Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Did Justice Roberts Change His Obamacare Vote At The Eleventh Hour?
Forbes.com ^ | 6/28/2012 | Rick Ungar

Posted on 06/28/2012 4:03:53 PM PDT by Aquamarine

There is an odd anomaly found in Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion in today’s Obamacare decision.

When referencing the opinion of Justice Ginsburg—who wrote the opinion on behalf of herself and the remaining three liberals on the Court—Scalia refers to Ginsburg’s opinion as the ‘dissent’. This raises the specter that, at the time Scalia wrote his opinion, Justice Ginsburg may have actually been in the minority rather than a part of the ultimate majority which upheld the law.

While Justice Scalia may well have been referring to Ginsburg’s dissent to the Commerce Clause argument that was carried by a majority of the Court and found that the ACA was not constitutionally permissible under the Commerce Clause, it could also indicate that Chief Justice Roberts changed his vote—for reasons that we may never know—at the last moment and that Scalia failed to make the correction in his own opinion when referring to Ginsburg’s writing.

This from “The Volokh Conspiracy” :

“Back in May, there were rumors floating around relevant legal circles that a key vote was taking place, and that Roberts was feeling tremendous pressure from unidentified circles to vote to uphold the mandate. Did Roberts originally vote to invalidate the mandate on commerce clause grounds, and to invalidate the Medicaid expansion, and then decide later to accept the tax argument and essentially rewrite the Medicaid expansion (which, as I noted, citing Jonathan Cohn, was the sleeper issue in this case) to preserve it? If so, was he responding to the heat from President Obama and others, preemptively threatening to delegitimize the Court if it invalidated the ACA? The dissent, along with the surprising way that Roberts chose to uphold both the mandate and the Medicaid expansion, will inevitably feed the rumor mill.

(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: healthcare; tax
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-66 next last

1 posted on 06/28/2012 4:03:59 PM PDT by Aquamarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Aquamarine

Bush had Medicare Part D, Roberts has Robertscare (a more fitting name).


2 posted on 06/28/2012 4:06:51 PM PDT by PAConservative1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aquamarine

For what it’s worth, the bilderburgers had their usual meeting a few weeks ago. Wonder if he got offered something hh couldn’t refuse? Or is it legacy building? The leftards will love him now, till his use fullness runs out anyway.


3 posted on 06/28/2012 4:07:41 PM PDT by Mmogamer (I refudiate the lamestream media, leftists and their prevaricutions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aquamarine

He changed his vote after the Sandusky conviction scared him.


4 posted on 06/28/2012 4:07:50 PM PDT by ClearCase_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aquamarine

Is Justice Roberts allowed to do this?
And what happens if he comes out later and says he was coerced?


5 posted on 06/28/2012 4:08:35 PM PDT by tbw2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aquamarine

"ObamaCARE does not regulate us, Congress, or Islam, SUCKERS!!!!!!"


6 posted on 06/28/2012 4:08:39 PM PDT by Diogenesis ("Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. " Pres. Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PAConservative1

Why t you guys get this. Roberts guaranteed this election for us. We should be thanking him. Bigger picture people. It will be overturned completely I stead of by pieces... This is a good thing. Think 1994 on steroids,!!!


7 posted on 06/28/2012 4:09:54 PM PDT by Hildy ("When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." - Socrates)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Aquamarine

I have long said that we are in the midst of a marxist takeover.


8 posted on 06/28/2012 4:12:38 PM PDT by gorush (History repeats itself because human nature is static)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aquamarine

Chief Justice Roberts woke up with a dead horse in his bed.


9 posted on 06/28/2012 4:13:38 PM PDT by getarope (I have come here to chew bubble gum and kick ass, and I am all out of bubble gum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hildy

The bigger picture is this isn’t about Obamacare or even the repeal. It’s the legal precedence and expansion of the gov’t to regulate behavior and tax/fine any unapproved/approved action and inaction.

The only good in the long-term is if you think this is a call to arms...not to the voting booth.


10 posted on 06/28/2012 4:14:38 PM PDT by Kaosinla (The More the Plans Fail. The More the Planners Plan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Hildy

I’d much rather have had the communist healthcare law guaranteed to be gone for good than make a political gamble which may or may not pay off.


