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:
Oct '10
Re: The Roberts Defection, Confirmed
It's not an either/or; we can do both. I for one will not stop bashing Roberts whenever I get the chance, until I take my last breath.
Oct '10
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. · 18 hours ago
Except for the fact that if #41 and #43 were Democrats, they wouldn't have been president. Someone else would've run on the GOP ticket, and won, and probably not have nominated abject disasters for SCOTUS. Don't forget, #43 wanted Harriet Miers on the Court!!!
Oh, and if #41 hadn't been GHWB but a different Republican instead, we might not have gotten Clinton in '92 - for 8 years! - and his disastrous picks, either.
Edited on July 2, 2012 at 3:43pmRe: The Roberts Defection, Confirmed
It's actually a fixture of statutory interpretation that Judges are supposed find a law constitutional when there is presented an opportunity to do so. So I don't blame Roberts for that mindset - he was doing his job.
However, that doesn't mean a Judge should re-write a statute or stretch it beyond the point where it logically breaks to find it constitutional.
That's what Roberts did and that's the problem.
I haven't seen enough words written about the enormous power government now has - to take my money until I cry uncle and do what they command with my money.
Actually, I guess it's all their money at this point, isn't it?
Edited on July 2, 2012 at 3:52pmMar '12
Re: The Roberts Defection, Confirmed
I heard him called the dread Pirate Roberts. Really. It fits. We'll all dread the next case going to the Supremes because we have no idea on what he'll do to it, including rewriting the statute from the bench.
Mar '11
Re: The Roberts Defection, Confirmed
KC Mulville: Four justices solidly in favor. Four solidly against.
And when Roberts approached the liberals about siding with them, how did they respond? They embraced the result, even if it meant they had to surrender their devotion to the Commerce Clause.
Except that they didn't. The ruling was "4-1-4". According to Mark Levin, since Robert's writings on limiting the commerce clause were written only for himself and not joined "by the court" (meaning, the majority didn't sign on to the opinion), they mean exactly squat. They're not considered precedent without "for the court" signing on to it. Roberts achieved no limits on federal power.
Mar '11
Re: The Roberts Defection, Confirmed
That's too good a name for him. Instead of Chief Justice Roberts, we should adopt Rob's description for his new title: Chicken**** Justice Roberts.
Jul '10
Re: The Roberts Defection, Confirmed
I will stand by initial assessment: that rat bastard can go to Hell.
May '10
Re: The Roberts Defection, Confirmed
Douglas
That's too good a name for him. Instead of Chief Justice Roberts, we should adopt Rob's description for his new title: Chicken**** Justice Roberts. · 8 hours ago
....as Ricochet risks decending into something indistinguishable from the comment section of any site on the web.