John Roberts

[Soapweed]

Here's another way to look at it ……



Dear RedState Reader,

As you have no doubt heard by now, the Supreme Court largely upheld Obamacare with Chief Justice John Roberts writing the majority 5 to 4 decision. Even Justice Kennedy called for the whole law to be thrown out, but John Roberts saved it.

Having gone through the opinion, I am not going to beat up on John Roberts. I am disappointed, but I want to make a few points. John Roberts is playing at a different game than the rest of us. We're on poker. He's on chess.

First, I get the strong sense from a few anecdotal stories about Roberts over the past few months and the way he has written this opinion that he very, very much was concerned about keeping the Supreme Court above the partisan fray and damaging the reputation of the Court long term. It seems to me the left was smart to make a full frontal assault on the Court as it persuaded Roberts.

Second, in writing his opinion, Roberts forces everyone to deal with the issue as a political, not a legal issue. In the past twenty years, Republicans have punted a number of issues to the Supreme Court asking the Court to save us from ourselves. They can't do that with Roberts. They tried with McCain-Feingold, which was originally upheld. This case is a timely reminder to the GOP that five votes are not a sure thing.

Third, while Roberts has expanded the taxation power, which I don't really think is a massive expansion from what it was, Roberts has curtailed the commerce clause as an avenue for Congressional overreach. In so doing, he has affirmed the Democrats are massive taxers. In fact, I would argue that this may prevent future mandates in that no one is going to go around campaigning on new massive tax increases. On the upside, I guess we can tax the hell out of abortion now. Likewise, in a 7 to 2 decision, the Court shows a strong majority still recognize the concept of federalism and the restrains of Congress in forcing states to adhere to the whims of the federal government.

Fourth, in forcing us to deal with this politically, the Democrats are going to have a hard time running to November claiming the American people need to vote for them to preserve Obamacare. It remains deeply, deeply unpopular with the American people. If they want to make a vote for them a vote for keeping a massive tax increase, let them try.

Fifth, the decision totally removes a growing left-wing talking point that suddenly they must vote for Obama because of judges. The Supreme Court as a November issue for the left is gone. For the right? That sound you hear is the marching of libertarians into Camp Romney, with noses held, knowing that the libertarian and conservative coalitions must unite to defeat Obama and Obamacare.

Finally, while I am not down on John Roberts like many of you are today, i will be very down on Congressional Republicans if they do not now try to shut down the individual mandate. Force the Democrats on the record about the mandate. Defund Obamacare. This now, by necessity, is a political fight and the GOP sure as hell should fight.

60% of Americans agree with them on the issue. And guess what? The Democrats have been saying for a while that individual pieces of Obamacare are quite popular. With John Roberts' opinion, the repeal fight takes place on GOP turf, not Democrat turf. The all or nothing repeal has always been better ground for the GOP and now John Roberts has forced everyone onto that ground.

It seems very, very clear to me in reviewing John Roberts' decision that he is playing a much longer game than us and can afford to with a life tenure. And he probably just handed Mitt Romney the White House.

*A friend points out one other thing — go back to 2009. Olympia Snowe was the deciding vote to get Obamacare out of the Senate Committee. Had she voted no, we'd not be here now.

Read my full thoughts here.

Sincerely yours,



Erick Erickson
Editor, RedState.com

 

[Anonymous]

Was Roberts Sending a Dog Whistle to Congress: Save the Institution?


Many people find Chief Justice John Roberts' majority opinion on the ACA out of character for him. No doubt he would have preferred striking down the law, but he was also concerned a 5-4 majority along partisan lines could doom the Court's prestige and that was ultimately more important to him than this one law. But Dan Balz at the Washington Post speculates that maybe he was also sending a coded message to Congress saying: "For a democracy to work, sometimes you have to put aside your partisan agenda and do the right thing for the country."



The current approval rating for Congress hovers around 10%. Here is a list of 10 things more popular than Congress.

