Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Roberts switched views to uphold health care law -- CBS News, Jan Crawford

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Roberts switched views to uphold health care law -- CBS News, Jan Crawford

    Roberts switched views to uphold health care law

    CBS News

    Jan Crawford
    7/1/2012

    Excerpt:

    "(CBS News) Chief Justice John Roberts initially sided with the Supreme Court's four conservative justices to strike down the heart of President Obama's health care reform law, the Affordable Care Act, but later changed his position and formed an alliance with liberals to uphold the bulk of the law, according to two sources with specific knowledge of the deliberations.

    Roberts then withstood a month-long, desperate campaign to bring him back to his original position, the sources said. Ironically, Justice Anthony Kennedy - believed by many conservatives to be the justice most likely to defect and vote for the law - led the effort to try to bring Roberts back to the fold.

    "He was relentless," one source said of Kennedy's efforts. "He was very engaged in this."

    But this time, Roberts held firm. And so the conservatives handed him their own message which, as one justice put it, essentially translated into, "You're on your own."

    The conservatives refused to join any aspect of his opinion, including sections with which they agreed, such as his analysis imposing limits on Congress' power under the Commerce Clause, the sources said.

    Instead, the four joined forces and crafted a highly unusual, unsigned joint dissent. They deliberately ignored Roberts' decision, the sources said, as if they were no longer even willing to engage with him in debate.

    The inner-workings of the Supreme Court are almost impossible to penetrate. The Court's private conferences, when the justices discuss cases and cast their initial votes, include only the nine members - no law clerks or secretaries are permitted. The justices are notoriously close-lipped, and their law clerks must agree to keep matters completely confidential.

    But in this closely-watched case, word of Roberts' unusual shift has spread widely within the Court, and is known among law clerks, chambers' aides and secretaries. It also has stirred the ire of the conservative justices, who believed Roberts was standing with them.

    After the historic oral arguments in March, the two knowledgeable sources said, Roberts and the four conservatives were poised to strike down at least the individual mandate. There were other issues being argued - severability and the Medicaid extension - but the mandate was the ballgame.

    It required individuals to buy insurance or pay a penalty. Congress had never before in the history of the nation ordered Americans to buy a product from a private company as part of its broad powers to regulate commerce. Opponents argued that the law exceeded Congress' power under the Constitution, and an Atlanta-based federal appeals court agreed.

    The Atlanta-based federal appeals court said Congress didn't have that kind of expansive power, and it struck down the mandate as unconstitutional.

    On this point - Congress' commerce power - Roberts agreed. In the Court's private conference immediately after the arguments, he was aligned with the four conservatives to strike down the mandate.

    Roberts was less clear on whether that also meant the rest of the law must fall, the source said. The other four conservatives believed that the mandate could not be lopped off from the rest of the law and that, since one key part was unconstitutional, the entire law must be struck down.

    Because Roberts was the most senior justice in the majority to strike down the mandate, he got to choose which justice would write the Court's historic decision. He kept it for himself.

    Over the next six weeks, as Roberts began to craft the decision striking down the mandate, the external pressure began to grow. Roberts almost certainly was aware of it."

    .................................

    View the complete article at:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162...alth-care-law/
    B. Steadman

  • #2
    Breaking: Was Chief Justice John Roberts Intimidated into Upholding the Individual Mandate?

    MAINSTREAM MEDIA REPORTER: ROBERTS HAD DECIDED AGAINST HEALTH CARE BILL BEFORE HE VOTED FOR IT.

    The Post & Email

    Sharon Rondeau
    7/1/2012

    View the complete article at:

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2012/07/...icual-mandate/
    B. Steadman

    Comment


    • #3
      Free Republic is running a thread titled, 'Roberts Switched Views to Uphold Health Care Law (Original CBS Report)', which was started 7/1/2012 by 'kristinn'

      The thread references the 7/1/2012 CBS News article written by Jan Crawford - http://www.cbsnews.com/2102-3460_162...in;contentBody

      View the complete Free Republic thread at:

      http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2901677/posts




      The following is COMMENT #257, by 'butterdezillion' in the thread.

      "Roberts (as well as other eligibility judges) have made some moves that are blatantly unethical. The timing and deliberate visibility of those moves immediately caused people at the time to cry foul. I believe those moves may have been red flags so that people WOULD cry foul. I believe the judges ruled as they did because they were threatened, but they wanted to give some sign to the public that what they did was under duress.

      I believe that also explains why Dick Cheney never asked for objections to the electoral count, as required by law. Cheney gave the appearance of lawfulness, as he had been threatened into doing, but he stood his ground enough to make sure that Obama was never LAWFULLY declared the President elect.

      Roberts did the same thing with the oath of office. I believe he deliberately screwed up the oath in public and then only did the “fixed” oath in private, with no videotape to prove that the oath was ever lawfully taken. Roberts gave the appearance of a lawful oath without necessarily ever actually administering a lawful oath. All the Soros people care about is the appearance, because anybody who would make a legal challenge to the appearances would be thwarted by the judiciary.

