Skip to comments.Scalia was 'furious' at Roberts vote on healthcare law, says Toobin book
Posted on 09/18/2012 5:33:02 AM PDT by RobinMasters
Jeffrey Toobin's latest book portrays Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia as increasingly cranky and partisan and infuriated with Chief Justice John Roberts over the court's recent decisions on healthcare and immigration.
Toobin, who writes for The New Yorker and also covers the court for CNN, credits Scalia for a sea change in how both sides of the political spectrum think about the law. But he says the justice's bombast has become off-putting to more even-tempered colleagues.
Toobin's latest book, "The Oath," chronicling the Roberts court and the Obama presidency, is being released today. Here are 5 key takeaways:
Scalia 'furious' over healthcare and immigration
The book confirms previous reports that Roberts changed his vote in the landmark case over President Obama's healthcare law after initially siding with the conservative justices. But Toobin reports as others have implied that what pushed Roberts away was the conservative justices' insistence on striking down the entire health law.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Ha, just see what kind of court we have is Obama gets a second term..more left wing judges that ignore the law. he can already cound on half the court.
Antonin Scalia. The guy who SHOULD have been Chief Justice.
Jorge El Segundo. Do you miss him yet?
He chose to be popular with the leftists rather than take his oath to defend the constitution seriously.
In doing so he may have damaged his reputation beyond any kind of repair.
Why would any sensible person believe Jeffrey Toobin? He is a left wing propagandist.
Justice Roberts is now the toast of the DC cocktail circuit. He groveled and betrayed for liberal approval and now he has it. Probably his wife is a lib so now she’s very happy too, she can engage in the right kind of gossip at museum dedications
I despise Washington DC just ripping off the provinces for their BS liberal schemes. Federale DC is a hiring hall for libs, feminazis, gays, lesbians and affirmative action babies. This is who the permanent bureaucracy is and they only hire their own (with some exceptions)
Just what we need, a view of the court by another radical left-winger for all the media lefties to quote as authoritative.
Ah, and Sandra Day O’Conner’s statement is the nail in the coffin! Even she says the Repubs are “destroying the country...” So it MUST be true!
The libs view Repubs as moving more radically to the right only for one reason: they have moved so far to the left, that it appears to them that the Repubs have moved right. Rather, it is they who have moved left. Duh.
The McCain/Romney/RINO’s have moved to the right? How warped is that?
Toobin lives in a fantasy world...here is a quote regarding the fight over the UNCONSTITUTIONAL health care law:
“...it was Barack Obama who was determined to hold on to an older version of the meaning of the Constitution.”
We get screwed by more Bush (41 AND 43) appointees than anything else!
They’ve all shirked their duty relative to the vetting of our so-called President.
God help us.
The McCain/Romney/RINOs have moved to the right? How warped is that?
That’s exactly the right way to look at it.
In order for this to be true, Bush 41, Bush 43, McCain and Romney would need to be further right than Reagan. An ideological breakdown of “The republican party moving further right” would look like:
Obama >> Clinton >> Reagan >> Bush 41 >> Bush 43 >> McCain >> Romney
That is not even close to true. A realistic ideological breakdown would be:
Obama >> Clinton >> McCain >> Romney >> Bush 43 >> Bush 41 >> Reagan
As you correctly state, the ideological gap between Left and Right is larger than it ever because the liberals have moved even further Left than the RINOs on the Right have.
It ain’t over. Roberts, in one of the stupidest decisions ever, basically kicked the can and he KNEW he was kicking it!
Here is his final statement in his opinion...
The Affordable Care Act is constitutional in part and
unconstitutional in part. The individual mandate cannot
be upheld as an exercise of Congresss power under the
Commerce Clause. That Clause authorizes Congress to
regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to
engage in it. In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go
without health insurance. Such legislation is within Con-
gresss power to tax.
As for the Medicaid expansion, that portion of the Af-
fordable Care Act violates the Constitution by threatening
existing Medicaid funding. Congress has no authority to
order the States to regulate according to its instructions.
Congress may offer the States grants and require the
States to comply with accompanying conditions, but the
States must have a genuine choice whether to accept the
He plainly says the Medicaid expansion is unconstitutional.
He plainly says the individual mandate is unconstitutional if they try to justify it under the ICC clause.
He then says “it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes...”
