1 You need to have Hot Air sending traffic to you and not vice versa.

2 Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure

3

Tune in for another exciting episode of

As the SCOTUS Turns

4 Warren redux? Fantastic.

5

Yeah, he deserved it, but shouldn't this group be one of the most tight-lipped groups in the country?

I mean, if you want leaks, just wait for the Executive Branch to lead, followed closely by the Legislative Branch.

6 116 IRS officials on background tell FOX Business the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on health reform gives the IRS even more powers than previously understood. The IRS now gets to know about a small business’s entire payroll, the level of their insurance coverage — and it gets to know the income of not just the primary breadwinner in your house, but your entire family’s income, in order to assess/collect the mandated tax. Plus, it gets to share your personal info with all sorts of government agencies, insurance companies and employers. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. “We expect even more lien and levy powers,” an IRS official says. Even the Taxpayer Advocate is deeply concerned. Posted by: Pretty Boy Floyd at July 03, 2012 05:02 PM (e8kgV) Since we are back to this I felt this necessary to move over from last post.

7 "Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure"
=====

I really don't see how that can be said anymore.

8 Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck clusterfrack of a miserable failure
Fixed in honour of N.C.

9 Thomas should be Chief Justice. Roberts should be in the men's room, nibbling leftard knob through a gloryhole.

10 Nice bit of textual criticism.

11 Just like using SCOAMFs own words against him. Revenge is sweet, especially to a tool that thinks he is Teh Smartest Person in the Room.

12 I miss Rehnquist

13

Roberts needs to be publicly shamed. 

 

Fuck. Him.

 

14 ______________________________

Hey Ace,

I'm not so sure I agree with you on your assessment that it's Robert's weak character that caused him to join the four liberals on this ObamaCare decision. 

In case you're interested, I'll give my reasons in a follow-up posting here in thirty or so minutes.

15 What an indecisive prick that Roberts is.

16 Roberts needs to be publicly shamed. Fuck. Him. Posted by: Empire of Jeff at July 03, 2012 05:16 PM (eJkKU) I think that is exactly what the four intend to do... shame him out of SCOTUS. If they are in fact doing this, I applaud the effort.

17 I've been wracking my brain trying to think who this reminds me of. This has happened to us, before. John Roberts is Jumpin' Jim Jeffords.

18 If Roberts thinks that the cool kids are going to let him sit at their table, he's wrong. They'll need to stay 'secret friends.'

19 Allah suggests a third reason, which seems plausible too:

They borrowed it because they were pressed for time and/or because they wanted to make a point — or, just maybe, because they held out hope to the bitter end that he’d switch back and join them in striking down the law. By keeping the dissent intact as a potential majority opinion rather than larding it up with language lashing out at Roberts, the four conservatives made it as easy as possible for him to reconsider and climb back aboard right down to the wire. To my mind, that’s the best explanation for the tone of the opinion, the inclusion of the otherwise gratuitous severability section, and the lack of any references to Roberts’s opinion. They weren’t working on a dissent, they were working on a shadow majority, ready to go right out of the box in case Roberts came back into the fold. (Crawford notes that Kennedy was lobbying Roberts up to the last minute, in fact.)

20 What a traitorous prick that Roberts is.

21 I don't think any of the justices leaked anything.

Granted, I don't think they told their clerks to keep quiet, but you don't clerk for, say, Thomas without having a really solid sense of respect and loyalty for the man.

Frankly, I'm not too worried about the vain and cowardly Roberts deciding to be liberal out of spite.  They'll mock him too.

By the time he gets back from Malta, Roberts will be a complete joke in legal circles.  Hell, Twitter tore apart the logic in his opinion.

It isn't 1972 anymore and you can't write "emanations" and "penumbras" and get universal awe.  We have too much information now.

22 So, who leaked? Speculation continues to focus on Kennedy, with some circumstantial evidence that maybe it was Thomas. (He's given interviews to CBS' Crawford, who had the story.) ******** Say you are a bookie in Vegas. Odds are the leaker is a law clerk, no? The leak is a relatively new anomaly --the Justices are old hands who didn't leak during Bush v. Gore. Plus--you can say what you want about Justice Thomas--but there is one thing he is well known for--his restraint when it comes to -- talking. The guy has the will power to sit silent during all of Ginsburg and Breyer's rumination and now we are being led to believe that he is leaking like sieve? The youngest, largest , most variable group is- the law clerks. I'd put my money there before putting it on Kennedy or Thomas.

23 Roberts' new name is... Submit.

24 The four conservatives feel like the infamous AoS Chicken, and rightfully so.  Roberts did wrong.  Big Time.

25 This is really funny like lol haha hilarious after the media has been talking about how brilliant he is, yet his colleagues are letting him know he sucks.

26 This clown screwed us over now and forever into the future, just so he could fulfill his 15 year old school girl fantasy of being loved and accepted.

Today.

Bitchin'.

27 Is rockmom around to convince us of how awesome Roberts is? I would love to hear that explanation again.

28 I blame Bush.

Nominating good Supreme Court justices was part of his job as President.

29 I take your point about making him feel betrayed, Ace, but I don't think making him feel good is the right thing for us to do either.

After all, we liked him before -- and then he betrayed us. Now if we pretend everything is just fine, that will make him do the right thing next time...?

No. If the four sane justices couldn't change his mind, then nothing we say or don't say is going to have any effect either.

30 Sounds like 19 has the right of it.

31 Regardless of what the outcome is or if any benefit can be gained from the actual decision, Roberts really showed his ass on this one.

"My job is not to protect the voters from their decisions."

Um, seems to me like you forgot what you're fucking job IS, Chief Justice Roberts.

If they try to do something that's UNCONSTITUTIONAL, you're supposed to PROTECT us from it.

Assholes....all of them.

32 Roberts is the type who would cry if you tickled him. Stop! Please stop! Oh, oh I give! I give! What a puss. Oh dear, the lisping little queer EJ Dionne is gonna write mean things about me. I submit!

33 Perhaps it's the libs leaking it, to undermine the conservatives on the court.

34 In regard to AZ law, Roberts thinks it's his job to protect illegals from the law. Funny, that.

35 These are experienced judges with teams of cracker jack law clerks -- they could spit out 100 pages of legal muck in three hours. They used it because they voted on pieces, and he wanted it.

36 >>>And he deserves the embarrassment. That said, if he now feels betrayed, this weak man will cozy up fast enough with the swell people whose opinions are the only thing that matters to him, i.e., liberals.

Decent men sometimes do things they later regret for all the wrong reasons through rationalization they later regret. Shame often serves as a catalyst for self assessment. Here's hoping that Roberts looks at this, feels the shame he so desperately deserves, introspects, and decides he wants to be a decent man again.

