, 2012 at 6:49 PM

Sorry, Rig. I bet you to it by about five minutes. I do like your snarky presentation better, though.

gryphon202 on July 3, 2012 at 6:50 PM

Exchange between Chief Justice John Roberts and Solicitor General Donald Verrilli during oral argument on 27 March 2012:

GENERAL VERRILLI: … it seems to me that not only is it fair to read this as an exercise of the tax power, but this Court has got an obligation to construe it as an exercise of the tax power, if it can be upheld on that basis.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Why didn’t Congress call it a tax, then?

GENERAL VERRILLI: Well –

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: You’re telling me they thought of it as a tax, they defended it on the tax power. Why didn’t they say it was a tax?

GENERAL VERRILLI: They might have thought, Your Honor, that calling it a penalty as they did would make it more effective in accomplishing its objectives. But it is in the Internal Revenue Code, it is collected by the IRS on April 15th. I don’t think this is a situation in which you can say –

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Well, that’s the reason. They thought it might be more effective if they called it a penalty..

Roberts wrote in his opinion that “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.

Let’s assume that the Democrats wanted to call it a tax, but didn’t (they actually changed it from a tax to a penalty) for political reasons. Fine. If it is not the Court’s job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices, is it also not true that the job of the Court is not to protect elected officials in Congress and the White House from the consequences of their legislative and political choices? Why should the Supreme Court provide cover for Congress?

If Congress meant for it to be a tax, but deliberately chose to label it a penalty due to political considerations, it is NOT the job of Chief Justice John Roberts to protect the ruling elite from either their own folly (writing unconstitutional laws, i.e., the mandate is a penalty) or their political decisions (voting to increase taxes, i.e., the mandate is a tax).

On whose side is the Court? It would appear the DC-Establishment and, certainly, not the people.

Resist We Much on July 3, 2012 at 6:51 PM

It doesn’t have to be. 2,000+ pages of actual bill have given rise to over 13,000 pages of regulations, and they’re not done yet. Every place in the bill that says “as the secretary shall determine” is ripe with the potential for regulatory abuse and every politician on Capital Hill, elected or no, knows this.

gryphon202 on July 3, 2012 at 6:44 PM

And you think there’s a mandatory abortion official out there just biding their time, waiting to impose genetically-imposed abortion on the populace?

In my paranoid fantasies, by the way, it’s the right wing who uses drug testing to create a permamnet underclass of uninsure, unemployable social outcasts by insisting on businesses’ right to discriminate based on poitential increased costs of insuring/employing/educating the genetically disfavored.

Perhaps there is right-left common ground on the misuse of genetic testing?

urban elitist on July 3, 2012 at 6:53 PM

November’s coming. Rock the vote?

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

You’ll have to forgive my complete and utter lack of enthusiasm. Fortunately, excitement is not a prerequisite to doing the right thing.

gryphon202 on July 3, 2012 at 6:06 PM

Besides, “Rock the vote” is a liberal/youth saying anyway.

“Git-r-done” doesn’t require enthusiasm, and it sums up what we’re all going to do anyway.

Myron Falwell on July 3, 2012 at 6:55 PM

Resist We Much on July 3, 2012 at 6:51 PM

Great post. Perfectly illustrates that Roberts was and is a supporter of Obamacare for personal reasons and thus was going to find a way to uphold it.

Seems he is a compassionate conservative like the guy who nominated him.

KickandSwimMom on July 3, 2012 at 6:58 PM

And you think there’s a mandatory abortion official out there just biding their time, waiting to impose genetically-imposed abortion on the populace?

I’m not certain that it will happen, but you are a blithering fool to try and convince me there’s no way that it could.

In my paranoid fantasies, by the way, it’s the right wing who uses drug testing to create a permamnet underclass of uninsure, unemployable social outcasts by insisting on businesses’ right to discriminate based on poitential increased costs of insuring/employing/educating the genetically disfavored.

And it’s simpering libs like yourself that have qualms about firing people or refusing to hire them based on their actual ability to do a job. You’re not making a good case here.

Perhaps there is right-left common ground on the misuse of genetic testing?

urban elitist on July 3, 2012 at 6:53 PM

Hmm. Straw man, non-sequitur, and blinding hypocrisy all rolled up into one post. I’ll just point out once again that I believe it’s unconstitutional, that’s all the reason we need to NULLIFY THAT BASTARD, and leave it at that.

gryphon202 on July 3, 2012 at 6:58 PM

This is why we need to support conservatives who have a spine. Support them as much as possible and at all levels.