This is where he falls flat on his face, and shows how stoneless and unready to be Chief Justice he is.
It’s not written as a “tax”, it’s written as a “penalty”.
The courts have ruled time and time again that in order for a tax to be valid, it must do two things:
Describe EXACTLY what is being taxed
Describe EXACTLY who is liable for the tax
Any “tax” that doesn’t have the above two qualities is void for vagueness.
This whole deal will end up before the courts again, because it conflicts with previous established rulings.
John Roberts is a pussy that caved to political heat.
He is the slimy weasel that leads you to the water well and then poisons it.
“’What makes this harder,’ O’Connor told Souter, ‘is that it’s my party that’s destroying the country.’”
Good riddance to another stealth liberal RINO.
-— John Roberts is a pussy -—
His Carteresque, perpetual s-— eating grin/smirk concerned me. His vote confirmed my fears.
As he should have been.
” - - - The book confirms previous reports that Roberts changed his vote in the landmark case over President Obama’s healthcare law after initially siding with the conservative justices. But Toobin reports as others have implied that what pushed Roberts away was the conservative justices’ insistence on striking down the entire health law.”
And that is why Traitor John Roberts will be known as the Traitor who destroyed America. DUH!
I am not interested in Toobin’s opinion on anything.
So what, so was I. It does not change a thing. The damage is done.
So was I, Antonin.
Scalia is intelligent and principled. Toobin is neither of these things. He is a liberal stooge who just repeats Democrat Party talking points.
I very much doubt Roberts would make a decision about important constitutional issues based solely on his opinion of Justice Scalia’s personality. I don't believe Toobin on this point. I think Toobin is simply lying.
Scalia is not “bombastic”. I doubt an airhead like Toobin even cares whether what he writes is honest or not. He just attacks conservatives. The article quotes attack after attack on conservatives but not one negative thing about the liberals on the court.
The liberals on the Supreme Court have consistently betrayed the Constitution and put the rights of all Americans at risk. They have advocated using laws from other countries to take precedence over the provisions of our Constitution.
But to a knee jerk liberal like Toobin undermining the Constitution is good.
I despise roberts but toobin serves obama.
The first statement, that Roberts changed his vote late in the process has been well documented and can be assumed to be true.
The second statement makes no sense whatsoever and can only be a lie. No intelligent or logical person could possibly believe that the health care law could be intelligently divided up into what was constitutional and what was not. The law was extremely vague and intertwined and someone as intelligent as Roberts had to know that there was no rational way to declare part of the law constitutional and part unconstitutional. Obama’s own lawyers as much as admitted this.
It is irrational that Roberts could possibly be persuaded by the sophistry of the now it's a tax, now it's not a tax wording in his decision. Scalia easily showed the many flaws and irrationality of this approach.
Toobin is a liar. That is the only logical explanation for the content of this book.
A lot of us were furious with Roberts. Still are.
If the source is toobin, overwhelming odds are that he has it wrong.
Scalia was/is known to be very upset (yes even furious) but that is like pointing out the sky is blue.
That’s the grin. Blech.
Absolutely, if anything the Right has moved more to the center with a faction (Tea Party folks and others) heading to the right area occupied by Reagan creating a split in the party. The Dims have simply all moved left, if not, they certainly have found a way to intimidate and silence the more right leaning Dims.
” Anyone with half a brain should be furious about Robert’s vote.
He chose to be popular with the leftists rather than take his oath to defend the constitution seriously.
In doing so he may have damaged his reputation beyond any kind of repair. “
In my opinion, he has already done more damage on one vote than any leftist could do.
Agreed. I might have expected it from Kennedy, but Roberts being the one who defected shocked me. I’d love to bump in to him some day and remind him what a failure he has been.
So would I.
Jorge Bush did a great deal of lasting damage to America. No, I do not miss him.
Long ago I said George Bush would become a curse on the lips of every conservative American.
I’ve felt that way since before he was elected President. I have Texas relatives who learned what he’s made of while he was Governor.
I have heard that from other people about him. His father was a loser too. One of Reagan’s few mistakes.
If only Reagan had chosen his close friend Paul Laxalt for his VP... a great opportunity squandered.
Laxalt shared Reagan’s conservatism, unlike the New England patrician GHW Bush. Not to mention Bush’s fool of a son.
I don’t know much about him,
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.