1.President Obama (46%)
2.The Internal Revenue Service (40%)
3.The airline industry (29%)
4.Lawyers (29%)
5.Richard Nixon at his lowest (24%)
6.The banking industry (23%)
7.The oil and gas industry (20%)
8.BP during the Gulf of Mexico oil spill (16%)
9.Paris Hilton (15%)
10.America becoming a Communist nation (11%)

Here is another speculation on Roberts thinking...

 

[TexasBred]

I would think he ws probably sending it to both parties and both houses of congress.....seems the House has passed a number of bills that DirtHarry absolutely refuses to even bring to the floor for a vote.

 

[smalltime]

Both speculations smell like politics to me.His job is to uphold the law not worry about elections or sending coded messages to congress.What a load of bu------.Might make him alot of money on a book deal later. :roll:

 

[101]

smalltime I think your right on, or maybe already paid off?? 101

 

[hopalong]

smalltime I think your right on, or maybe already paid off?? 101

Would not be the first time oldtimers hero has paid of a judge or two.... Ga comes to mind as one
Come to think of it oldtimer would know a lot about judges being paid off
:wink: :wink:

EH????

 

[TexasBred]

Both speculations smell like politics to me.His job is to uphold the law not worry about elections or sending coded messages to congress.What a load of bu------.Might make him alot of money on a book deal later. :roll:

Actually his job is to interpret the law...that he did and now Buckwheat has to figure out how to spin it as a victory.

 

[Anonymous]

Both speculations smell like politics to me.His job is to uphold the law not worry about elections or sending coded messages to congress.What a load of bu------.Might make him alot of money on a book deal later. :roll:

Actually his job is to interpret the law...that he did.

You are right- to interpret and decide if a law fits under the Constitution...

And I'm sure he had years to think of the individual mandate and penalty provision in a health care law since that has been the Republican/conservative policy/answer to any Dem/Liberal proposed nationalized health care bill since the 70's... It was last proposed by the Repubs in the early 90's by Senator Orrin Hatch in response/opposition bill to the Hillary Healthcare bill...

So being a conservative appointee- and knowing this proposal would probably come to light again sometime- I'm sure he's looked hard at- and thought hard at the legality of mandates and penalties....

 

[TexasBred]

So being a conservative appointee- and knowing this proposal would probably come to light again sometime- I'm sure he's looked hard at- and thought hard at the legality of mandates and penalties....

The right to change ones mind is lot limited to republicans...remember 'I was for the bill before I was against it"??? Who said that. (John Kerry(D) candidate for president of the United States of America.)

 

[Larrry]

Hey ot

 

[Lonecowboy]

To all my friends, particularly those conservatives who are despondent over the searing betrayal by Chief Justice John Roberts and the pending demise of our beloved country, I offer this perspective to convey some profound hope and evidence of the Almighty's hand in the affairs of men in relation to the Supreme Court's decision on Obamacare.

I initially thought we had cause for despondency when I only heard the results of the decision and not the reason or the make-up of the sides. I have now read a large portion of the decision and I believe that it was precisely the result that Scalia, Alito, Thomas, Roberts and even Kennedy wanted and not a defeat for conservatism or the rule of law. I believe the conservatives on the court have run circles around the liberals and demonstrated that the libs are patently unqualified to be on the Supreme Court. Let me explain.

First let me assure you that John Roberts is a conservative and he is not dumb, mentally unstable, diabolical, a turncoat, a Souter or even just trying to be too nice. He is a genius along with the members of the Court in the dissent. The more of the decision I read the more remarkable it became. It is not obvious and it requires a passable understanding of Constitutional law but if it is explained anyone can see the beauty of it.

The decision was going to be a 5–4 decision no matter what, so the allegation that the decision was a partisan political decision was going to be made by the losing side and their supporters. If the bill was struck down completely with Roberts on the other side there would have been a national and media backlash against conservatives and probably strong motivation for Obama supporters to come out and vote in November. With today's decision that dynamic is reversed and there is a groundswell of support for Romney and Republicans, even for people who were formerly lukewarm toward Romney before today, additionally Romney raised more than 4 million dollars today.