37 20 What a traitorous prick that Roberts is.

Amen to that brother.

38 Deep Throat 2: The Roberting

39 Roberts needs to be publicly shamed.

Fuck. Him.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at July 03, 2012 05:16 PM (eJkKU)

Shunned. The full Ben Nelson

40 Stocks

41
The decision itself was bad, horrible and unpalatable.

But....even worse..... one of the pillars of our democracy has serious cracks in it.  The Court has always maintained at least the appearance of apolitical judicial review.  The court was always above politics.

No longer.  It can be swayed, influenced, tampered with and intimidated just as much as your local city councilman. 

Obamacare aside.... this does not bode well for the future of the court.

 

42 Oh, I think that they kept much of his dissent to bring him on board at the last minute AND so that if he didn't, they would ensure that this story would leak and shame him.

BTW, I saw a pic of him at Twitter arriving at Malta.  He did not look happy.

43 Judge Roberts, Traitor Wants media love, love, love Circle nine awaits

44 >>>The Court has always maintained at least the appearance of apolitical judicial review.

If you say so.

♫Happy days are here again!♫

45 Stacked: The Court

46 Wouldn't be nice if we had a Judiciary that actually interpreted laws that came before it based on their constitutional merits rather then what they had for breakfast or whether the DC press corp would be their friends?

47 If we're making wagers on the leaker, I want the longshot. One of Roberts' own clerks who didn't sign up for betraying the nation.

48 This has to be the worst written opinion since Roe, and that was one terribly written opinion, but at least they didn't redefine words or succumb to peer pressure.

49 And he deserves the embarrassment. Let's say that (1) he deserves it, (2) it is true, and (3) it was leaked to hurt Roberts. Ultimately, those involved are only hurting the Court more, especially if they are ironically engaging in politics to criticize what they see as a political decision.

50 Shunned. The full Ben Nelson Posted by: Methos at July 03, 2012 05:23 PM (6LvlL) Would that be the Bill Nelson treatment followed by a Full Nelson?

51 What are the requirements and who needs to bring up the impeachment proceedings for Roberts?  It sounds to me, he doesn't know what his role is as SC Justice.

52 >>>This has to be the worst written opinion since

F* that. The logic in the Roberts opinion is unfollowable. He might as well just written. "It's legal, not because of the Commerce Clause, because I say so" would have been the same legal precedent and saved many trees.

53 Well I am back.  If it is their intent to "shame" him into resigning I wish they would wait about 6 months. Shaming him will not bring him into the conservative fold.


It appears that over he is a STARE DECISIS man when that is only used by the liberals to keep into place the last 75 years of liberal opinions AND he prefers big government at the expense of the States.


Like the 4 liberal assholes who he joined, the Constitution itself is meaningless.


Article V

54 50 And he deserves the embarrassment. Let's say that (1) he deserves it, (2) it is true, and (3) it was leaked to hurt Roberts. Ultimately, those involved are only hurting the Court more, especially if they are ironically engaging in politics to criticize what they see as a political decision. Posted by: Miss80sBaby at July 03, 2012 05:28 PM (d6QMz) ******** I seriously doubt it is one of the other Justices.

55

Give it time, folks -

 

The Dems are just starting to realize that they are royally screwed.

Either Obamacare is a tax or it's unconstitutional.

 

And many of the states are going to pass on all  of that "new" Medicaid money because they see it for the  poison apple that it is.

 

That's going to raise the cost to the Feds, and THAT will drive up the CBO score.

 

Be patient.

 

In the  meantime, start drafting a Constitutional Amendment that can be stomached by EVERYONE  in Congress  (see the Comments section for a great suggestion):

 

http://is.gd/PZOHCM

56 A lot of little girls I know change their minds often. Men don't. Is that sexists? I guess so. But it's da truth. I'm talking about real men now.

57 Was Roberts intimidated, Chicago style?????

58 Dude, Roberts, that's really low.

59 My theory?  Roberts isn't Roberts.  He was replaced weeks ago by a pod person.  The real Roberts is dead and we'll be stuck with this simulacra forever.

60 Decent men sometimes do things they later regret for all the wrong reasons through rationalization they later regret. Shame often serves as a catalyst for self assessment. Here's hoping that Roberts looks at this, feels the shame he so desperately deserves, introspects, and decides he wants to be a decent man again.

It is clear that he wanted to avoid having the court wade in politics in an election year and made the most political decision the court has made in decades.

Frankly, he should be ashamed. He isn't leftist enough to believe that judges should work backwards from a desired outcome.

But....even worse..... one of the pillars of our democracy has serious cracks in it. The Court has always maintained at least the appearance of apolitical judicial review. The court was always above politics.

No longer. It can be swayed, influenced, tampered with and intimidated just as much as your local city councilman.

As one who believes that the judiciary and legal profession have too much power, I'm not saddened at the loss of prestige.  But what I see here is even worse.  I'd rather have judges swayed by POPULAR opinion than the cocktail party circuit and WaPo op-ed writers.

If we are going to be ruled by men without chests, at least make them answerable to the people.

61 This whole thing feels like bizarro world to me...we're sitting here talking about Roberts being a turncoat squish and Kennedy was the stalwart trying to reign him back in.  I'm going to wake up from this bullshit dream, right? Right?

62 Court more, especially if they are ironically engaging in politics to criticize what they see as a political decision. Posted by: Miss80sBaby at July 03, 2012 05:28 PM (d6QMz) Roberts hurt the Court and this Nation a hella lot more than what these leaks will do. He has birthed taxation with no fucking limits. DO NOT FORGET THIS.

63 Is that sexists? ******* All your sexists is plural now.

64 I certainly see no harm in the leaking of how the sausage was made after the fact. Transparency, bitches.
 
I also see a huge freakin' dose of irony in Roberts writing a big chunk of both sides of the decision..........two faced asshole.

65 There's nothing wrong with being sexy.

66 59 Dude, Roberts, that's really low.

Posted by: Judas at July 03, 2012 05:31 PM (VuZKK)

I was going to make a Roberts/Dante reference, but I don't think "betrayal" is the right idea here.  He doesn't owe us the "right" decision.

This is about "cowardice".

67 Honey, does this tux make my ass look fat?  Don't want to offend my betters at that cocktail party.

68 65 I certainly see no harm in the leaking of how the sausage was made after the fact. Transparency, bitches. Posted by: GnuBreed at July 03, 2012 05:32 PM (ccXZP) And this, No one likes getting fucked and then getting the silent treatment.