11 posted on 06/28/2012 4:15:29 PM PDT by PAConservative1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Aquamarine
"Back in May, there were rumors floating around relevant legal circles that a key vote was taking place, and that Roberts was feeling tremendous pressure from unidentified circles to vote to uphold the mandate...If so, was he responding to the heat from President Obama and others, preemptively threatening to delegitimize the Court if it invalidated the ACA? The dissent, along with the surprising way that Roberts chose to uphold both the mandate and the Medicaid expansion, will inevitably feed the rumor mill."

What does Rush know about Roberts -- 'I know but I can't say' re: Roberts with the Left on the Arizona decision, and foreshadowing this decision as well 'the next one could go this way' -- but won't tell?

12 posted on 06/28/2012 4:16:35 PM PDT by StAnDeliver (=)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aquamarine

At first I was disappointed - I think Roberts might might have been very wise....

If Romney can’t win now we are totally screwed as a nation ruled by the constitution.

Roberts basically said - you all voted for this by allowing Obama to get elected.... now you all fix it.

Risky - but smart.


13 posted on 06/28/2012 4:17:53 PM PDT by mike_9958
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aquamarine

Tired of Roberts being defended. There was no real threat of invalidating the court. Roberts did that single handedly today. He proved that the court was nothing but an activist nightmare and he needs to be replaced or the court is nothing but destructive.


14 posted on 06/28/2012 4:17:59 PM PDT by formosa (Formosa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hildy

It is not the SCOTUS’s role to make decisions based on potential political gain.


15 posted on 06/28/2012 4:18:24 PM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Aquamarine

The Chicago gangbangers may have made him an offer he couldn’t refuse. Chicago politics do get ugly.


16 posted on 06/28/2012 4:18:28 PM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (Dude! Where's my Constitution?!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hildy

roberts did one and only one thing today... and if you read the dissenting opinions then you will know... roberts handed down a horrible and treasonous decision.

This election is no more guaranteed for romney than obamacare being doomed due to the oral arguments. There is a better than even chance that obama will win... and if he does... we will probably lose House seats and lose seats in the Senate. obamao is that corrupt and that powerful... your government machine wants to morph into a central command government that controls everything that citizens do. romeny may lose... because he is just that horrible a candidate. Guarantee? Don’t write a check that you can’t cash.

LLS


17 posted on 06/28/2012 4:19:57 PM PDT by LibLieSlayer (Don't Tread On Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: formosa

“Tired of Roberts being defended. There was no real threat of invalidating the court. Roberts did that single handedly today. He proved that the court was nothing but an activist nightmare and he needs to be replaced or the court is nothing but destructive.”

I can’t say what it is, but there is something ticking in this decision...and it is not a clock. Zero better enjoy his day in the sun. It won’t be long before the ticking stops and he won’t know what hit him, Constitutional scholar though he may be.


18 posted on 06/28/2012 4:22:43 PM PDT by jessduntno ("Newt Gingrich was part of the Reagan Revolution's Murderers' Row." - Jeffrey Lord, Reagan Admin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: mike_9958

I wondered if he did it intentionally. To orchestrate Obama adding a new “tax”, but more so, to get the majority of the country fired up.

It could make people mad enough to cast a vote for Romney, when they otherwise wouldn’t have.


19 posted on 06/28/2012 4:23:03 PM PDT by JudyinCanada
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Hildy

No, Hildy, Laura Ingram said it best when she noted that there is no way this was a “brilliant coup” for the GOP when we are less free today than yesterday.


20 posted on 06/28/2012 4:23:26 PM PDT by LS ("Castles Made of Sand, Fall in the Sea . . . Eventually (Hendrix))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Hildy

Roberts effectively gave to Federal government the power to tax us for absolutely anything or nothing at all. It is all at their discretion. It does not matter if the next legislature overturns the law itself. The supreme court ruled that unlimited taxation for any reason or purpose was okay as long the federal government voted for it.

The only way around that is set limits on what the government can tax us for etc. It will most likely require a constitutional convention.


21 posted on 06/28/2012 4:23:48 PM PDT by formosa (Formosa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: getarope
has the Supreme Court EVER protected the average citizen from the tryranny of the govt unless it concerned a criminal?...

it seems over the years, the average citizen has gotten trampled...

yet, don't read the rights to an illegal?....then all of a sudden their all constitutional....

the 3 branches of govt was supposed to prevent tyranny of one branch...but when they all work in collusion, what do you do?

