Skip to comments.CBS News: Roberts Was Going to Overturn ObamaCare But Changed His Mind
Posted on 07/01/2012 10:47:39 AM PDT by Kaslin
CBS News broke a huge story on Sunday's Face the Nation concerning the Supreme Court's Thursday ruling on ObamaCare.
According to Jan Crawford, CBS legal and political correspondent, Chief Justice John Roberts was initially going to strike down the individual mandate requiring citizens to buy health insurance, but changed his mind over the objections of the conservatives on the Court (video follows with transcript):
CBS News: Roberts Initially Wanted to Strike Down ObamaCare Mandate But Changed His Mind
NORAH ODONNELL, SUBSTITUTE HOST: We're going to start first with Jan because you've done some reporting. The big question was why did Chief Justice John Roberts do what he did? And you've learned some new details right?
JAN CRAWFORD, CBS LEGAL AND POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, that's right. What was striking about this decision was that it was the conservative Chief Justice that was providing that decisive fifth vote, joining the liberals to uphold the Presidents signature achievement. And Norah that was something that no one would have expected back in 2005 when President George W. Bush put him on the Supreme Court, and that was something that not even the conservative justices expected back in March when the Court heard arguments in this case.
I am told by two sources with specific knowledge of the Court's deliberations that Roberts initially sided with the conservatives in this case and was prepared to strike down the heart of this law, the so-called individual mandate, of course, that requires all Americans to buy insurance or pay a penalty. But Roberts, I'm told by my sources, changed his views deciding to instead join with the liberals.
And he withstood-- I'm told by my sources -- a month-long desperate campaign by the conservative justices to bring him back to the fold, and that campaign was led, ironically, by Justice Anthony Kennedy. And why that's ironic is because it was Justice Kennedy that conservatives feared would be the one most likely to defect. But their effort, of course, was unsuccessful. Roberts did not budge. The conservatives wrote that astonishing joint dissent united in opposition, and Roberts wrote the majority opinion with the four liberals to uphold the President's signature achievement.
ODONNELL: Has this there been anything like this on the Court before? I mean, that's extraordinary that the Chief Justice, according to your report about a month ago decided to do this and then was lobbied unsuccessfully.
CRAWFORD: Yes, that has happened before, and often in high-profile, controversial cases including Justice Kennedy who's changed his views in a very high-profile case involving a woman's rights on abortion back in 1992. And justices do change their mind. There is precedent for that. One justice told me that surprisingly enough it happens about once a term. But in the case of this magnitude with so much on the line, conservatives believed they had Roberts vote in this case, and there's quite a lot of anger within the hallways of the Supreme Court right now.
At the price of the freedom of every American; alive and yet to be born. Was this genius worth the price?
No doubt Kagan leaked to the Obama administration that Roberts was the weak link on the conservative side oherwise they would have went after Kennedy. I doubt this was a month long issue. I bet Roberts changed his mind over the last week.
Roberts didn't blink, he broke under the pressure.
Once broken, he no longer has the esteem that he once had, or respect of others who would want to count on him in the future.
Roberts was blackmailed over the illegal adoption of his children.
XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX THU AUG 04, 2005 11:35:09 ET XXXXX
NY TIMES INVESTIGATES ADOPTION RECORDS OF SUPREME COURT NOMINEE’S CHILDREN
The DRUDGE REPORT has uncovered a plot in the NEW YORK TIMES’ newsroom to look into the adoption of the children of Supreme Court Nominee John G. Roberts.
The TIMES has investigative reporter Glen Justice hot on the case to investigate adoption records of Judge Roberts two young children, Josie age 5 and Jack age 4, a top source reveals.
Judge Roberts and his wife Jane adopted the children when they each were infants.
Both children were adopted from Latin America.
TIMES insider claims the look into the adoptions are part of the paper’s “standard background check.”
“TIMES insider claims the look into the adoptions are part of the papers standard background check.
That the Times sees this as a greater priority than The Won’s birth certificate is all any one needs to know about the parttson Fourth Estate in America.
That the owners of the Times feel secure in their treason is the fault of We the People.
It's what happens when you elect RINOs.
I think the decision taken in this direction has spawned more positive actions than one that made Obamacare constitutional, if it had passed by the latter it would have been a shooting war already.
In this direction at least they the enemy will be full of false hopes of achievements, and the more they celebrate the deeper they will sink with this gift of a life preserver full of lead.
At least on our side, the conservative side we have full enclosure cold water immersion suits, they on the other hand have a very limited amount of time in the cold frigid waters before they lose all bodily functions.
And as we can see Pelosi has already lost it drunk on hubris and gloating of victory.
the smell of blackmail is in the air.