      Obama was not lawfully declared the electoral winner. There is no hard proof that Obama ever took the lawful oath - which he couldn’t actually do without lawfully being the electoral winner anyway. One of the justices - Stevens? - called Joe Biden “Mr. President” after administering his oath of office. That may have been deliberate as well.

      So anyway, I suspect that these major players were threatened into going along with the appearance of things being done lawfully but tweaked their response in such a way that they either gave the appearance of wrong-doing to let people know they were acting under duress, or actually kept the lawful process from happening, in the hopes that America would get out from under the threats and have legal grounds to undo all the damage.

      We know that physical threats were used against Bill and Hillary - after Bill Gwatney and Stephanie Tubbs were each killed right after agreeing to present the challenge to Obama’s eligibility at the 2008 Democratic Convention. We know that threats were made to the media heads - which were said to be threats of FCC/FTC annihilation after the election if the media reported on Obama’s eligibility problem, but which would be a vain threat unless there was some other way that Soros could ensure Obama’s election even if the threats were reported to Bush’s DOJ. So the real threat there had to be some harm that didn’t depend on the election. Nobody cares about Roger Ailes’ sex life so it couldn’t have been something like that. Same thing with Cheney. Jerry Corsi says the Kenyan government told GW Bush that Obama’s Kenyan birth records had been destroyed. And nobody’s been able to make any dirt against GW stick so silencing him and stopping his DOJ wasn’t by personal threats. We do know somebody was able to scare the crap out of GW Bush by getting him to believe that we would have Armageddon if TARP wasn’t passed. Bush was saying the world as we know it was going to end if TARP wasn’t passed. TARP was a drop in the bucket of toxic assets; it wasn’t because TARP would build such confidence, that GW was so desperate to have it passed. There was something else pushing him, and he was legitimately SCARED.

      I believe the threat was that Soros and his communist-Islamist buddies would make another run on the bank like the one they made in Sept of 2008. That was basically a dry run economic terrorist attack - which showed that the communist-Islamist alliance had the power to destroy the US economy (in a plan that Soros had actually presented to both Hillary and Obama in the 2008 primary and only Obama was OK with Soros’ plans to destroy the US economy - this according to top dem operatives who told Bettina Viviano about it). Having illustrated that power, Soros used the threat of immediate economic collapse as a threat in order to get Obama elected. If martial law had happened under Bush it would be a totally different ballgame than martial law under Obama; the timing was critical. And Soros STILL has the ability to cause an economic collapse whenever he wants; Congress has done nothing to eliminate the threat of economic terrorism. The failure of the democrat Congress to pass a budget has kept the US spending at emergency levels and has contributed to crippling uncertainty that’s kept the US from recovering economically - which is an essential part of Soros’ plan, because if the US recovered it would reduce the communist-Islamist alliance’s ability to send the US economy over the cliff. If that threat was gone, people like John Roberts, John Boehner, the eligibility judges, etc could come forward with their stories and America could go back to being America.

      Does that make clear what I meant?"
      Last edited by bsteadman; 07-02-2012, 08:54 PM.
      B. Steadman

      Comment


      • #4
        Roberts’ health care switch: Gasoline on the fire

        Politico

        Jennifer Haberkorn & Darren Samuelsohn
        7/2/2012

        Excerpt:

        "If you thought conservatives were mad at Chief Justice John Roberts on Thursday for upholding President Barack Obama’s health care law, now they’re even madder.

        Growing evidence that Roberts first sided with conservatives to overturn the law — then flipped his vote to join the liberals in upholding it — has conservatives seeing red.

        Roberts’s reported “flip” on his critical vote is now being met with various levels of disdain. Conservative legal scholars say he either didn’t have the guts to make a bold move and strike an unconstitutional law, or he put the court’s political reputation above whether he thought the law was constitutional.

        It’s even being compared to Bush v. Gore — another Supreme Court decision that outraged half the country. Only this time, it’s the conservative half that’s mad as hell.

        “Bush v. Gore is an example of a decision the left didn’t respect in part because they thought it was political motivated,” said Randy Barnett, a Georgetown University law professor who worked with the National Federation of Independent Business on its case against the law. “What the left says of Bush v. Gore, I think is true of this decision.”

        CBS News’s Jan Crawford reported Sunday what many had suspected since shortly after the ruling came out on Thursday: Roberts originally voted with the court’s four other Republican appointees to strike the mandate, then switched his vote and sided with the court’s Democratic appointees to uphold the law.

        The CBS story shocked the legal world not only because of the amount of detail that came from the notoriously tight-lipped Supreme Court, but because it came so quickly after the ruling it hit the streets.

        Pepperdine University law professor Douglas Kmiec, who worked at the Justice Department in the 1980s with both Roberts and Samuel Alito, said the CBS story “is as close to a transcript as one might reasonably surmise.”

        And if it’s true, Barnett said, it means the ruling was politically driven."

        ............................................

        View the complete article at:

        http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78075.html
        B. Steadman

        Comment

        Working...
        X