Did Roberts Change His Mind ?

[Care4all]

and as far as Gingsburg, she did decent on part of the majority opinion, is what an update on your article said....and that can't be ruled out as easily as the opinion writer wants to....

She joined the majority.

From the web....

Nine times Scalia refers to Ginsburg’s opinion on the mandate not as a concurrence–agreeing with the result, but for different reasons–but as a “dissent”. An opinion that reaches the same result but by a different road is not a dissent. And there was not “a” dissent. There were three: Thomas’s, Ginsburg’s, and Scalia’s. When there are three dissents–two other dissents–to refer to one of them as “the” dissent is, at the least sloppy.
Is this deliberate–that Scalia wants us to know that his opinion was originally written to be the opinion of the Court? Or is this simply sloppy draftsmanship–chronic laziness at revision?

And what made Roberts peel off?

Inquiring minds want to know…

IF scalia left that in on purpose to embarrass Roberts, then Scalia should be removed from the court, he's not worthy of the job, to play that dirty....he's scum of the earth.

As far as Roberts changing his mind, or his mind was not made up yet when Scalia presumed it was....only they can tell you.

 

[Care4all]

Who did roberts receive this enormous pressure from.....?

Certainly not just a statement by the president....

So who was this supposed pressure from, that runs in Robert's circle?

Sorry, that is just too much like a conspiracy projection than anything else....

the only pressure that roberts had on him was that he didn't want another decision to come down 5 to 4...

but the reality is also that he was correct in his statement that it is the obligation of the court to sustain laws passed by congress unless there is no lawful way to do so... even if you don't think a particular law is a good idea.

that's called being 'conservative'.

unlike the radicals like scalia and thomas.. (have to admit i'm kind of surprised by kennedy)

maybe Scalia presumed that roberts would vote with them, but roberts had not made up his mind yet?

 

[Listening]

and as far as Gingsburg, she did decent on part of the majority opinion, is what an update on your article said....and that can't be ruled out as easily as the opinion writer wants to....

She joined the majority.

From the web....

Nine times Scalia refers to Ginsburg’s opinion on the mandate not as a concurrence–agreeing with the result, but for different reasons–but as a “dissent”. An opinion that reaches the same result but by a different road is not a dissent. And there was not “a” dissent. There were three: Thomas’s, Ginsburg’s, and Scalia’s. When there are three dissents–two other dissents–to refer to one of them as “the” dissent is, at the least sloppy.
Is this deliberate–that Scalia wants us to know that his opinion was originally written to be the opinion of the Court? Or is this simply sloppy draftsmanship–chronic laziness at revision?

And what made Roberts peel off?

Inquiring minds want to know…

IF scalia left that in on purpose to embarrass Roberts, then Scalia should be removed from the court, he's not worthy of the job, to play that dirty....he's scum of the earth.

As far as Roberts changing his mind, or his mind was not made up yet when Scalia presumed it was....only they can tell you.

Why would that reflect on Scalia ? This is going to be a huge question for a long time to come.

Scalia thought this was the majority decision....or so some think. It's not a the majority decision without Roberts.

You think any of the four lefties would have joined the decision ?

 

[Listening]

Who did roberts receive this enormous pressure from.....?

Certainly not just a statement by the president....

So who was this supposed pressure from, that runs in Robert's circle?

Sorry, that is just too much like a conspiracy projection than anything else....

the only pressure that roberts had on him was that he didn't want another decision to come down 5 to 4...

but the reality is also that he was correct in his statement that it is the obligation of the court to sustain laws passed by congress unless there is no lawful way to do so... even if you don't think a particular law is a good idea.

that's called being 'conservative'.

unlike the radicals like scalia and thomas.. (have to admit i'm kind of surprised by kennedy)

Garbage.

The reality is that the WH made it's case on the Commerce Clause and Roberts had to go fing their reasoning for them. That much is obvious to both sides.

Using that to justify Roberts is simply dishonest.

 

[Big Fitz]

It's this generation's "Jim Crow" law. A horrendous decision that's going to die some day, but not after it does some serious harm if congress does not act quickly to reverse the efforts of activists, liars and crooks.

 

[Care4all]

She joined the majority.

From the web....

Nine times Scalia refers to Ginsburg’s opinion on the mandate not as a concurrence–agreeing with the result, but for different reasons–but as a “dissent”. An opinion that reaches the same result but by a different road is not a dissent. And there was not “a” dissent. There were three: Thomas’s, Ginsburg’s, and Scalia’s. When there are three dissents–two other dissents–to refer to one of them as “the” dissent is, at the least sloppy.
Is this deliberate–that Scalia wants us to know that his opinion was originally written to be the opinion of the Court? Or is this simply sloppy draftsmanship–chronic laziness at revision?

And what made Roberts peel off?

Inquiring minds want to know…

IF scalia left that in on purpose to embarrass Roberts, then Scalia should be removed from the court, he's not worthy of the job, to play that dirty....he's scum of the earth.

As far as Roberts changing his mind, or his mind was not made up yet when Scalia presumed it was....only they can tell you.