Remember,back when he was first being considered, NBC went on a witch hunt regarding his two children, adopted from South America.
They have - gasp - blond hair and blue eyes - from S. Amer. surely, thought the media lackey, there's got to be a story there...
Blackmail is the clintooon/Chicago way...gathering info and sitting on it until it can best serve them.
he also has epilepsy. Threaten to make a major fuss over it in public and sway the people to 'He shouldn't be sitting on the bench?"
Anything is possible. WE are dealing with some deep evil these days, folks.
Bush, the Rinos and the ‘Rats knew about the illegal adoption of Roberts kids and worked out a deal to bury it back when the NYT started sniffing around. Now we know what the deal was.
Roberts adopted kids were born in Ireland and the adoption was laundered through Mexico or some other Latin American country.
I believe her. There has to be quite a lot of anger for this to leak out of the Supreme Court.
WOw. No wonder Roberts left town.
I’m hitting the “like” button on this one.
“I see this as our countrys Reichstag fire.”
Fast and Furious was supposed to be our country’s Gleiwitz incident.
See my tagline.
Kennedy read the ACA dissent from the bench, scathingly...
Yale University.......Skull and Bones.....the entire American leadership elite is derived from this society at Yale. Why might that be.....
These experiences in the coffins incorporated sexual pain and resulted in being born-again, into the Order, as we mentioned above. (Cooper, p.95) Powerful force charges through the participants of these ceremonies, transforming their lives dramatically. This type ritual is classic Satanism. Anton LaVey states, in his book (The Satanic Rituals: Companion To The Satanic Bible, (p. 57) “The ceremony of rebirth takes place in a large coffin.. This is similar to the coffin symbolism that...is found in most lodge rituals.”
"Roberts is not a Machiavellian genius. Roberts is a moral degenerate lifetime Washington D.C. politico, who is well known in the beltway to be borderline obsessed with his image.
In other words, Chief Justice John Roberts emotionally operates on the same level as the average twelve year old girl, and just sold out not just the Republic, the Constitution and the entire American populace, but really the entire planet, because now that the United States is no more, the forces of evil will run absolutely rampant over the rest of the planet.
And Roberts did it so that a bunch of coke-snorting sodomites and psychopaths in Georgetown will pretend to like him for about five minutes. "
“......bunch of coke-snorting sodomites and psychopaths in Georgetown will pretend to like him for about five minutes. “
Until those clowns are afraid of We the People .. We the People will be stuck with this nonsense..”
The Senate no longer represents the interests of the States.
I am getting tired of repeating this: John Roberts is a statist, a man who believes that all rights come from the state, not from God. Therefore Roberts doesnt believe in the constitution as written, in the bill of rights or the balance of power in the three co-equal branches of government.
Roberts judicial philosophy is dictated by whoever is sitting in the White House. The will of the people is irrelevant. Obama has the power.
“It’s what happens when you elect RINOs.”
No argument here.
Hillary had the FBI files on her political opponents in the private residence of the White House during the Clinton years. Do we really think that she and/or Obama doesn’t have them now?
Can you think of any plausible reason that a traditionally conservative jurist would step so far out of what is normal and rule in such a weird way that even legal scholars have been left scratching their heads?
**** you very much, John.
“Until those clowns are afraid of We the People .. We the People will be stuck with this nonsense..
From your lips to God’s ears...
If what you say is true, it's necessary. We must do it. As Christians and patriots, it's our job to defend the truth and our families and neighbors, at the cost of our lives, if necessary. Anything else is, I'm sorry to say, cowardice. Unless someone has a better way to achieve the same end, it's our duty. The fact that it's difficult is just part of the landscape.
Article, and # 61.
Thanks, azishot. The Pelican Brief was also mentioned yesterday on another website, fwiw.
From The MAN his self:
""I don't necessarily think that it's the best approach to have an all-encompassing philosophy.""
My observation too.
Had Chicken smacked the law down and sent it back to Congress for rework as a tax, it would have died due to the Peoples' most recent actions.
Roberts' line of argument here is specious. He needs to be called out on it.
a genius play
I must not be as smart as you.
Thanks for the ping.
During church today..at the alter taking communion...it hit me how often God has answered a prayer, not the way I'd asked, but it a convoluted round the barn, down the lane and through the woods kind of way.
If He'd done it my way, it may have met needs for a while, but by doing it HIS way much more was accomplished.So I have learned to let go and let God.
Just as I trust in God's will for my life, I will trust that for whatever reason, Roberts made a convoluted decision because he knew another matter needed attention and would need this sacrificial pawn to achieve it. It's not like he didn't tell us how to solve the problem....VOTE THE BASTARDS OUT!
