Posted on 06/30/2012 2:22:06 AM PDT by Kevmo
NedStark wrote: http://www.volokh.com/2012/06/28/was-scalias-dissent-originally-a-majority-opinion/
"Scalia’s dissent, at least on first quick perusal, reads like it was originally written as a majority opinion (in particular, he consistently refers to Justice Ginsburg’s opinion as “The Dissent”). 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."
I still believe that it is likely that there was insider trading that drove the price of this contract from $7-$9 in the past month. However, in the two days before the decision the price fell on substantial volume.
If the suspicions about Roberts changing his vote at the last minute are true then this only reinforces the intrade's value as a predictive market even though this time the bettors 'got it wrong.'
Edit to add here is an article that makes it clear that Roberts switched sides after the opinions had been written:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/29/did-rob...t-was-initially-set-to-strike/ This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at June 29, 2012 19:09:38 UTC
Did Roberts throw that curve ball because he has a gimp RINO arm, or because he’s a master craftsmen and used that pitch as a surgical strike to remove The One from office?
***It was no curve ball. It was a softball.
I don’t know, and I don’t care.
***If it was NOT a curve ball, would you care?
The democrats are the party of TAXES and we need to get them out.
***They managed to pass the largest TAX in world history without calling it a tax. There is very little likelihood that the republicans will do anything about it.
Mike Savage pointed out that Roberts lack of clear thinking may have been caused by the medication he is taking for epilepsy.
***Well, there’s another possibility to chalk up in the WHY category. What will republicans do about it, what CAN they do about it? Practically nothing.
As soon as the GOP has a majority in Congress, they should impeach Roberts.
***What are the odds that such a thing would happen? Less than a million to one.
It’s easy to think the worst of zer0bama and the Chicago Way. But what is even more disgusting is when we think the worst of Justice Roberts: He’s a wimp who didn’t like the negative attention at the last State of the Union, who folds like a lawn chair at the slightest hint of a political controversy. He sold out the republic for air conditioning and comfortable chairs.
I’ve been booted off sites before for emphasizing this,.... PURGE THE RINOS is the only way to win.
***And when I suggested to JimRob that we should at least have an idealogy matrix here on FR, he called me a newbie. That’s not even to purge RINOs, just to get it in the open who we’re debating with. FR won’t purge RINOs.
Simply put, the conservatives need a strong 5 or 7 members vs the commie side and the november election is do or die.
***It does not matter what happens in the November election. The republican party is putting up someone who is just as liberal, who pushed forth the precursor to Obamacare so he has no reason to knock it down, and who appoints libruls to judicial positions. No matter who wins in November, libs will be nominated to the courts.
And they need to pick the strongest advocates for the conservative, strict-constructionist view of the constitution—and then defend these to the death!
The war of words/the politics of language has it that a committed conservative is extremist while a committed liberal/progressive is fair-minded. We need to re-join that war!
Wittle justice Wobert changed his mind so as not to hurt the feelings of the “nice” Muslim President Obobo. Isn’t that so precious ?
Here’s what dirtboy has to say about it. It seems the most rational perspective at this time.
The scary thing is, I don’t think Roberts had to be blackmailed into this decision. He basically has stated his position regarding judicial restraint in the past, and his decision was in line with that view - with a dollop of transmogrification of the word ‘tax’ thrown in to make it possible.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2901298/posts?page=8#8
President Mountain Dew told Judge John Roberts “it’d be a shame for you to end up like Judge Roll”.
F&F probably connected. Weird timing.
Mark Levin is talking about the post-Constitutional era of America.
When you have justices like Ginsburgh dissing the US constitution abroad, you know it's time to wake up and smell the betrayal. These people are not going to uphold the constitution.
We're on the streets, face-to-face with Obama's goons.
There is nothing we can do about it on or after November either, unless you plan on killing this injustice. In which case I remind you that Mitt is likely to appoint anther just as bad.
Mitt might promise us a reprieve from this one repressive act, but what about the next 10 they are now free to impose?
What is to stop a power drunk congress from enacting a law requiring us to spend our money on everything they think we should have? I can see their political justification right now, its “for the economy” people aren’t spending therefore they should be made to.
In the end and among the various totalitarianism “tax” mandates will be just the right requirement to favor “just the right people” who’s guaranteeing business will generate funds donated to maintain the same favor.
There is nothing we can do about it on or after November either, unless you plan on killing this injustice. In which case I remind you that Mitt is likely to appoint anther just as bad.
Mitt might promise us a reprieve from this one repressive act, but what about the next 10 they are now free to impose?
What is to stop a power drunk congress from enacting a law requiring us to spend our money on everything they think we should have? I can see their political justification right now, its “for the economy” people aren’t spending therefore they should be made to.
In the end and among the various totalitarianism “tax” mandates will be just the right requirement to favor “just the right people” who’s guaranteeing business will generate funds donated to maintain the same political favor & mandate.
A new Constitutional Amendment.
We have the means of petitioning for this right now. We need two clauses, one to prohibit the government from mandating private commerce, and a second clause prohibiting punitive taxes/fees/fines for not engaging in commerce.
And we have to get this signed and delivered so as to force mitt to say whether he's for or against it before the election.
In that cause you have my support, as in any other case that has the slightest chance of restoring our liberty.
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.