69 What did the Chief Justice write and when did he write it?

70 Officially, we are in the weird now.

71 It speaks incredibly poorly of Roberts that he jumped from the very well-crafted and coherent dissent to the completely illogical and muddled opinion.

But look at the upside ... Judas Iscariot, Benedict Arnold and Vidkun Quisling needed a fourth.

72 Would that be the Bill Nelson treatment followed by a Full Nelson?

Posted by: cajun carrot at July 03, 2012 05:29 PM (UZQM

Ben Nelson, the former Nebraska senator, it was reported, was driven from a restaurant because the other diners told management it was him or them. I doubt he showed his face in public much after that.

73 I'm happy not being a huge intellect ( although most intellects I know don't know there ass from their elbow). I see things in black and white, and as right or wrong. And I'm happy about that

74

The Court can't be hurt.  The Court is whatever nine unelected jackwagons comprise it at the moment.  Fuck them. I love them like a mirror.

 

 

75 It is FALSE to claim that the dissenting opinion written by te conservatives EVER speaks of anything Ginsberg wrote in concurrence as a "dissent". Ginsberg authored an opinion PARTIALLY IN DISSENT. In particular, she dissents against the majority opinion limiting congress' powers under Commerce. It will be noted by those who choose to read the language of the actual opinions that the ONLY portions of the Ginsberg-authored opinion that are referred to as "dissent" are those portions of her opinion that are indeed in dissent with the ultimate ruling. It's asinine to claim that the conservative opinion referencing dissenting opinion as "ginsberg's defence" is any evidence that the original opinions were switched. It betrays not only your unwillingness to read the opinion to actually see what people are talking about before forming your own conclusions (rather than accepting rabble-rousing opinions wholesale), but also an ignorance of the way judicial language is employed in court dicta. Please, go back and take a look at every instance of the word "Ginsberg's dissent" and see if you can find A SINGLE INSTANCE in which it appears the conservative opinion is referring to anything OTHER than the language that she herself offered as being "in dissent" to the majority ruling. You have to invent a new conspiracy to fit your theory. It's far simpler to think they simply called her "dissent" precisely what it legally WAS.

76 IIRC, Didn't Roberts (or some spokesman) say - around the beginning of the last week of the term - that "all of the opinions ready at the end of the term" would be delivered by Thursday.

Was he waffling literally until the last minute (or the last minute before the printer needed the text)?

77 Dude, Roberts, now that's some cowardly shit.

78 I miss the Algonquin Round Table Thingy

79 The leakers are some damn law clerks feeling all big in their britches.

80 John Roberts is a cock sucking piece of shit. The left and the media BIRM does not fucking care what torturous justifications he used to do this. They only care about the outcome. If there was a more clear example of how the left views the law as shit they can mold to get the result they want I don't know. This fucking ruling has me so disgusted with politics I've literally unplugged from it all. Fuck this bastard, his friends, and his family. This might be too harsh but i hope he gets rectal cancer.

81 55 50 I seriously doubt it is one of the other Justices. The article says it was "a source within the court with direct knowledge of the drafting process", so I am thinking it was a clerk. Then there is the issue that this leak does not agree with Crawford's, at least not completely.

82 [J]ust maybe, because they held out hope to the bitter end that heÂ’d switch back and join them in striking down the law.

---

That is consistent with them not releasing the opinion until the last second.  It'll be Monday.  No, next Monday.  No, Thursday.

83 Jeebus.  I just saw a truck in a parking lot with a "How's that hope and change working out for you?" sticker, and not only had some asshole keyed the sticker, but deeply down the driver's side from the door all the way to the tail gate.

Bastards.

84 Keep beating me.

85 You can't fuck with the whole population of the country and whine like a bitch about 'confidentiality.'

I'm sure those four justices are righteously pissed at Flip-floppin' John.

86 Keep Fl*cking me.

87

Re this Roberts quote:
"My job is not to protect the voters from their decisions."

Except the voters didn't want Obama(care).  It was enacted without our consent.

What was the phrase?  Oh yeah.  No taxation without representation.  Rather feels like that's what we have now - our elected Reps don't or won't represent us.

I suppose you could say that the judiciary branch should be protecting the voters from the unconstitutional decisions of Congress.

88 >> Here's hoping that Roberts looks at this, feels the shame he so desperately deserves, introspects, and decides he wants to be a decent man again.

I keep thinking of that line from Julius Caesar: Cowards die many times before their deaths. The valiant never taste of death but once.

89 Jeezus, how long are you gonna flog this Roberts stuff, Ace? He fucked it up -- we get it already.

90 The Court IS a branch of government.  We need some level of visibility to the inside baseball if just to hold them, at some level beyond the rulings, accountable.  If one justice is chooming out and snorting coke while writing opinions, I want to know.

At some level.

91 Expect the Left to employ the Cloward-Pivens strategy and use this to (further) destroy the credibility of the Court, as they did with Bush-Gore in 2000 only this time with the Right as their foot soldiers.

92 I have a very serious question:

The Constitution forbids Congress from lowering justices' salaries.

So what's wrong with having a 100% lawyers' tax?  Apply it to every member or former member of the bar for the privilege of their exalted position.

93
92 Jeezus, how long are you gonna flog this Roberts stuff, Ace? He fucked it up -- we get it already.

Posted by: Fist of Goodness at July 03, 2012 05:40 PM (sTS/

Ask me how I feel.

94 Another useless action is all this speculation.  We will never know why he changed his opinion, or really if he indeed did change his opinion.


The only way we will know is if he issues a death bed confession, and even then we will need some salt.

95 The Right Honorable Johnny Flip-flop.

96 83 55 50 I seriously doubt it is one of the other Justices. The article says it was "a source within the court with direct knowledge of the drafting process", so I am thinking it was a clerk. Then there is the issue that this leak does not agree with Crawford's, at least not completely. Posted by: Miss80sBaby at July 03, 2012 05:37 PM (d6QMz) *********** The whole damn thing is starting to look like a modern twist on- The Allegory of the Cave. The reporters are quoting an anonymous source who is leaking information in a way that is not historically look upon as- "above board." Crawford originally said she had two sources. Now it's rare for the Supreme Court to leak--it didn't happen during Bush v. Gore and now we have leaks all over the place. I think it could all be the same two sources--who are either putting out more information or having slightly different opinion or recollections. I highly doubt it is a Justice--and the inferences that it is Justice Thomas I think are particularly unfounded because he is known for his enormous restraint when it comes to talking. Like I said in a comment earlier--Justice Thomas can sit through Breyer's and Ginsburg's contemplations during oral arguments without a peep and now he is #2 on the suspects list? I really doubt it is Justice Thomas.