Next, merely striking the law without the support of Democrats and libs would have left the fight over the commerce clause and the "necessary and proper" clause and the federal government's role in general festering and heading the wrong way as it has since 1942. As a result of the decision the libs are saying great things about Roberts; how wise, fair and reasonable he is. They would never have said that without this decision even after the Arizona immigration decision on Monday. In the future when Roberts rules conservatively it will be harder for the left and the media to complain about the Robert's Court's fairness. That's why he as Chief Justice went to the other side for this decision not Scalia, Alito, Thomas or Kennedy, all of whom I believe would have been willing to do it.

Next let's look at the decision itself. Thankfully Roberts got to write it as Chief Justice and it is a masterpiece. (As I write this the libs don't even know what has happened; they just think Roberts is great and that they won and we are all going to have free, unlimited healthcare services and we are all going to live happily ever after.)

He first emphatically states that Obamacare is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause saying you cannot make people buy stuff. Then he emphatically states that it is unconstitutional under the "necessary and proper" clause which only applies to "enumerated powers" in the US Constitution. Justices Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan all went along with these statements. They never would have gone along with that sentiment if that was the basis for striking the law in total. This is huge because this means that the Court ruled 9-0 that Obamacare was unconstitutional under the Commerce clause which was Obama's whole defense of the bill. They also ruled 9–0 on the "necessary and proper" clause. Even better, both of these rulings were unnecessary to the decision so it is gravy that we got the libs to concede this and it will make it easier to pare away at both theories in the future, which we must do. Well done.

Roberts, through very tortured reasoning, goes on to find that the taxing law provides the Constitutionality for the law. Virtually everyone agrees that the Federal government has the power to do this as it does with the mortgage deduction for federal income taxes. This too is huge because Obama assiduously avoided using the term "tax" and now he has to admit this law is a tax and it is on everyone, even the poor. That will hurt him hugely in the polls and will help Romney. More importantly though is the fact that this makes this a budgetary issue that can be voted on in the Senate by a mere majority instead of 60 votes needed to stop a filibuster. That means that if the Republicans can gain a majority in the Senate, it can vote to repeal Obamacare in total.

Finally the Court voted 7–2 to strike down the punitive rules that take away money from states that do not expand Medicare as required in Obamacare. This too is huge because we got Kagan and Breyer to join this decision and it can easily be applied to many other cases of extortion the Federal government uses to force states to do things they don't want to. This is also amazing because Obamacare has no severability clause so by striking the Medicaid mandate portion as unconstitutional the whole bill should have been struck. If that happened none of these other benefits would have been accomplished. I haven't read far enough to know how he did it but I am sure it is brilliant.

So to recap the Roberts court through a brilliant tactical maneuver has: strengthened the limitations of the commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause by a unanimous decision, made Obama raise taxes on the poor and middle classes, converted Obamacare into a tax program repealable with 51 votes in the Senate, enhanced Romney's and Republican's fundraising and likelihood of being elected in November, weakened federal extortion and got the left to love Roberts and sing his praises all without anyone even noticing. Even Obama is now espousing the rule of law just 2 weeks after violating it with his deportation executive order.

That is why I have decided this was a genius decision and that I did in fact get a great birthday present today not to mention U. S. Attorney General Eric Holder being held in contempt. What a day.

The Bolen Law Firm

Lexington, South Carolina

Read more: http://godfatherpolitics.com/5961/did-justice-roberts-pull-one-over-liberals/#ixzz1zVCkM3If

 

[HAY MAKER]

Both speculations smell like politics to me.His job is to uphold the law not worry about elections or sending coded messages to congress.What a load of bu------.Might make him alot of money on a book deal later. :roll:

You nailed it ....................good luck

 

[jcummins]

http://www.imcitizen.net/chief-justice-roberts-is-a-genius/

A genius....maybe?

 

[Tam]

From what has been said Roberts is a Chicken. He ruled with the Conservative Judges until Obama and the Leftwing Media turned up the heat on him and then he crumbled like a house of cards in a wind storm. His job is to look at a Congressional Written and Passed bill and judge it on it's contents to be Constitutional or Not Constitutional. His job is NOT TO REWRITE THE BILL BEFORE HIM TO FIT HIS CHOSEN RULING. Obama continuely argued it was not a tax but a PENALTY and Roberts knew a PENALTY would make the bill UNCONSTITUTIONAL so HE REWOTE THE BILL AND CALLED IT A TAX which in his ruling meant the mandate was Constitutional due to the governments right to tax.