I harken back to the Senate....we need it back...and we have to learn to stop stomping our feet and putting on a pouty face when we don't get the ideal candidate....we have Frankin in the Senate because of the doofuses that voted constitutional party, with my apologies to regular doofuses...

22 posted on 06/28/2012 4:25:01 PM PDT by cherry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Hildy
Why t you guys get this. Roberts guaranteed this election for us.

Why don't you get this...he voted AGAINST Scalia and WITH Kagan.

23 posted on 06/28/2012 4:25:28 PM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: tbw2
Is Justice Roberts allowed to do this?
And what happens if he comes out later and says he was coerced?

We impeach him. .

24 posted on 06/28/2012 4:29:52 PM PDT by Uncle Slayton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: LibLieSlayer

Keep up the good work, the left is counting on negative idiots like yourself.


25 posted on 06/28/2012 4:30:10 PM PDT by Hildy ("When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." - Socrates)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

So shortsighted.


26 posted on 06/28/2012 4:30:56 PM PDT by Hildy ("When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." - Socrates)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: mnehring

The point is he didn’t. We say we don’t want activist judges, but you do. He interpreted the law based on their argument about it being a tax. He did his job now he is telling us to do ours.


27 posted on 06/28/2012 4:33:01 PM PDT by Hildy ("When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." - Socrates)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Hildy

So you’re saying that Scalia was wrong on this?


28 posted on 06/28/2012 4:33:01 PM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Aquamarine

Ginsberg said that those who know, don’t talk and those who talk, don’t know. We should have seen this coming.


29 posted on 06/28/2012 4:34:15 PM PDT by Tau Food (Tom Hoefling for President - 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LS

You are correct, once again.


30 posted on 06/28/2012 4:34:30 PM PDT by Dacula
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

I am saying it was a more pure interpretation based on the argument presented to them. Make up your mind, you want an activist court or not. It now can be dealt with where it should be dealt with.. IN CONGRESS.


31 posted on 06/28/2012 4:35:54 PM PDT by Hildy ("When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." - Socrates)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Aquamarine

If the 30-something folks are paying attention, ObamaCareTax will be more expensive than “free” contraceptives ... Where is Ms Fluke?


32 posted on 06/28/2012 4:36:32 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer (The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gorush


No Bible.

A picture that had not been there before and was moved again later. More than once.

A few weeks after Obama took office

Sometime before Obama

33 posted on 06/28/2012 4:36:37 PM PDT by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Aquamarine

I believe he did a last minute Hamlet, torn between what he knew to be legally correct and what he thought he needed to do to save the Court from leftist mau-mauing. In the end, he chose wrongly.


34 posted on 06/28/2012 4:37:28 PM PDT by Paine in the Neck (Socialism consumes everything)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hildy

It was already dealt with in Congress, the SCOTUS validated it....it’s over!


35 posted on 06/28/2012 4:37:33 PM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Hildy
He interpreted the law based on their argument about it being a tax.

That's why he viewed it as not a tax for the purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act.

I N S A N I T Y

36 posted on 06/28/2012 4:41:33 PM PDT by Vortex (Garbage In, Garbage Out)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Aquamarine

There a lot more to this story than what we know today. Read this first sentence carefully>

&&Roberts was feeling tremendous pressure from unidentified circles to vote to uphold the mandate. Did Roberts originally vote to invalidate the mandate on commerce clause grounds, and to invalidate the Medicaid expansion, and then decide later to accept the tax argument and essentially rewrite the Medicaid expansion (which, as I noted, citing Jonathan Cohn, was the sleeper issue in this case) to preserve it? If so, was he responding to the heat from President Obama and others, preemptively threatening to delegitimize the Court if it invalidated the ACA? The dissent, along with the surprising way that Roberts chose to uphold both the mandate and the Medicaid expansion, will inevitably feed the rumor mill.

...


37 posted on 06/28/2012 4:42:25 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

uh.. No it’s not.


38 posted on 06/28/2012 4:44:03 PM PDT by Hildy ("When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." - Socrates)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: getarope

My thoughts exactly. Roberts may have been shown the “Chicago” Way!!!!


39 posted on 06/28/2012 4:44:51 PM PDT by catfish1957 (My dream for hope and change is to see the punk POTUS in prison for treason)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Hildy
We say we don’t want activist judges, but you do. He interpreted the law based on their argument about it being a tax.