97 Expect the Left to employ the Cloward-Pivens strategy and use this to (further) destroy the credibility of the Court,

So?  The judiciary is the ally of the Left.  When they lose, we win.

98 I loathe Roberts even more than those little bastards that terrorized the school bus monitor

99 I felt they crafted a verbal shunning.

100 I'm not so sure I agree with you on your assessment that it's Robert's weak character that caused him to join the four liberals on this ObamaCare decision. I'm not so sure either, honestly. But only because he's always been pretty much a rubber stamp statist. Dude thinks it's not his job to overturn laws written by the legislature. Which brings to question, what the hell does he think his job is, then? But he's solid amongst the crew that thinks the supreme court is being 'activist' if it actually does it's job.

101 >>>This is about "cowardice".

Dante had a section for them too. They weren't good enough for hell.

"And I, who looked again, beheld a banner,
Which, whirling round, ran on so rapidly,
That of all pause it seemed to me indignant;

And after it there came so long a train
Of people, that I ne'er would have believed
That ever Death so many had undone.

When some among them I had recognised.
I looked, and I beheld the shade of him
Who made through cowardice the great refusal.

Forthwith I comprehended, and was certain,
That this the sect was of the caitiff wretches
Hateful to God and to his enemies.

These miscreants, who never were alive,
Were naked, and were stung exceedingly
By gadflies and by hornets that were there.

These did their faces irrigate with blood,
Which, with their tears commingled, at their feet
By the disgusting worms was gathered up."

102 who

cares.

All this flailing about regarding the decision means zero. nada. nothing.  Roberts is a dick.  We all got that.  It ain't rocket surgery.

103 92 Jeezus, how long are you gonna flog this Roberts stuff, Ace? He fucked it up -- we get it already. Posted by: Fist of Goodness at July 03, 2012 05:40 PM (sTS/ No, Roberts has fucked US... he's exempt from all this shit as a Gov official. And Ace needs to keep posting this shit until it gets in peoples' heads.

104 Ace's heart is broken as is mine. Have such a sucky feeling about my children's future. That they may live in a world where Obamabots will come to the house to see if they are raising their kid's in the appropriate manner. It was hard putting flags out for the fourth. It feels like we are not free anymore.

105 63 Roberts hurt the Court and this Nation a hella lot more than what these leaks will do. He has birthed taxation with no fucking limits. DO NOT FORGET THIS. I agree that he has hurt not only his reputation but the Court's and that he has opened the door even wider on taxes. But that does not justify making a bad situation worse.

106 What's truly bizarro about this episode is that insurance companies can't compete across state lines- the type of scenario the Commerce Clause was intended to prevent- while taxing / penalizing those who don't buy a service was ruled A-OK.

In other words, even under the most most strict constructionist reading of the Constitution, Congress could've acted to help lower health insurance costs.  Instead they relied on activist rulings to pass a law that will increase costs.

107 Regarding the alternate theory, they could have held release of the decision until a rewrite was done, so I don't think it hold water

108 I am not a lawyer, but I know a bit about the law.

Any greenhorn law student learning about torts learns about the "but-for" standard of reasoning which will be applied in court.

"Your honor, but for Mr. Defendant's negligence in failing to apply the parking brake of his vehicle, that vehicle would not have run away down the hill where it struck and injured my client, Mr. Plaintiff."

In this case, the but-for is very clear.

But for the utter cretinousness of George W. Bush, we would not today have John Roberts as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

Bush made a good pick in Alito. Credit and honor for that.

Bush made a disastrous pick in Roberts. Discredit and dishonor in a higher measure, as Roberts was the more important of the two choices.

The first Presidential vote I cast was for Ronald Reagan. I was horribly suspicious about Reagan's running mate, Bush the Elder, from the get-go. Does "voodoo economics" ring a bell for anyone? Does "read my lips, no new taxes," ring a bell for anyone?

And every year that has passed since then has confirmed my thinking that the entire Bush clan have been bad for the country, bad for "conservatism" insofar as they claim to represent it, and bad for the GOP.

109 "Why not? It doesn't take all that much work to change a criticism of "The Dissent" to "The Concurrence." Just a word search & replace. But they didn't even do that much."
=====

Eh. I'm a legal secretary. Sometimes, crap like this just happens, especially if you're under a deadline and maybe you don't have a dedicated proof reader.

I'd assume bad word processing before anything more meaningful.

110 ""Here's hoping that Roberts looks at
this, feels the shame he so desperately deserves, introspects, and
decides he wants to be a decent man again.""


my version-

here's hoping he gets a ripping case of ass cancer for bringing down the republic because of his appetite for lib cock.

111 ♫Happy days are here again!♫ Posted by: FDR at July 03, 2012 05:26 PM (0q2P7) Pfew! Thought I would need to add a wise latina or two up there in the court. Those folks had me nervous. "You know, maybe I'm showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but, you know, I'm not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. You know, the institution just isn't structured that way." Oh well, guess I was wrong about that. I wasn't tenured you know; didn't want it>

112 Jeezus, how long are you gonna flog this Roberts stuff, Ace?

How about as long as his ruling affects us?

113 It doesn't matter whether Crawford's report is true.

Everybody believes it to be true.

Everybody believes Roberts is a spineless wimp who cares more about mythologizing the court than law and jurisprudence.

And everybody will act accordingly.

114 I don't think any of the conservatives leaked.  I think it was one of the libs.  If you guys are posturing that Roberts was placed between a rock and a hard place and he's considered as a bush appointee and clerk for rehnquist, a conservative, can you imagine what it is like to be one of the libs on that court?  I bet they are terrified to do anything but what is expected of them.

115 Wait a gosh-darned second here: If that was the hope, that he'd switch back when he saw the rest were going to let the world know he was the turncoat all because of outside pressure--why in all that is holy and right did they not just leak that Roberts had voted to uphold?

Can you imagine the shitstorm conservatives would have raised if--before the decision--it was leaked that Roberts had voted to strike it at first but, was now in favor of it due to ex parte lobbying?

116 Heh. They said I was the biggest A-hole ever.

117 99 I highly doubt it is a Justice--and the inferences that it is Justice Thomas I think are particularly unfounded because he is known for his enormous restraint when it comes to talking. The story focuses on Kennedy, so I think either he or someone who works for him leaked the story.

118 The lie needs to be put to the very idea that President Obama might be outspent during the 2012 election. Nobody knows how much the candidates and campaign will raise in the weeks ahead, but, so far, the numbers are pretty clear. To date, the Democratic National Committee, the Obama campaign and Obama super PACs have raised $471,400,000. This does not include at least $400 million that the labor unions have pledged to spend on Obama’s behalf. The Romney campaign, Republican National Committee and Romney super PACs have raised $264,223,126 — and much of that was spent during the Republican primary contest.