Did the judge just ask the US to divide the baby. Will the true mother of the child come forward? Will the country be saved?
Kagan wasn't a participant in the AZ decision. Is this significant?
someone needs to shop this, it wont take much they are both idiots.
I just started looking for Rove’s dicta on the ruling. Haven’t found anything yet.
That the owners of the Times feel secure in their treason is the fault of We the People.
A "conservative" chief justice breaks on the most important issue facing the country after blackmail relating to irregular adoptions, outing as gay or similar trivial matters, yet a socialist President who isn't even eligible for office not only continues his abhorrent policies, but successfully blackmails the chief justice over these trifles.
Roberts is a weak, other-directed, scared rabbit, afraid-of-his-shadow, obsessed with his reputation conformist who is, and always has been, terrified of being out of step with the dominant forces in society. He is no match for street thugs like Obama or Clinton who have no reservations about anything so long as it doesn't get them impeached.
We need more Scalias who will, like the socialist justices, wear their fiercely-held politics on their sleeves, and no more titular conservatives who vainly think filling pages with obiter dicta, i.e. commerce clause, will influence anyone.
Thanks, good perspective.
They for the most part are pretty obscure to the general public away from the court; imagine what theyd face having the Occupy crowd down their throats all the time.
Guess well never know.
so what about patriots protesting the idiotic decision ? why not?
There you go. That’s my view on it and she said it well.
This reminds me of people who argue state legislators should choose senators once again as they did a century ago.
If state legislatures did pick the senators, the unelected Senate would have less power. Given current thinking about majority rule, unelected bodies have to tread lightly or risk losing the power they do have.
I suspect Roberts thought about repealing the law, but decided he didn't want to risk sticking his head out on this matter.
That's the way the Supreme Court has always been. Marbury v. Madison established the Supreme Court's right to decide whether laws were constitutional.
The court found with Marbury, but at the same time ruled that the law that mandated that Marbury receive his appointment was unconstitutional.
The Court is always doing things like that -- splitting hairs, splitting the difference between the two sides in a dispute, asserting its right to decide while avoiding making decisions which might be divisive or controversial.
My own (wholly ungrounded) suspicion is that Roberts "swapped places" with Kennedy, allowing Kennedy to cast a vote with the conservatives, and taking the heat himself for giving the liberals their majority.
It's soooo much fun to be a keyboard warrior with no consequences.
Can you say that when your pretty wife or your child has a cross hair painted on their back and the prick in control are threatening to pull the trigger?
Then you ask yourself who is going to support you when you stand up and reveal it, is the risk WORTH IT?.
We in this Country and on this forum always criticize those who do not take a stand then never back up those who do....George Zimmerman anyone?
Would YOU sacrifice your Life, Liberty and Property, the safety of your beloved Family when it has been demonstrated time and time again that no one will back you up?
I don't mean to aim this personally at you but I'm just presenting this for thought.
....which begs the salient question, what does the White House have on Roberts to make him blink?
I’ve said it before, and it bears repeating again. Filegate was the seminal scandal of the Clinton Administration. FBI background files on over 900 Republican elected officials and political appointees. Having served in the Reagan Administration, there’s a 100% chance the FBI has a file on Roberts, which made it way to DNC operatives during Filegate.
If nothing else, the material in those FBI files served as a starting point for opposition research on Roberts and other Republicans. With Terry Lenzer and the boys on the case, there’s no telling what might have been discovered to prompt Roberts’ sudden conversion.
The dissent in Thursday’s decision reads like a majority opinion, while Roberts’ “majority” summation looks like something that was originally drafted as a dissent. Now, we’re told that Roberts was a late convert to upholding the law. What caused the sudden switch? Was it an ideological conversion, a desire to uphold the “integrity” of the court, or did the Dims discover some deep, dark secret about Roberts?
Yeah, it’s a conspiracy theory, but I’m not buying the idea that Roberts switched so he’ll get a favorable story in the Washington Post “Style” section.
What has that to do with my post
It seems to have gotten lost in all the _______________
What could the White House have on him?
Like I said using that excuse he should have used the 2010 election results and the fact the GOP repealed OBAMACARE after that elecetion
if he copuldnt stand the heat he should ahave left the kitchen and resigned or recused himself he took an oath and betrayed it. Out tounders put everything they had including their lives at risk so this a$$ clown could give it away to feel good.
The premise of your argument is false, women were never denied the opportunity to vote.
They couldn't vote because in those days they typically didn't own property....a requirement for anyone, man or woman to vote.