Just the opposite, Roberts is the one being activist because it being a tax was not in the original argument. SCOTUS read into what it was to claim it was a tax and therefore justified. The administration in its case argued it was a fine, not a tax.

In filings before the Supreme Court, White House lawyers have adopted two seemingly contradictory stances, The Hill reported last year: the administration wants an immediate ruling, so it argues that the penalty shouldn't be considered a tax because federal law prescribes courts from blocking taxes before they go into effect.

40 posted on 06/28/2012 4:46:15 PM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: catfish1957

Why wasn’t Kennedy shown the “Chicago” way? And even if he was, why did he stand firm?


41 posted on 06/28/2012 4:46:51 PM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: formosa
Tired of Roberts being defended. There was no real threat of invalidating the court. Roberts did that single handedly today. He proved that the court was nothing but an activist nightmare and he needs to be replaced or the court is nothing but destructive.

Agree. The ramifications of his ruling are mind-boggling. Rather than judge the bill on its constitutional merits, he changed "mandate" to "tax" in order to pass it.

Also heard that Roberts takes seizure meds which might potentially affect his cognition. Have seen this firsthand with a relative on anti-seizure meds. If he is non compos mentis (who knows?), he has no business on the Supreme Court.

42 posted on 06/28/2012 4:48:57 PM PDT by BlatherNaut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

Only needed one vote.


43 posted on 06/28/2012 4:49:07 PM PDT by catfish1957 (My dream for hope and change is to see the punk POTUS in prison for treason)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Got any guesses who the unidentified circles are?


44 posted on 06/28/2012 4:49:41 PM PDT by Aquamarine (May the father of all mercies scatter light and not darkness in our paths ~ G. Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Aquamarine

With Roberts now, my gut is telling me that it’s either a live boy(s) or a dead girl or a woman who made sure she (and/or her confederates) obtained & kept irrefutable proof of an illicit affair. And if not any of these it is some kind of financial or legal impropriety with which he is being threatened/controlled.


45 posted on 06/28/2012 4:52:45 PM PDT by House Atreides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hildy

Your wrong, so wrong. He rewrote the law from the bench, defining the mandate as nothing more then a tax. The administration argued that this was a fine, until the last day of arguments with the supremes. How can a congressly elected fine now be viewed as a tax? It was passed as a fine, how does Roberts justify this? No one will answer me, crickets, crickets.


46 posted on 06/28/2012 4:54:05 PM PDT by BLOC77 (i was pro-life before pro-life was cool)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Aquamarine

Roberts is just another on a long list of court nominees who have betrayed the conservative cause once they got in office. George Bush thought that he would be a reliable conservative. So did I and I supported his nomination. We were both wrong.

If it’s true that his epilepsy medication is clouding his judgement then he needs to resign once Romney takes office.


47 posted on 06/28/2012 4:54:17 PM PDT by borg5575
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hildy
I am saying it was a more pure interpretation based on the argument presented to them. Make up your mind, you want an activist court or not. It now can be dealt with where it should be dealt with.. IN CONGRESS.

I see what you're saying and it's valid. But there's a couple of problems, I WANT INSTANT GRATIFICATION and want to know this is gone. And, what happenens if we don't get the Senate? They haven't passed a budget since like 1863? So how's defunding going to work? I get that Robert's might have done the right thing, but it doesn't make us safer necessarily. And what about the Court defining what is and is not a tax? Isn't that the job of Congress alone?

I'm not one to throw Roberts overboard, but I have a sinking feeling that he's fighting the long, slow losing fight. I'm afraid we have this monstrosity around our necks for the long term.

48 posted on 06/28/2012 4:54:37 PM PDT by mockingbyrd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis
Tell them Lan Astaslem: http://michellemalkin.com/2011/09/11/lan-astaslem-i-will-not-surrender/
49 posted on 06/28/2012 4:58:18 PM PDT by combat_boots (The Lion of Judah cometh. Hallelujah. Gloria Patri, Filio et Spiritui Sancto.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: BLOC77

How can a congressly elected fine now be viewed as a tax? It was passed as a fine, how does Roberts justify this? No one will answer me, crickets, crickets.”

I think you answered it yourself. It can’t. And he can’t. This is not the end of the argument, it is the beginning.


50 posted on 06/28/2012 5:02:37 PM PDT by jessduntno ("Newt Gingrich was part of the Reagan Revolution's Murderers' Row." - Jeffrey Lord, Reagan Admin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-66 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson