Listening
Gold Member
- Aug 27, 2011
- 14,989
- 1,650
- 260
Rumors had been circulating in legal circles for weeks that Chief Justice Roberts in particular was under enormous political pressure not to be the vote that would overturn the most significant piece of social legislation passed by Congress in decades. Indeed, in April President Obama took the unusual step of issuing something of a public warning on the subject, saying that he was confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.
It is impossible for a lawyer to read even the first few pages of the dissent without coming away with the impression that this is a majority opinion that at the last moment lost its fifth vote. Its structure and tone are those of a winning coalition, not that of the losing side in the most controversial Supreme Court case in many years. But when we get to Page 13, far more conclusive evidence appears: No less than 15 times in the space of the next few pages, the dissent refers to Ruth Bader Ginsburgs concurring opinion as Justice Ginsburgs dissent.
There is one likely explanation for this: The dissent was the majority opinion when those who voted to overturn the entire ACA signed off on sending their text to the printer. In other words, Chief Justice Roberts changed his vote at the very last possible moment.
Did John Roberts switch his vote? - Salon.com
*******************************
Enormous political pressure to not overturn ?
How in the hell does a CJ bow to political pressure. I don't give a rats ass about the "legitimacy" of the court. If Roberts caved, he should remove himself from the court. We don't need him.
The very idea that we have this sorry assed legislation because he bowed...makes me vomit.
And, I like that the article specfically points out that Obama made those public statements.
Obama...our so-called "Constitutional Scholar"/Moron-In-Chief basically would be guilty of interfering with what is supposed to be a separate branch of government.
But you libs liked that...anything for the victory...You've joined Obama in wiping your asses with the constitution for decades. You might as well have it printed on Charmin so you can make the job easier.
It is impossible for a lawyer to read even the first few pages of the dissent without coming away with the impression that this is a majority opinion that at the last moment lost its fifth vote. Its structure and tone are those of a winning coalition, not that of the losing side in the most controversial Supreme Court case in many years. But when we get to Page 13, far more conclusive evidence appears: No less than 15 times in the space of the next few pages, the dissent refers to Ruth Bader Ginsburgs concurring opinion as Justice Ginsburgs dissent.
There is one likely explanation for this: The dissent was the majority opinion when those who voted to overturn the entire ACA signed off on sending their text to the printer. In other words, Chief Justice Roberts changed his vote at the very last possible moment.
Did John Roberts switch his vote? - Salon.com
*******************************
Enormous political pressure to not overturn ?
How in the hell does a CJ bow to political pressure. I don't give a rats ass about the "legitimacy" of the court. If Roberts caved, he should remove himself from the court. We don't need him.
The very idea that we have this sorry assed legislation because he bowed...makes me vomit.
And, I like that the article specfically points out that Obama made those public statements.
Obama...our so-called "Constitutional Scholar"/Moron-In-Chief basically would be guilty of interfering with what is supposed to be a separate branch of government.
But you libs liked that...anything for the victory...You've joined Obama in wiping your asses with the constitution for decades. You might as well have it printed on Charmin so you can make the job easier.