Nobody can convince me that if the shoe was on the other foot and he had rewritten a Republican bill to FIT what they brow beat him into that the Democrats wouldn't be demanding he step down from the Bench in SHAME.

Roberts let down the American People by allowing political PRESSURE via the leftwing media dictate how he was going to rule. He supposedly did so to protect the imagine of the Court and he did the complete opposite by proving that with enough pressure he is willing to buckle to appease the mean spirited opposing side.

SHAME ON HIM FOR TARNISHING THE SUPREME COURT REPUTATION AND TURNING IT INTO JUST ANOTHER POLITICAL BRANCH OF BIG GOVERNMENT .

 

[Anonymous]

Roberts, along with the conservative members of the court, rejected the Obama administration's argument that Congress was empowered by the Constitution's commerce clause to require that almost every American either obtain health insurance by 2014 or pay a penalty.

But over the objections of the conservatives, who wanted to strike down the entire law, Roberts joined the court's liberals to say that the act was a valid exercise of Congress's taxing power.

He said that even that may not be the best reading of the law but that the court must hold an act constitutional if a plausible argument can be made for it. He quoted Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes: "As between two possible interpretations of a statute, by one of which it would be unconstitutional and by the other valid, our plain duty is to adopt that which will save the Act."

Looks like Roberts had historical precedence in making his decision to uphold the law...

 

[Mike]

Roberts, along with the conservative members of the court, rejected the Obama administration's argument that Congress was empowered by the Constitution's commerce clause to require that almost every American either obtain health insurance by 2014 or pay a penalty.

But over the objections of the conservatives, who wanted to strike down the entire law, Roberts joined the court's liberals to say that the act was a valid exercise of Congress's taxing power.

He said that even that may not be the best reading of the law but that the court must hold an act constitutional if a plausible argument can be made for it. He quoted Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes: "As between two possible interpretations of a statute, by one of which it would be unconstitutional and by the other valid, our plain duty is to adopt that which will save the Act."

Looks like Roberts had historical precedence in making his decision to uphold the law...

That's pure unadulterated BS. EVERY argument and BOTH sides of every case before SCOTUS could be construed as "Plausible", or no cases would EVER make it to them in the first place. Look up the definition of plausible.

Remove Roberts from the case and there is no doubt that the decisions were "Political". Kagan, et al were on the "Progressive" side. Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas, & Alito were on the "Conservative" side. Just as we thought it might be. If the other 8 voted along "Political" lines, we could naturally assume that Robert's decision was probably based on that as well, for some unknown reason......................................

One important measure of a man is knowing where he stands.

Roberts was quite clear that he was putting the matter back before the voters.

Come November, you may not like the outcome............

 

[Tam]

Roberts, along with the conservative members of the court, rejected the Obama administration's argument that Congress was empowered by the Constitution's commerce clause to require that almost every American either obtain health insurance by 2014 or pay a penalty.

But over the objections of the conservatives, who wanted to strike down the entire law, Roberts joined the court's liberals to say that the act was a valid exercise of Congress's taxing power.

He said that even that may not be the best reading of the law but that the court must hold an act constitutional if a plausible argument can be made for it. He quoted Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes: "As between two possible interpretations of a statute, by one of which it would be unconstitutional and by the other valid, our plain duty is to adopt that which will save the Act."

Looks like Roberts had historical precedence in making his decision to uphold the law...

Face it Oldtimer, he agreed with the Conservative side until the Leftwing Media and your HERO turned up the heat. It was his job to rule on the mandate as a PENALTY like Obama claimed, argued and faught with the Media over, which would have made it UNCONSTITUTIONAL . He, Roberts, changed the COMMERCE CLAUSE PENALTY into a IRS TAX so he, Roberts, could rule it Constitutional to appease the Left. :roll:

7/01/2012 @ 1:01PM |19,573 views

The Inside Story on How Roberts Changed His Supreme Court Vote on Obamacare

The Obamacare Supreme Court ruling seemed strange. Chief Justice John Roberts' reasoning was incoherent. The conservative's dissent read like it was originally meant to be a majority opinion. Now, we know why. According to Jan Crawford of CBS News, John Roberts switched sides in May, withstanding a "one-month campaign" from his conservative colleagues to change his mind.

"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 individual mandate," said Crawford on CBS' Face the Nation. "But Roberts, I'm told by my sources, changed his views, deciding to instead join with the liberals. There was a one-month campaign to bring Roberts back into the conservative fold, led, ironically, by Anthony Kennedy."

That explains what I was hearing a few weeks ago. I reported, from third-hand sources, that the conservatives were furiously lobbying each other on the issue of severability of the individual mandate from the rest of Obamacare. It turns out that this reporting was accurate, but that Roberts then changed his mind and joined the liberals. Subsequently, the conservatives started lobbying Roberts to stay with them on the law's unconstitutionality.


The irony is that Roberts didn't have to rewrite the statute in order to issue a judicially minimalist opinion. He could have done what the Obama administration asked him to do: if the individual mandate is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause, also sever the law's guaranteed-issue and community rating provisions, and leave the rest of the law intact.

Instead, he invented out of whole cloth a new definition of taxation that contravenes long-standing precedent. He added hundreds of billions of dollars to the federal deficit, by way of his Medicaid ruling. And he forever tarnished his legacy as a Justice, and his promise to the nation that he would serve as an umpire, and "remember that it's my job to call balls and strikes, and not to pitch or bat."

A number of my Federalist Society friends are describing Roberts' opinion as a kind of victory for constitutional conservatives, because Roberts sided with Kennedy et al. on the limits of the Commerce Clause and the 10th Amendment. But I look at it in the opposite way. It is the Federalist Society that has failed, for the umpteenth time, to help Republican Presidents appoint strict constructionists to the Supreme Court. It's time for conservatives to think hard about this problem, and make sure they don't make this mistake again.

And also to ensure that Obamacare is repealed by Congress in 2013.

 

[hypocritexposer]

Roberts, along with the conservative members of the court, rejected the Obama administration's argument that Congress was empowered by the Constitution's commerce clause to require that almost every American either obtain health insurance by 2014 or pay a penalty.

But over the objections of the conservatives, who wanted to strike down the entire law, Roberts joined the court's liberals to say that the act was a valid exercise of Congress's taxing power.

He said that even that may not be the best reading of the law but that the court must hold an act constitutional if a plausible argument can be made for it. He quoted Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes: "As between two possible interpretations of a statute, by one of which it would be unconstitutional and by the other valid, our plain duty is to adopt that which will save the Act."

Looks like Roberts had historical precedence in making his decision to uphold the law...

:lol:

 

[Mike]

Roberts, along with the conservative members of the court, rejected the Obama administration's argument that Congress was empowered by the Constitution's commerce clause to require that almost every American either obtain health insurance by 2014 or pay a penalty.

But over the objections of the conservatives, who wanted to strike down the entire law, Roberts joined the court's liberals to say that the act was a valid exercise of Congress's taxing power.

He said that even that may not be the best reading of the law but that the court must hold an act constitutional if a plausible argument can be made for it. He quoted Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes: "As between two possible interpretations of a statute, by one of which it would be unconstitutional and by the other valid, our plain duty is to adopt that which will save the Act."

Looks like Roberts had historical precedence in making his decision to uphold the law...

:lol:

I see you thought that comment was hilarious as well. Wonder how he dreams up all this ridiculous chit? :lol: :lol:

 

[hypocritexposer]

Looks like Roberts had historical precedence in making his decision to uphold the law...

:lol:

I see you thought that comment was hilarious as well. Wonder how he dreams up all this ridiculous chit? :lol: :lol:

progressives dream up all kinds of sheet. It gets funny when reality hits them square across the face, and they have to make excuses for their past explanations and actions.

Just wait until the unintended consequences of this decision hit them, and they all claim "Roberts the Conservative" was the deciding factor in "restricting their Constitutional rights"