Anyway, there is a myth in American politics today that Obama will be outspent by Mitt Romney. Maybe that myth exists because Democrats, including Carter Eskew and President Obama, say it is so. It must be a fundraising tactic to scare contributors into giving, because the numbers suggest something completely different.

119 Here is what happened. Obamas chicago machine brought Chief Justice Roberts brother Vincenzo into the spectators section.

120 >>>Jeezus, how long are you gonna flog this Roberts stuff, Ace? He fucked it up -- we get it already.

I propose this standard. We flog him until...

We can fix what he broke through political means. (That means at least one amendment or a new SCOTUS decision overturning him at this point)

He expresses a regret that clearly conveys he believes he was wrong to do what he did.

Until then keep the fresh knouters coming.

121 . But that does not justify making a bad situation worse. Posted by: Miss80sBaby at July 03, 2012 05:46 PM (d6QMz) Here I'll help you feel better then... Justice Roberts wrote, “It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”

122 Listening to Rush today, he reminded of the town hall that Ogabe gave on healthcare. This woman mentioned that her mother..tough she was 102..was still vibrant and active, but she needed a pace maker.

Obama said at her age it would be better if she were just "given a pill"

That's your death panel folks. The gov't gets to decide who gets to live, when and how.
I really ate this f*cking government

123 117 Jeezus, how long are you gonna flog this Roberts stuff, Ace? A BIG FUCKING DEAL has a shelf-life > 1 week

124 "This woman mentioned that her mother..tough she was 102..was still vibrant and active, but she needed a pace maker.

Obama said at her age it would be better if she were just "given a pill""
=====

May this man rot in the Hell he doesn't believe in for all eternity.

125 If you think back to before the ruling, there were hints on here.  Folks coming on and saying the libs are to be feared but the conservatives not so much.  There were clues everywhere.

those accused of being doomsayers turned out to be right on the money.  One of batchelor's regular guests made a ton off of intrade betting on the opinion he'd given batchelor the week before.

126 I've already got my cadillac health care plan and now I've got a permanent invite to all the best parties, including Krugman's naked pool party. Suck it plebs!

127 I'm just even more pissed now that I think about it. I mean, Kennedy, Thomas, Scalia and Alito all--ALL--knew that the piss-yellow coward had switched his vote because of "outside pressure" and they kept that quite?

Holy shit, why in the samhill did they think that it internal pressure would have any chance of swaying him back?

Christ on a crooked crutch, in a town famous for anonymous leaks, these guys couldn't think of one possible way to let us know we were about to be betrayed?!!

128 Ace - the point is they let it stand as Written and there was a leak of inside discussions concerning Roberts. This was done to inform the public that themCourtnhas been breached. This is how grave a matter this is. The very integrity of the court has been breached.

129

97Another useless action is all this speculation. We will never know why he changed his opinion, or really if he indeed did change his opinion.
Posted by: Vic at July 03, 2012 05:43 PM (YdQQY)

The only way we will know is if he issues a death bed confession, and even then we will need some salt.

I'm not sure about that Vic.  Given that this is (and probably will remain) the defining issue of his tenure, he will asked about it repeatedely for the rest of his life.  If he ever writes a memoir, what is the one thing that people will want it to contain?  The 4 dissenters in this case will also be hounded for answers.  Sure he may never tell the truth, but more information will come out of his mouth and others.

But you're right.  Until then, it's all speculation.  I don't know about useless though.  When people get screwed over, they tend to get angry and demand answers.  Until we get them to their satisfaction, we speculate.

130 Amish Dude The Power Blog is coming out with a different perspective.

131 Bush made a good pick in Alito. Credit and honor for that. Bush picked Harriet Miers first. How much he is responsible for choosing Alito I cannot say, but Alito certainly wasn't his first choice. John Roberts and Harriet Miers were.

132 The first Presidential vote I cast was for Ronald Reagan. I was horribly suspicious about Reagan's running mate, Bush the Elder, from the get-go. Does "voodoo economics" ring a bell for anyone? Does "read my lips, no new taxes," ring a bell for anyone?

Sandra Day O'Connor and Robert Kennedy say "Hi".

Even good Presidents misjudge at times.

133 I can't believe some of you aren't yet over the fact that the country was fundamentally transformed last week in a way that almost certainly lessens the quality of your leaves and leaves all of us less free and more encumbered.

Geez, get over it, already.

134 Can you imagine the shitstorm conservatives would have raised if--before the decision--it was leaked that Roberts had voted to strike it at first but, was now in favor of it due to ex parte lobbying?

I would love to have to agonize over such a hypothetical situation.

Wouldn't it be great if liberals had to be dishonest or were pressured by culture or the media?

It just never turns out that we have to worry about such hypotheticals, do we?

135 30 "This woman mentioned that her mother..tough she was 102..was still vibrant and active, but she needed a pace maker. Obama said at her age it would be better if she were just "given a pill"" = Hopefully this is on tape and will become a commercial

136

Another attack that the Right has been silent on...

 

Kagan was the REAL Swing Vote.... someone who should have NEVER been anywhere near this case.

 

No Kagan?  and the vote would have been 4 to 4, which means the whole Lower Court Ruling, of Unconstitutional, Stands.

 

So.... Lets see... how to destroy the credibility of the Court.... have ONE highly biased Justice rule on a case she helped the opposition write... and have one Justice Flip Flop and Contort to give the Congress, and IRS, MORE POWER....

137 Should I summer on the Vineyard this year? Barack tells me he isn't using that cute little shack this year because of you wingnuts trying to keep him down.

138 >>>The very integrity of the court has been breached.

Yes they sent a clear message. "You can't depend on the Constitution to protect you from Government any longer."

139 Well hell the press does have us divided--gotta give 'em that!

140 I thought the court would give Bammie a big F U after he went after them during the SOTUA, and all the f-ing libs stood up and cheered while they were sitting their red-faced. That scrunt Roberts could not even get revenge, shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit.

141

27 Is rockmom around to convince us of how awesome Roberts is? I would love to hear that explanation again.

Posted by: Methos at July 03, 2012 05:19 PM (6LvlL)

 

I think its her turn to blow Roberts.  Maybe trickamsterdam will show up in a bit.

142 Isn't this all kind of moot at this point?  The screwing of America has been cemented into law.  Behind the scenes machinations really don't matter now, other than to make us feel bad.  Strike that....even worse.

143 John Roberts is playing Tetris at the really difficult levels. You know, where the pieces are falling really fast?

144 Vincenzo Roberts was brought to the court shortly after Senator Geary Reid woke up witha dead hooker in my brother Fredo's hotel.

145 I think the New Journolist meme- is red on red conflict. The pattern is already apparent. It's about Obama's best hope given the economy.

146 I'm partyin' in Malta, baby!  I've been invited to a party with Brangelina!

147 100Expect the Left to employ the Cloward-Pivens strategy and use this to (further) destroy the credibility of the Court,

So? The judiciary is the ally of the Left. When they lose, we win.
Posted by: AmishDude at July 03, 2012 05:44 PM (T0NGe)

Point taken.  However, one of our main reasons for electing a President is and must remain to get conservatives nominated to the Bench.  If a lot of people start saying "it doesn't matter" than we're at a further disadvantage.  I'll counter my own statement and argue "The increasingly obvious fact that the Court is completely political makes it that much more important to get "our" guys on the Bench".  Meh, the whole thing is depressing.

148 That and depressing turn out of -- Republicans.

149
92 Jeezus, how long are you gonna flog this Roberts stuff, Ace? He fucked it up -- we get it already.

Oh alright enough you broken record okay.

150 We're gonna have to take steps.

151 The very integrity of the court has been breached.

Meh, FDR corrupted the court back in the 30's.  This is nothing new.

152 George Soros wrapped one of his tentacles around Roberts' cerebral cortex, controlling his ration thought process.

153 I know how we can take the politics out of the Supreme Court, replace the justices with die rolls.  It would be just as just and a hell of a lot more economical and quicker.

The defendant claims imposition of the death penalty in his case would be in violation of the eighth amendment prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment but it's SNAKE EYES!  It's the needle for you, son.

154 Hopefully this is on tape and will become a commercial

Posted by: avi at July 03, 2012 05:55 PM (ilI81)

OK the details were a tad off, but the spirit is the same http://tinyurl.com/ccnzzml

155 Whoa.  (from Newsbusters) David Brooks says the Republicans have a plan to replace Obamacare:

"Instead of relying on the current tax exemption that hides costs, the Republican plans would offer people a tax credit for use to purchase the insurance plan that suits their needs." "Americans should be strongly encouraged to buy continuous coverage over their adulthood. Then insurance companies would not be permitted to jack up their premiums if a member of their family develops a costly condition." "nstead of locking Medicaid recipients into a substandard system, the Republicans would welcome them into the same private insurance health markets as their fellow citizens. This would give them greater access to care, while reducing the incentives that encourage them to remain eligible for the program." "eplace MedicareÂ’s open-ended cost burden with a defined contribution structure. Beneficiaries could choose from a menu of approved plans. If they wanted a more expensive plan, they could pay for it on top of the fixed premium." "[A]ny new spending would be offset with cuts so that health care costs do not continue to devour more and more of the federal budget. This could be done, for example, by gradually raising the retirement age."

156 Posted by: MikeTheMoose Lite! 98% Anger Free! at July 03, 2012 05:45 PM (0q2P7)

Nice quoting of Dante.

157 Damned formatting fail.

158 127 Here I'll help you feel better then... Justice Roberts wrote, “It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.” What I am saying is that this is like pouring gasoline on a fire. Is everyone involved going to leak and counter-leak until they achieve their personal objectives? Besides, I do not need leaks to tell me who made the right decision and who made the wrong one.

159 Ace puts the lotion on it's skin...

160 Are we all beyond the 'He's playing 12-dimensional chess!!!' shit now?

161 Whoa. (from Newsbusters) David Brooks says the Republicans have a plan to replace Obamacare:

Is that a "plan" or a proposal by Brooks?  Sounds like the latter.  What gives Brooks inside information?

162 Really the only way for these representatives to keep their jobs is for them to make sure the entire country, including them and the president and the military and all those with exceptions has to have obamagreatesttaxinthehistoryoftheworldcare is implemented.  Otherwise, if you were there for the vote, even if you voted against people are going to want you voted out so they can start fresh.

163 Meh, FDR corrupted the court back in the 30's. This is nothing new.

While I'm displeased with Robert's cowardly capitulation, this ruling was barely a ripple compared to the abominable, reprehensible tsunami that was Wickard vs Filburn.

164 Link to Newsbusters David Brooks article:

http://tinyurl.com/7wej868

165 Are we all beyond the 'He's playing 12-dimensional chess!!!' shit now?

---

He's playing Old Maid and we got left at the alter.

166 Hey guys, I just got invited to a party at Sarah Jessica's, oh sorry, Sarah Jessica Parker's house!  I'm so excited, I heard she has a big bowl of fancy heirloom apples and giant sugar cubes.  I love apples!

167 As was posted in the other thread, Roberts Ruling can be re-written to say:

"The federal government cannot prevent you from owning a firearm, and you are free to own guns, but you are not free to refuse to pay the tax for owning a gun. You are not free from paying the tax for speaking in public, you are not free from paying the tax for being a Christian, you are not free from paying the tax for assembling, you are not free from paying the tax for quartering soldiers in you home."

There is, because of that piss-yellow coward, one law in this land: It is our new king, the federal government and his power to tax--not the Constitution that's an outdated relic of an unenlightened past.

168 148 Isn't this all kind of moot at this point? The screwing of America has been cemented into law. Behind the scenes machinations really don't matter now, other than to make us feel bad. Strike that....even worse.

Posted by: Lady in Black at July 03, 2012 05:58 PM (vOMX+)

Hopefully this will cause the GOP to actually vet SCOTUS nominees from now on.

Oh hell...who am I kidding?

169 Woot!  When I get back from Malta, Joe Biden has invited me to his place for a water-gun fight!

170 Sidebar: "Likely Voters: Carter Was a Better President than Obama"

They voted JFK fourth greatest.

Wha--?

That man was a mediocrity at best.

Stupid survey.

171 "31 Regardless of what the outcome is or if any benefit can be gained from the actual decision, Roberts really showed his ass on this one.

"My job is not to protect the voters from their decisions."

Um, seems to me like you forgot what you're fucking job IS, Chief Justice Roberts.

If they try to do something that's UNCONSTITUTIONAL, you're supposed to PROTECT us from it.

Assholes....all of them.

Posted by: © Sponge at July 03, 2012 05:20 PM (UK9cE)"

---------------

Yeah, that statement by Roberts sounded more appropriate to a democracy than a republic. Only in a democracy (or an authoritarian society) can one portion of the society do unmitigated harm to another, at least in the current day and age.

In my ideal world, Roberts would have rejected the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause justifications, said it would possibly have passed muster as a tax, but leave it ambiguous because it really would be the first tax on inactivity, but since it wasn't written as one, it was unconstitutional. That would have voided the law and set up conditions which would make it impossible to pass a new version, i.e. it would have to pass as a tax (and even then it might not be constitutional as passed). It would have been so simple and more logical than the actual outcome.

Anyway, an interesting quote I read in a SCOTUSblog paean to Roberts seemed to me to sum up what the Left thinks of Obamacare as and what one of Romney's messages needs to be:

"No doubt, liberals should be excited by yesterdayÂ’s decision. The bottom line is that the most significant piece of social welfare legislation since the 1960s survived the exacting review of a conservative Supreme Court. In an age of growing economic inequality, the Court has upheld the biggest effort to redistribute income the since the end of the Great Society."

At the end of the day, Obamacare is a giant welfare program masquerading as/taking the form of a health care financing program, i.e. the same Great Society rathole they've been burning money in for nearly 50 years. Obama is going to degrade your healthcare to subsidize health care for the people he and his minions consider deserving. When you can't see a doctor because there's too long a wait list, the people ahead of you might just be a member of one of Obama's favored victim groups.

172 Wow, so the Rose Garden smackdown was when Obama was getting intel that it wasn't going his direction.  Those tea leaves were right.  It looks like the hyperventilating was legit right up to the end.

173 I want to wait to see what his explanation is before I judge my druggie boyfriend.

174

What gives Brooks inside information?

 

Butter.

175 Hell, the health aspect of this monstrosity is unsettleing enough. 2000+ pages of crazy talk and 1600 new tax collectors will insure that every decent American who lived productive and meanimgful lives won't have a choice between spending what they saved for their children just to stay alive or deciding to forgo expensive treatment and leaving to their kids. These bastards have their tool now to steal it either way. Drug addicts, degenerates, and the rest of life's lovable losers benefit from cradle to grave. Thanks Roberts. Burn in hell.

176 "Are we all beyond the 'He's playing 12-dimensional chess!!!' shit now?"
=====

He's playing "Demon's Souls" without even consulting a FAQ!

177 As was posted in the other thread, Roberts Ruling can be re-written to say:

Not to defend his decision, but that's not exactly true.  The things you mentioned involved constitutionally protected rights.

178 That plan is essentially Paul Ryans plan.

179 The fragging...it continues.

180 Posted by: Romeo13 at July 03, 2012 05:56 PM (lZBBB) Kagan replaced a liberal so she was no swing vote, unless your talking about swinging from the ugly tree

181 I think I'll go look for a few Allen West vids to cheer me up, hehe. Posted by: beyond the looking glass at July 03, 2012 05:49 PM (HOOye) Nigel Farage. The night of the decision I actually watched videos of Nigel to cheer me up. Nothing like watching him give it to the leaders of the EuroTrash.

182 It was never about health care, it was always about power and control. Replace "health care" with any words connected to politics.

183 IOW-- why is rockmom getting the blow job comments?

184 I support a personal mandate.  It reads as follows:

"You get what you pay for."

Period.

185 "Whoa. (from Newsbusters) David Brooks says the Republicans have a plan to replace Obamacare:"
=====

SHRIEK!!!!!!!!!! SHRIEK!!!!!!!!! SHRIEK!!!!!!!!!! SHRIEK!!!!!!!!! SHRIEK!!!!!!!!!! SHRIEK!!!!!!!!! SHRIEK!!!!!!!!!! SHRIEK!!!!!!!!! SHRIEK!!!!!!!!!! SHRIEK!!!!!!!!! SHRIEK!!!!!!!!!! SHRIEK!!!!!!!!!

186

Kagan replaced a liberal so she was no swing vote, unless your talking about swinging from the ugly tree

 

 

Posted by: Nevergiveup at July 03, 2012 06:11 PM (05RcU)

 

 

Point being she should have Recused herself... thus NO vote... instead we have a VERY tainted outcome... which swings on HER tainted vote.

187 She's a hard core Conservative agrees with you 99.7% of the time but-- her turn to ..blah,blah, balh-- blow job!

188 why is rockmom getting the blow job comments?

Posted by: tasker at July 03, 2012 06:12 PM (r2PLg)

 

Because she keeps blowing John Roberts in the comments.

189 There is, because of that piss-yellow coward, one law in this land: It is our new king, the federal government and his power to tax--not the Constitution that's an outdated relic of an unenlightened past. Posted by: RoyalOil at July 03, 2012 06:07 PM (kSaUf) 537 kings and millions of princes, princesses, dukes, barons, and counts. We're the serfs. For the sake of continuity maybe call it "citizenship lite."

190 The court has been politically corrupt since 1801 when Adams did the midnight packing and put John Marshall on there.


This is why I say calling for more Republicans is just pissing in the wind.  We need an Article V convention and remove assignment of judges from Washington and give it to the States.

191

Kagan replaced a liberal so she was no swing vote, unless your talking about swinging from the ugly tree

 

Posted by: Nevergiveup at July 03, 2012 06:11 PM (05RcU)

 

 

AHHHHHHHHEYAAAAAAHAAAYEEEAAAAAAYEEEAAA!

192 Oh, and how about this: Next term, the piss-yellow coward, the same guy who told us it's not his job to overturn the legislature, will be dealing with the CA Prop 8 case?

What's the chance that vain turd will even be consistent there, after he told AZ "I write your laws, not you!"?

193

 

pixxy doesn't have filters in place to keep the words 'taint' and 'Kagan' from appearing in the same post?

194 Point being she should have Recused herself... thus NO vote... instead we have a VERY tainted outcome... which swings on HER tainted vote. Posted by: Romeo13 at July 03, 2012 06:13 PM (lZBBB) Oh yeah I guess so, but I did not realize you were assuming liberals have any morals or honor

195 194 why is rockmom getting the blow job comments? Posted by: tasker at July 03, 2012 06:12 PM (r2PLg) Because she keeps blowing John Roberts in the comments. Posted by: buzzion at July 03, 2012 06:13 PM (GULKT) ********* I missed it. She must suck at it.

196 149 John Roberts is playing Tetris at the really difficult levels. You know, where the pieces are falling really fast? --- nah, it's more like he's playing Dr. Mario

197 Hell I'm off to go read Allah Pundit--it'll be more--hopeful or something.

198 Replace "health care" with any words connected to politics. Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at July 03, 2012 06:12 PM (bxiXv) How long before they start moaning that health insurance is going up to fast and is too expensive and we need single payer? I think that will start to appear in the next 5 years. I also think there will be serious talk about 'converting' our 401K/IRA accounts to 'annuities'. The Tree thirsts...

