Skip to comments.Did Justice Roberts Change His Obamacare Vote At The Eleventh Hour?
Posted on 06/28/2012 4:03:53 PM PDT by Aquamarine
There is an odd anomaly found in Justice Scalias dissenting opinion in todays Obamacare decision.
When referencing the opinion of Justice Ginsburgwho wrote the opinion on behalf of herself and the remaining three liberals on the CourtScalia refers to Ginsburgs 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 Ginsburgs 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 votefor reasons that we may never knowat the last moment and that Scalia failed to make the correction in his own opinion when referring to Ginsburgs 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 ...
Bush had Medicare Part D, Roberts has Robertscare (a more fitting name).
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.
He changed his vote after the Sandusky conviction scared him.
Is Justice Roberts allowed to do this?
And what happens if he comes out later and says he was coerced?
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,!!!
I have long said that we are in the midst of a marxist takeover.
Chief Justice Roberts woke up with a dead horse in his bed.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
It is not the SCOTUS’s role to make decisions based on potential political gain.
The Chicago gangbangers may have made him an offer he couldn’t refuse. Chicago politics do get ugly.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
Why don't you get this...he voted AGAINST Scalia and WITH Kagan.
We impeach him. .
Keep up the good work, the left is counting on negative idiots like yourself.
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.
So you’re saying that Scalia was wrong on this?
Ginsberg said that those who know, don’t talk and those who talk, don’t know. We should have seen this coming.
You are correct, once again.
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.
If the 30-something folks are paying attention, ObamaCareTax will be more expensive than “free” contraceptives ... Where is Ms Fluke?
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.
It was already dealt with in Congress, the SCOTUS validated it....it’s over!
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
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.
uh.. No it’s not.
My thoughts exactly. Roberts may have been shown the “Chicago” Way!!!!
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.
Why wasn’t Kennedy shown the “Chicago” way? And even if he was, why did he stand firm?
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.
Only needed one vote.
Got any guesses who the unidentified circles are?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.