The Roberts Defection, Confirmed
Looks like the rumors have been substantiated. CBS News' Jan Crawford (one of the best Supreme Court reporters out there) reporting this morning:
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."
I'm angriest about the decision and Chief Justice Roberts' role in it. But you know what's nearly as frustrating? I'll never be able to make a Justice Kennedy joke in good conscience again. Who would've thought? Anthony Kennedy -- there for us, unwaveringly so, when we needed him most.
- Comment (48)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (9)
Comments:
Sep '10
Re: The Roberts Defection, Confirmed
Troy. I listened to Law Talk with you and John and Richard. I did not see this addressed. Maybe I missed it. Any thoughts?I posted this on the member feed. Can I Sue Obamacare in 2014?The Government argued that this was a mandate enforceable under the Commerce Clause. Justice Roberts said that argument does not hold water. He says that no matter what you call it, it is still a tax. Does that mean that the law stands because of the Anti-Injunction Act ( no one has been taxed, so no one has standing until 2014 )?Is he saying that the constitutionality can only be legally debated as a tax in 2014?
Mar '11
Re: The Roberts Defection, Confirmed
I guess we'll have to wait for Justice Roberts' inevitable autobiography to find out what the hell he was thinking. Well, I'll have to wait to read a review of the thing because I'll never buy it.
Edited on July 2, 2012 at 1:37amDec '11
Re: The Roberts Defection, Confirmed
Mel Foil
raycon: "But you know what's nearly as frustrating? I'll never be able to make a Justice Kennedy joke in good conscience again."
You speak for many of us. The Bush family legacy marches on.
Is there something you don't like about Thomas and Alito? If you have any remnant of gratitude, at all, you have to appreciate #41 and #43 for not being Democrat presidents, in which case EVERY justice they nominated would be horrible. Okay, so they didn't bat a thousand, but the other side bats zero. · 3 hours ago
Not to quibble, but the other side bats 1.000 from their perspective.
Jul '12
Re: The Roberts Defection, Confirmed
I posted yesterday in the comments to Peter Robinson's post that begins : Devestating... Devestated, about who Roberts is and what might be going on with him. There are two posts under my name within one or two of each other. He is surely not oriented towards getting what animates us in our opposition to Obamacare and the attack on our Liberty. He is a denizen of the System. How anyone could think that the integrity of the Court could be preserved in this way ! All he did was forestall the leftist mob. He did enrage us, but he has no idea who we are and how we respond to provocation. See 2010. Kraut hammer is equally clueless. They both inhabit the Beltway for much too long. I for one cannot bring myself to care so much that the power is out in D. C. For several days. My only real regret is that the real bast,,,s have already left for vacation.
Sep '11
Re: The Roberts Defection, Confirmed
OK, folks, let's rein it in a little. I was as frustrated & infuriated as anyone on Thursday. The Chief Justice's ruling was wrong on the Constitution and, if we give a charitable reading, too-clever-by half on the politics.
It does little good to continue to bash Roberts instead of re-focusing on the task at hand; forcing the American electorate out of its' slumber and confronting it with a stark choice between liberty and servitude.
We have to win the contest of ideas where Abraham Lincoln said we would: public sentiment. Besides the statist nightmare that is Obamacare, we have the twin messes of our stagnant economy and the bloated, overspent government to hang around Obama's neck. Provide some free-market solutions as both technically and morally superior to leftism, and let's end this Administration on Jan. 20, 2013.
Yes, Roberts' ruling was Machiavellian at best, moral and political cowardice at worst. Rather than curse the darkness, let's shed a little light on the subject, and win the real fight (the polis at large).
Apr '11
Re: The Roberts Defection, Confirmed
I can't shake the feeling that Roberts tried to make a judicial activism point through an act of judicial activism. King Solomon would not have been considered wise had he split the baby, he is remembered as so because he didn't.
Nov '11
Re: The Roberts Defection, Confirmed
Brian McMenomy:
Yes, Roberts' ruling was Machiavellian at best, moral and political cowardice at worst. Rather than curse the darkness, let's shed a little light on the subject, and win the real fight (the polisat large). · 15 minutes ago
Agree completely!
Even in the worst interpretation, Roberts' vote is a symptom of everything else that is wrong -- not the cause.
If the people don't respect the Constitution enough to vote to maintain it, the Court couldn't save us long if it tried. But if the people care enough to throw out a government and bring about repeal, that would do as much to restrain future Congresses tempted to overreach as a 5-4 decision by this Supreme Court would have.
Note --HotAir cautions against believing the report too quickly: based on unnamed sources, the kind of thing that seems designed to stir up conservative infighting, etc. Who knows.