Those wimps unwilling to fight like McCain, Boehner, McConnell, Roberts, this is what happens! They are gutless jellyfish!

LevinFan on July 3, 2012 at 6:58 PM

Less theoretically, how much credibility should we give — assuming they could be channeled by a certified attorney-medium via seance — to the guys who gladly wrote slavery into the Constitution but failed to write in basic rights for women, when The Voting Rights Act and Affirmative Action come before the Court next term?

urban elitist on July 3, 2012 at 6:39 PM

Because those men, brilliant as they were with the Constitution & Bill of Rights, DOI, etc were still men…human being prone to failure.

As such, they proved their genius by enabling a document created by them to resolve most issues themselves, IF we are wise enough to listen to what the document does say we can and cannot do, and what steps can be taken to correct it.

My personal and historical feelings on slavery aside, look at the outcome: Slavery was abolished almost 140 years after a Civil War was in part fought over it. Not to mention, even as the Constitution was being drafted, the same men (not all btw) that had slaves themselves were still trying to vie for a way to abolish it…including the people of the country themselves.

BlaxPac on July 3, 2012 at 6:59 PM

Well, at least Roberts avoided a split, highly controversial decision…oh wait, no he didn’t. This one curries favor with the Left, though, so it’s OK.

Blah. Just gotta hope it’s repealed.

changer1701 on July 3, 2012 at 6:59 PM

Perhaps there is right-left common ground on the misuse of genetic testing?

urban elitist on July 3, 2012 at 6:53 PM

There will be if they ever discover a “gay gene.”

de rigueur on July 3, 2012 at 7:00 PM

You honestly think that a bunch of Supreme Court justices sitting around thinking “what would James Madison think about attaching a GPS device to an automobile being used to carry gay porn across state lines for sale with the proceeds to be used to fund a corporate-backed Super PAC,” would yield consistent, useful results? You’re dreaming. No one knows, or can guess, what the Founders would think about most controversial issues

They actually do consider the original intent of the Founding Fathers and what they would think of the modern issue. Even Justice Ginsburg is known to resort to references from the Federalist Papers, the Constitutional Convention of 1789, and legislative history, intent, and record.

It’s just that they have different ways of interpreting it with the Progressives leaning to a much more expansive and flexible view, which can lead to the simplest definition of words being changed. They rely much less on stare decisis. They are also, generally, much, much more results-oriented than the Originalists.

Resist We Much on July 3, 2012 at 7:02 PM

Seems like a justice with testicles would have voted to kill ACA and then schedule a news conference to rip into any intimidation from the left or this Administration.
Guess I’m funny that way.

jjshaka on July 3, 2012 at 7:03 PM

Sorry, Rig. I bet you to it by about five minutes. I do like your snarky presentation better, though.

gryphon202 on July 3, 2012 at 6:50 PM
also gryphon202 on July 3, 2012 at 6:58 PM

How are you doing that, anyway?

de rigueur on July 3, 2012 at 7:03 PM

Resist We Much on July 3, 2012 at 6:51 PM

Great post!!

I can’t put into words how much I despise roberts!!

LevinFan on July 3, 2012 at 7:03 PM

I can’t put into words how much I despise roberts!!

LevinFan on July 3, 2012 at 7:03 PM

He makes John Kerry look principled and unwavering in comparison.

Myron Falwell on July 3, 2012 at 7:05 PM

Bipolar.

VorDaj on July 3, 2012 at 6:04 PM

Ditto

CW on July 3, 2012 at 7:05 PM

How are you doing that, anyway?

de rigueur on July 3, 2012 at 7:03 PM

I have a decent internet connection and no life to speak of outside of blog browsing.

gryphon202 on July 3, 2012 at 7:06 PM

urban elitist on July 3, 2012 at 6:39 PM

This is the problem that all liberals have, they think of the Constitution as an evolving document, intended to change depending upon the times in which any particular generation lives.

If that were the Founder’s intent and what all the states agreed to upon joining the union, why on earth did they, the Founders, include in the Constitution a method for amending it via vote by the citizens’ representatives in Congress and the states?

No, this document, this contract between and between the government and the governed, was never intended to change with the times, only by the consent of the governed. To treat it otherwise is to invite the rule of men and not law.

TXUS on July 3, 2012 at 7:07 PM

My personal and historical feelings on slavery aside, look at the outcome: Slavery was abolished almost 140 years after a Civil War was in part fought over it. Not to mention, even as the Constitution was being drafted, the same men (not all btw) that had slaves themselves were still trying to vie for a way to abolish it…including the people of the country themselves.

BlaxPac on July 3, 2012 at 6:59 PM

Slavery wasn’t abolished. Politically incorrect slavery was abolished. We are slaves to the federal government, and we have been since decades before I was a gleam in my dad’s eye. Don’t kid yourselves. Libbies are just fine with slavery when they can think they are the masters.

gryphon202 on July 3, 2012 at 7:09 PM

No, this document, this contract between and between the government and the governed, was never intended to change with the times, only by the consent of the governed. To treat it otherwise is to invite the rule of men and not law.

TXUS on July 3, 2012 at 7:07 PM

We do treat it otherwise, and we have. That ship has sailed. The only question now is if we can steer it back into port.

gryphon202 on July 3, 2012 at 7:10 PM

We do treat it otherwise, and we have. That ship has sailed. The only question now is if we can steer it back into port.

gryphon202 on July 3, 2012 at 7:10 PM

Not a question of if we can, it’s that we must.

TXUS on July 3, 2012 at 7:16 PM

This is the problem that all liberals have, they think of the Constitution as an evolving document, intended to change depending upon the times in which any particular generation lives.

If that were the Founder’s intent and what all the states agreed to upon joining the union, why on earth did they, the Founders, include in the Constitution a method for amending it via vote by the citizens’ representatives in Congress and the states?

No, this document, this contract between and between the government and the governed, was never intended to change with the times, only by the consent of the governed. To treat it otherwise is to invite the rule of men and not law.

TXUS on July 3, 2012 at 7:07 PM

So you’re saying that, rather than have Constitutional interpretation change through the vehicle of Brown v. Board of Ed, we should have run an anti-segregation through the Congress (where it would not have passed) and asuper-majority of states (which would not have ratified it)?

Unweildy, don’t you think, when you have to pass an amendment everytime some cop decides to try to put a wiretap on one of these new-fangled portable telephones (or would the amandment passed when the first landline was tapped by Elliot Ness cover this eventuality).

Kind of cumbersome and ridiculous, no?

urban elitist on July 3, 2012 at 7:17 PM

Hey look! Senate races!

Oh hells no, let’s continue to obsess on Roberts until November. That’s an excellent freaking plan.

ConservativeLA on July 3, 2012 at 7:18 PM

I’ve always thought that there has always been just one guy at any given era writing all SCOTUS opinions, just for laughs for the in-crowd.

Akzed on July 3, 2012 at 7:19 PM

I think Mitt is smart not to weigh in on this ruling. He should stick to talking about the economy (of which health care is 1/7 and growing, by the by). Viva Mitt!

gryphon202 on July 3, 2012 at 6:29 PM

Fair enough and I wish we had an edit function. What I really meant was that Romney does indeed need to stick to talking about jobs and economy but he has to also talk about Obamacare. What I was trying to say was Mitt needs to talk about healthcare reform. Which isn’t the same thing as weighing in on Roberts’ treason.

Happy Nomad on July 3, 2012 at 7:19 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

I prefer weak adult beverages because you can quaff more of them and still tpype.

Akzed on July 3, 2012 at 7:22 PM

Fair enough and I wish we had an edit function. Happy Nomad on July 3, 2012 at 7:19 PM

Preview is your friend.

Akzed on July 3, 2012 at 7:23 PM

Slavery wasn’t abolished. Politically incorrect slavery was abolished. We are slaves to the federal government, and we have been since decades before I was a gleam in my dad’s eye. Don’t kid yourselves. Libbies are just fine with slavery when they can think they are the masters.

gryphon202 on July 3, 2012 at 7:09 PM

Maybe so, but right now, I don’t need to worry about the IRS being the dudes trying to kick in my door…at least not yet.

BlaxPac on July 3, 2012 at 7:24 PM

Can you imagine handing Madison or Jefferson or any of the others a 2700 page bill that not a single MC or Senator read and was passed only via political bribes and kickbacks, a bill that would impose every conceivable control over the freedoms of the citizenry and with a price tag in the trillions (okay, I’ll inflation-adjust, “in the billions”), and say, “Hey guys, whatcha think, is this something like you had in mind, you down with this?”

Had this been our founders’ attitude, we should have stayed a colony of England because that was exactly what politics in that nation was like at the time (without the billions and trillions).

Happy Nomad on July 3, 2012 at 7:26 PM

I can’t put into words how much I despise roberts!!

LevinFan on July 3, 2012 at 7:03 PM

If he had agreed with the liberals that the Commerce Clause did allow (for the very first time) the Federal government to compel otherwise inactive individuals to enter commerce so as to regulate them, I would have vehemently disagreed and been disappointed, but what has happened here is far worse. To create a new tax for purposes of upholding Obamacare while ruling that it is not a tax — at this time — for the purposes of the Anti-Injuction Act (inviting challenges in 2014) is just pathetic. His legal reasoning is so utterly flawed and the opinion is actually pretty subpar for him. I’ve spoken to friends and colleagues that agree with the outcome, but disagree with his reasoning and find it specious. So, it is just not me or an emotional reaction to the ruling. It makes NO sense. It doesn’t even comply with arguments that Roberts has made in the past.

KickandSwimMom on July 3, 2012 at 6:58 PM

Thanks. I have taken to calling Roberts “Shrub’s Warren.” It seems appropriate.

Resist We Much on July 3, 2012 at 7:28 PM

Preview is your friend.

Akzed on July 3, 2012 at 7:23 PM

Not that kind of edit, the kind that only comes after others poke holes in your posts.

Happy Nomad on July 3, 2012 at 7:30 PM

Clown nose on/Clown nose off?

dts-01 on July 3, 2012 at 7:32 PM

Weazel Zipper has pics of Roberts on Malta. He looks haggard to say the least. Good.

Blake on July 3, 2012 at 7:37 PM

DISGRACE

He should be impeached, but since that won’t happen, he should be an object of scorn and ridicule of conservatives for the rest of his life.

He is turncoat pandering scum.

WisCon on July 3, 2012 at 7:38 PM

You honestly think that a bunch of Supreme Court justices sitting around thinking “what would James Madison think about attaching a GPS device to an automobile being used to carry gay porn across state lines for sale with the proceeds to be used to fund a corporate-backed Super PAC,” would yield consistent, useful results?

urban elitist on July 3, 2012 at 6:39 PM

So are you just a textbook example of moron or do you have special skills?

Original intent refers to principles not suggesting that we should channel our inner James Madison to discuss the use of GPS devices. Not that scum like you understand the idea of principles in the first place which is why I won’t bother wasting time discussing the issue further.

Happy Nomad on July 3, 2012 at 7:38 PM

http://weaselzippers.us/2012/07/03/118717/

Worth a looksie.

Blake on July 3, 2012 at 7:41 PM

DISGRACE

He should be impeached, but since that won’t happen, he should be an object of scorn and ridicule of conservatives for the rest of his life.

He is turncoat pandering scum.

WisCon on July 3, 2012 at 7:38 PM

I agree. We must never forgive this turncoat piece of trash!

LevinFan on July 3, 2012 at 7:41 PM

So are you just a textbook example of moron or do you have special skills?

Happy Nomad on July 3, 2012 at 7:38 PM

LOL +1000

LevinFan on July 3, 2012 at 7:43 PM

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

I may have my facts wrong, but I thought I read somewhere that Roberts didn’t allow her to recuse herself.

eaglescout_1998 on July 3, 2012 at 7:48 PM

Not that kind of edit, the kind that only comes after others poke holes in your posts. Happy Nomad on July 3, 2012 at 7:30 PM

Oh.

Repentance is your friend.

Akzed on July 3, 2012 at 7:52 PM

So are you just a textbook example of moron or do you have special skills? Happy Nomad on July 3, 2012 at 7:38 PM

He can draw a liger.

Akzed on July 3, 2012 at 7:53 PM

Repentance is your friend.

Akzed on July 3, 2012 at 7:52 PM

Repentance?

That implies that whatever one sends out on a site like this is a fully informed and unquestionable viewpoint. I consider this stuff more of a conversation.