Why would that reflect on Scalia ? This is going to be a huge question for a long time to come.

Scalia thought this was the majority decision....or so some think. It's not a the majority decision without Roberts.

You think any of the four lefties would have joined the decision ?

because if it's true then scalia back stabbed his boss on purpose and with malice and was unethical...that would be unacceptable and below the ranks of a Justice...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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 Ginsburg’s concurring opinion as “Justice Ginsburg’s 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.

This is a political post, having nothing to do with the law or Constitution.

You’re also a partisan hack – had a republican president signed the exact same bill into law you’d be among its most ardent supporters.

 

[GWV5903]

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 Ginsburg’s concurring opinion as “Justice Ginsburg’s 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.

This is a political post, having nothing to do with the law or Constitution.

You’re also a partisan hack – had a republican president signed the exact same bill into law you’d be among its most ardent supporters.

Not at all, HC today is screwed up solely on the over reach of the gov, period, you can blame both sides for this, the tit for tat crap is going to cost us all and in ways we never dreamed of...

 

[jillian]

Who did roberts receive this enormous pressure from.....?

Certainly not just a statement by the president....

So who was this supposed pressure from, that runs in Robert's circle?

Sorry, that is just too much like a conspiracy projection than anything else....

the only pressure that roberts had on him was that he didn't want another decision to come down 5 to 4...

but the reality is also that he was correct in his statement that it is the obligation of the court to sustain laws passed by congress unless there is no lawful way to do so... even if you don't think a particular law is a good idea.

that's called being 'conservative'.

unlike the radicals like scalia and thomas.. (have to admit i'm kind of surprised by kennedy)

Yet it was a 5-4 decision. Did someone hack your account to make you look like an idiot or did you really write that?

you're right... i needed to say 5-4 with ALL THE RIGHTWINGERS ignoring stare decisis and making purely political decisions.

but then again..... you know that.

but whatever rocks you.

 

[konradv]

If Roberts changed his mind due to political pressure, you've got to ask who has the power to do that, a president of a totally different philosophy or his erstwhile friends? It's much more likely, if you're into conspiracies, that it would be a calculation that Romney would rather run against Obamacare than be forced to formulate an alternative. If that's the case, Roberts should be impeached. From what I've read about him, I'm inclined to believe that he was acting exactly as he said he would during his confirmation, evaluating the case according to precedent and a conservative reading of the Constitution. To do otherwise would have been "activist", IMO.

 

[konradv]

It's this generation's "Jim Crow" law. A horrendous decision that's going to die some day, but not after it does some serious harm if congress does not act quickly to reverse the efforts of activists, liars and crooks.

How does it create harm? It would seem that conservatives should be applauding the attempt to eliminate some of the freeloaders. They certainly call for it all the time. What's the difference this time? Don't worry, I'm not asking for an answer. It's a rhetorical question. We already know!

 

[Big Fitz]

It's this generation's "Jim Crow" law. A horrendous decision that's going to die some day, but not after it does some serious harm if congress does not act quickly to reverse the efforts of activists, liars and crooks.

How does it create harm? It would seem that conservatives should be applauding the attempt to eliminate some of the freeloaders. They certainly call for it all the time. What's the difference this time? Don't worry, I'm not asking for an answer. It's a rhetorical question. We already know!

You're getting an answer anyway Kommie.

If I can be taxed or imprisoned for taking NO action, it is harm.

http://www.youdecidepolitics.com/2009/11/07/pelosis-obamacare-pay-up-or-pay-fines-jail-time/

In Writing: Under ObamaCare, If You Don't Buy Health Insurance, You Could Go To Jail | NewsBusters.org

Rhetorical question my ass. I love how the word 'freeloader' is now being twisted to mean "Someone who refuses to depend on the government". Some talking point go out that you must parrot lately? You're the second person in 2 days on the ultra left kook that's spouting this language change nonsense.

 

[Big Fitz]

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 Ginsburg’s concurring opinion as “Justice Ginsburg’s 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.

This is a political post, having nothing to do with the law or Constitution.

You’re also a partisan hack – had a republican president signed the exact same bill into law you’d be among its most ardent supporters.

The fuck I would. Fascism is fascism regardless of what party signs on. Coercing people to buy a product or be fined or jailed is fascism at the very least.

you're right... i needed to say 5-4 with ALL THE RIGHTWINGERS ignoring stare decisis and making purely political decisions.

Uhhhh.... Then why did Roberts, till this last week considered by the left a RADICAL right winger, switch to join the left wing and pass this bullshit while a left leaning justice, Kennedy, join the conservatives.

Pop goes THAT theory.

 

[Care4all]

we should probably just go to a single payer plan, that way all are covered, wealthy, middle, and the poor, from birth, and it would save us all money by cutting out the middle man, the paper pusher expense. We pay nearly $8k a year for health care insurance when said and done....i'd gladly give $5k extra a year in a healthcare tax for a Medical plan such as an improved Medicare for the rest of the country younger than 65....Shoot, it would still save us $3k a year from what we are paying now...

I truly don't know if my suggestion above is the be all, said all, answer...