Edited on July 2, 2012 at 2:58amDec '11
Re: The Roberts Defection, Confirmed
Um... noo, you rein it in, although I'm not convinced what that would entail as you've chosen to post no cognizant profile. If you don't own a business or a stock portfolio, I'm not particularly interested in listening to your pontification on an issue that affects donut makers. Period.
Mar '11
Re: The Roberts Defection, Confirmed
If only we could...
Mar '11
Re: The Roberts Defection, Confirmed
Nope. He deserves all the bile he's getting, and more. "Betrayer" is not too strong a word for this man: he betrayed his country, his constitution, and his fellow citizens. He had it in his power, with one fell swoop, to reverse decades of "living Constitution" court rulings that spat on that same Constitution, and in the end, he bowed to the threats of the Washington establishment crowd. He is a foul, foul man.
Sep '10
Re: The Roberts Defection, Confirmed
It's not that hard, impeaching him would only require the subterfuge that was needed when the 16th amendment & Federal Reserve act was chained upon us. Wait till everyone is at home on Christmas eve, then make your move. It merely requires us to change the rules if we have the majority. Consolidating gains in the senate would require creation of states that would guarantee conservative senators.
Remember one of the first Supreme court justices was removed for merely being drunk in public IIRC. Being found negligent in his duties is far greater a crime. Yes it is a political decision but the line in the Declaration of Independence states that we must find new guards for our liberty.
This will be all for naught if Obama wins re-election.
Jun '10
Re: The Roberts Defection, Confirmed
and Roberts betrayed -- not just us -- but his country. Shame on him.
Dec '11
Re: The Roberts Defection, Confirmed
On a lighter note... your wonderful avatar just made my day!
Jan '11
Re: The Roberts Defection, Confirmed
Brian McMenomy: OK, folks, let's rein it in a little.
It does little good to continue to bash Roberts instead of re-focusing on the task at hand; forcing the American electorate out of its' slumber and confronting it with a stark choice between liberty and servitude.
Where does it say that we can't do both? Why can't we register our disgust at this decision, question its motives and certainly its effects, and at the same time start to build a case to our fellow citizens about what limited government ought to mean?
I mean, we can multi-converse on several fronts, can't we?
May '10
Re: The Roberts Defection, Confirmed
In Roberts' defense:
If this account is true, then it proves false almost every analysis of Roberts' reasoning and intentions. He did NOT, apparently, enter the process committed to overturning the law. He was persuaded.
Maybe Matthew Franck is right afterall: Roberts actually believes the "it's a tax" position (came to believe it, in this case) and acted in good faith.
I'm as angry as anyone, but it is a possibility, you know.
Edited on July 2, 2012 at 2:29pmAug '10
Re: The Roberts Defection, Confirmed
The King Prawn: This hurts more than the actual decision.
I'll have to draw on my inner Jonah Goldberg to describe my newly minted opinion of the Chief Justice [sic]:
He has now become to me a feckless cheese-eating crap weasel surrender monkey asshat.
I gave him the benefit of the doubt, but his behavior was egregious enough that the inner workings of the SCOTUS leaked out. That fact alone speaks volumes. · 15 hours ago
Well said. Jonah would be proud, I think.
Aug '10
Re: The Roberts Defection, Confirmed
Bluenoser
Mel Foil
Is there something you don't like about Thomas and Alito? If you have any remnant of gratitude, at all, you have to appreciate #41 and #43 for not being Democrat presidents, in which case EVERY justice they nominated would be horrible. Okay, so they didn't bat a thousand, but the other side bats zero. · 3 hours ago
Not to quibble, but the other side bats 1.000 from their perspective. · 13 hours ago
Good point. And scary, too. Very scary indeed.
Apr '12
Re: The Roberts Defection, Confirmed
Roberts is the kind of man that would rather justify and enable evil than confront it. The psychology of a concentration camp guard is a little less mysterious now.
For want of courage, Roberts joined the ranks of Castro & Stalin, when he could've joined those of Jefferson & Adams.
Edited on July 2, 2012 at 3:13pmNov '11
Re: The Roberts Defection, Confirmed
I just posted this on an older member article:
These two articles give me pause in believing Roberts was really ever very conservative:
http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/07/alone-again-naturally/#comments
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/07/roberts_did_not_change.html
It really is Bush's fault this time?
Oct '10
Re: The Roberts Defection, Confirmed
Leigh
Maybe this just means that Roberts is extremely reluctant to overturn Congress no matter what, which might work in our favour on DOMA. Maybe.
True about Kennedy. Perhaps he is becoming more conservative overall with time? It also means all those people watching the oral arguments actually read the justices correctly. There was simply no way to predict Roberts' shift.
We were so close. This is when I simply have to step back and trust that God is in control... the fate of our nation is not really in one man's hands. · 18 hours ago
Edited 18 hours ago
I believe in God, but I also believe in free will.
We're screwed.