How sad for you that you don’t.

Happy Nomad on July 3, 2012 at 7:57 PM

I may have my facts wrong, but I thought I read somewhere that Roberts didn’t allow her to recuse herself.

eaglescout_1998 on July 3, 2012 at 7:48 PM

I think you do have your facts wrong. The criticism was that Kagan did not recuse herself. Roberts did not weigh in on the perceived conflicts of either Kagan or Thomas. But at no point did Roberts tell Kagan that she needed to vote on this case.

Happy Nomad on July 3, 2012 at 8:01 PM

Add Roberts’ face to the list of those I can do without seeing anymore.

GaltBlvnAtty on July 3, 2012 at 8:10 PM

canopfor on July 3, 2012 at 6:13 PM

Thank you canopfor!! I’ve been offline due to running errands. Will check those links out. I did find this info:
Senator Jeff Sessions is a senior member of the Judiciary Committee. In this article Sessions said: According to Section 455(b)(3) of Title 28 of the U.S. Code, justices must disqualify themselves in cases where they have “served in governmental employment and in such…… These actions alone constitute personal participation in the preparation of the case, and that is all §455(b)(3) requires to trigger mandatory recusal.

There is much more to his article:

http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/291832/kagan-must-recuse-herself-obamacare-case-sen-jeff-sessions

bluefox on July 3, 2012 at 8:25 PM

So Michael Savage is right…again.

SouthernGent on July 3, 2012 at 8:42 PM

Unweildy, don’t you think, when you have to pass an amendment everytime some cop decides to try to put a wiretap on one of these new-fangled portable telephones (or would the amandment passed when the first landline was tapped by Elliot Ness cover this eventuality).

Kind of cumbersome and ridiculous, no?

urban elitist on July 3, 2012 at 7:17 PM

This statement underscores the liberals and their ilk desire to alter a document because it disagrees with their premise of interfering with others birthrights by calling the Constitution a “democratic” document thereby making it changeable on a whim. If there is one singular ideal that liberals have it’s their complete inability to understand the limited government belief system the Constitution underpins.Urban Elitist underscores this ignorance plainly.

Besides, why would Urban Elitist be concerned about his phone being tapped? He has absolutely nothing of value to offer……

DevilsPrinciple on July 3, 2012 at 8:49 PM

Hot Air’s new feature “Breaking on Hot Air” evokes the phrase “breaking wind”, probably not what is intended. Perhaps there’s a better word than “breaking”?

With that said I’m off to read the comments (after noting what an excellent job Allah did parsing through this inscrutable episode of Supreme Court Mystery Theater).

Buy Danish on July 3, 2012 at 9:21 PM

Hot Air’s new feature “Breaking on Hot Air” evokes the phrase “breaking wind”, probably not what is intended. Perhaps there’s a better word than “breaking”?

With that said I’m off to read the comments (after noting what an excellent job Allah did parsing through this inscrutable episode of Supreme Court Mystery Theater).

Buy Danish on July 3, 2012 at 9:21 PM

Yeah, that’s all this website needs, another chunk of cantankerous software.

slickwillie2001 on July 3, 2012 at 9:52 PM

Great post!!

I can’t put into words how much I despise roberts!!

LevinFan on July 3, 2012 at 7:03 PM

I just can’t thank you Hot Airheads enough for helping to drive America back toward the center from the far right years of Dubya. You continue to play your (unwitting) part in improving America.

Keep listening to Limbaugh and Levin. Keep supporting “uncompromising” (wacko) nominees. Keep staying true to your “conservative principles” (reactionary, fear-based backwardness).

You have given us Romney, already. Even if my man Obama loses, you have given us the gift of a liberal RINO.

Keep attacking Roberts, please. Happy to see him alienated with his own team. We’ll take him on the liberal wing, gladly.

I salute you, Hot Airheads.

bifidis on July 3, 2012 at 10:13 PM

DISGRACE

He should be impeached, but since that won’t happen, he should be an object of scorn and ridicule of conservatives for the rest of his life.

He is turncoat pandering scum.

WisCon on July 3, 2012 at 7:38 PM

Yes, the hate is swelling in you now. Keep it coming.

LOL.

bifidis on July 3, 2012 at 10:17 PM

Roberts can never again be trusted.

netster007x on July 3, 2012 at 10:33 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3