I'm open to hear anyone's suggestion on how we can solve the major problems we've had with health insurance costs on the individuals like Matt and me, going up 10% a year for the past 15 years...employers are contributing less and less towards the total costs plus the insurance policies have gone up. We own our home, and cars so our health Insurance costs are the biggest expense we have, besides Food.....so we still count ourselves as ''part of the Lucky ones'', but I just can't imagine how hard it must be on others with a limited income....

There's got to be something we can do, to make things better....but in a smart way....we are smart people, we like solving problems, we hit challenges head on every day of the week....we should certainly be able to face this 100 lb gorilla of a problem, and come up with a solution that's good.

 

[Big Fitz]

we should probably just go to a single payer plan, that way all are covered, wealthy, middle, and the poor, from birth, and it would save us all money by cutting out the middle man, the paper pusher expense

Can't. No money to do it. Two, it doesn't address the REAL problem: The reason health care costs are high. Can you find them? I know I can find a bunch. All of them can be reduced by simple laws that do not raise a single tax, and make health care a lot more affordable for Americans.

By adding another middleman (the payer) between you and your needed services, you do not decrease the cost, you only hide it then raise it because demand will rise till it must be rationed. Price control or rationing. Which do you want because one of the two WILL happen and fast.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

we should probably just go to a single payer plan, that way all are covered, wealthy, middle, and the poor, from birth, and it would save us all money by cutting out the middle man, the paper pusher expense. We pay nearly $8k a year for health care insurance when said and done....i'd gladly give $5k extra a year in a healthcare tax for a Medical plan such as an improved Medicare for the rest of the country younger than 65....Shoot, it would still save us $3k a year from what we are paying now...

I truly don't know if my suggestion above is the be all, said all, answer...

I'm open to hear anyone's suggestion on how we can solve the major problems we've had with health insurance costs on the individuals like Matt and me, going up 10% a year for the past 15 years...employers are contributing less and less towards the total costs plus the insurance policies have gone up. We own our home, and cars so our health Insurance costs are the biggest expense we have, besides Food.....so we still count ourselves as ''part of the Lucky ones'', but I just can't imagine how hard it must be on others with a limited income....

There's got to be something we can do, to make things better....but in a smart way....we are smart people, we like solving problems, we hit challenges head on every day of the week....we should certainly be able to face this 100 lb gorilla of a problem, and come up with a solution that's good.

The single payer/Medicare for all is indeed the best plan.

Impossible to implement, however, in the current hostile, hyper-partisan environment.

 

[bripat9643]

Maybe he was thinking that he was going to take the blame for biggest piece of partisan political sabotage since he allowed corporate control of our national elections. You guys have that, with that you can get all kinds of societal sabotage and chaotic change for the worse. Be glad, republicans will probably still be able to dump huge numbers of poor people from other things.

Only a servile bootlicking turd would call enforcing the unambiguous terms of Constitution "political sabotage."


Obamacare is "chaotic change for the worse." The insurance industry has evolved over hundreds of years. Insurance industry practices are there for very good, time tested reasons. Obama and the Dims took all that accumulated knowledge and experience and tossed it in the waste basket with the stroke of the pen.

 

[Truthmatters]

Obama could turn arround and do everything these people want to see done and they woudl find a way to hate him.

they are fucking insane

 

[bripat9643]

Personally I think he was swayed, but then again... it doesn't matter to a hill of beans... we will not know for decades.

It matters to me that somehow the administration might have gotten to Roberts.

It is clear that Obama was openly challenging them. Besides the fact that he is an arrogant asshole.......he claims to know the constitution....

Mabye the first affirmative action president does not think the constitution applies to him.

I am in full agreement with you, but do you actually think that anyone in office has the balls to stand up to these constitution killing bastards?
Frankly I don't... look at how they have let Obama and Holder walk all over the rule of law... look at how they are letting Obama thumbs his nose at the border... look at how they let him enforece some laws but not others....


The Repubix do not have the intestinal fortitude to beat a traffic ticket in court.

Yep, it would be nice to know, but that won't happen any time soon.

(I think there will be things come out about this regime many years from now that will be staggering, but thats just me.)

SC justices who don't vote the right way don't get invited to DC cocktail parties. Sad to say, but that's probably the reason Roberts caved.

 

[midcan5]

This is greatest amount of right wing wringing of hands since Darwin proved they are related to apes! Has anyone ever heard so much absurd comment and such heavy crying. For a while Roberts has replaced Obama as the great bogeyman. Too too funny and so ridiculous. Wingnuts not only hate democracy, they hate law when it doesn't conform to their narrow ideology. Bravo Roberts, bravo.

This piece lays out the constitutionality of the decision and the whys. Tax power: The little argument that could - CNN.com


"The opponents of the mandate moved a fringe position about the Constitution from off-the-wall to on-the-wall. They successfully shaped the terms of the public debate over the Affordable Care Act. But as Abraham Lincoln once said, you can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. In the end, the mandate's opponents couldn't fool all of the justices who had actually read the statute. They upheld the Constitution, and the law."

Tax power: The little argument that could - CNN.com