199 Not to defend his decision, but that's not exactly true. The things you mentioned involved constitutionally protected rights. Posted by: Hollowpoint at July 03, 2012 06:10 PM (SY2Kh) Even down to quoting Ginsburg, you are absolutely right. For the moment. But none of the other limits on government power have proven lasting. The power and control keep expanding and expanding. I don't particularly trust that people with a record of discounting the rights of citizens, diminishing the scope of those rights, will suddenly reverse that course. Basically, "we're totally increasing the power of government over your lives, but, swearsies, we won't mess with this list again."

200

The Country that we have known and loved is being dissembled brick by brick.

Can anyone stop this bullshit ?

There are no rules anymore. Play the game to win.

201 I swear to God that if I EVER get the chance... I'm going to kick Roberts in the nuts just as hard as I possibly can. I'd go to jail for that. I hate that mother f*cker.

202 While we're discussing crazy, unthinkable shit that we believed the gov't would never do...the left has actually been studying if it is possible to appropriate our retirement savings (IRAs, 401Ks, etc.) to use for gov't spending. Some say it's already legal for them to do it.

I kinda thought this was just some wild conspiracy shit, but my Congressperson confirmed that "yeah, they're (the Dems) actually looking at it."

I used to think "Nah..never happen". Now I think its a foregone conclusion

203 This Cristal champagne rocks!  Hey!  Brad, Angie....over here!

204 Oh yeah I guess so, but I did not realize you were assuming liberals have any morals or honor Posted by: Nevergiveup at July 03, 2012 06:15 PM (05RcU) Well, if you get used to the laws not being enforced against you, it makes you a scumbag. It's hard to explain to them how bad for them it is. Because they're having "fun" breaking the laws.

205 Socialized Medicine, hell, what's next? obama giving away all out nuclear weapons?

206

@187 -- The following opening from Levin's show tonight did it for me:

 

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

 

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security...

 

 

 

Levin went on to explain that he's not talking overthrow but the need to inspire people to start taking this to heart.

 

"Over the course of the next year, I'm going to provide suggestions for how we can return government to the people."

207 ______________________________

Here are the several general theories that have been proffered in the media (including Fox News) the most:

- Roberts feels a specially compelling duty to uphold the reputation and esteem of the Supreme Court regarding American public perception.
(This is Charles Krauthammer's take.) 

- Roberts was intimidated by Obama and the raging left's threat to attack the Supreme Court if it handed down yet another 5-4 split decision in favor of conservatives like it did in the Citizen's United case. There would be an unprecedented and unrelenting effort from the left to paint the Court in the public's mind as being callously partisan.
(This seems to be the generalized - and convenient - conservative suspicion. But it is basically a corollary explanation that dovetails into Krauthammer's more specific explanation.)

- Roberts wants to be liked/lauded by the cool-kids in-crowd. He wants to be a star among liberal elites. (Let's call this the Ace take.)

Now, it should be noted that all of the above explanations would be due to weak character because all of them are about serving some other function than upholding the supreme rule of law, specifically the Constitution.

However, while any one or some combination of the above 'weak character' explanations could well be correct: none of them (nor any combination of them) is especially compelling. 

Rather, I find the notion that any of the Justice's would give in to peripheral psychological peer-pressure hard to believe. - Let alone one of the conservative Justices. And giving in to peer-pressure is substantially different than naturally defaulting to the peer group with which one has always generally agreed.
That was the problem with Justice Souter. He wasn't vetted. And it turns out he had always been liberal-to-moderate in his thinking. So, Souter didn't really give in to anything. He just defaulted to his normal inclinations and found ample reinforcement/validation in the media and the cool, elite crowd. 

Not so with Roberts. He was vetted by conservatives. Prominent conservative legal scholars looked at his background and his prior court decisions, and they determined that Roberts had demonstrated long-term reliability in yielding conservative (i.e., Constitutional) rulings.  

Besides, if Roberts were going to give in to psychological peer-pressure, wouldn't he more likely give in to direct rather than peripheral peer-pressure?
It is obvious that his four fellow conservative Justices applied significant direct peer-pressure in the way they dissented: They used Robert's own positioning and words in what had been his original majority opinion to strike down the mandate. Now that's some fucking peer pressure. Roberts has to work and deal with those simpatico conservative peers every day he goes to work for the rest of his professional life. 
Their peer-pressure would be considerably more influential than the fleeting attention of fickle media outlets or lauded elites that Roberts would occasionally get to rub shoulders with at fabulous Inside-the-Beltway parties. The media and elite personas would only be peripheral and fleeting peer-pressure.

I'm not saying that it is implausible that Roberts could have such weak character as to give in to such secondary peer-pressure.
But it just doesn't seem that likely considering that Roberts has a well established conservative jurisprudential background. This makes it far more likely for him to seek the approval of leading conservative minds like Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Krauthammer, Levin et al.   


In my next comment I'll provide a more likely alternative explanation for Robert's unfortunate defection.

 

208 How long before they start moaning that health insurance is going up to fast and is too expensive and we need single payer? Posted by: blindside at July 03, 2012 06:18 PM (x7g7t) Too late, they've been doing that for years.

209 nood post up.  This time with 95% more hope.

210 Now robbing Roberts' support for commie Kagan to not recuse herself makes a bit more sense. 

211 Levin had the Terese Gillarducci (sp?), who came up with this idea, on his show like two years ago. She had no idea who Levin is and he didn't tip his hand, but she laid it all out for him on national radio. It's available on itunes via Podcast. Highly recommended that you listen to it. It's made me think twice about putting any money into my 401K. Before they can take our 401Ks I think they will have to destroy our 2nd Amendment. I don't believe even the most detached would put up with direct theft of their 401K. I sure as hell won't.

212 Oh dear God, a friend of mine said "well the republicans were accusing him of over spending.  I saw some IRS guy and it became clear to me that he wasn't over spending cause he had in mind how he was going to pay for it all along"....

I'm going right for the scotch....no rocks....just the scotch...she votes....she thinks she's informed....

213 208 I have srsly considered liquidating my 401 for just that reason.  Penalties and all.

214 Too late, they've been doing that for years. Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at July 03, 2012 06:22 PM (bxiXv) Yes, but I mean mainstream it. Maybe 5 years is too generous. After the insurance companies raise their rates even more, the demonization will start anew. Maybe two years is closer.

215 So is Roberts the first justice to essentially write both sides of the decision?

216 Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.

217

Adams did the midnight packing and put John Marshall on there.[/]

It hurt some, but it was worth it!

218 Buck Fobama and the wookie he rode in on.

219 5 years is too long unless the Republicans do manage to repeal this POS and do NOT replace it with something only slightly less odious.

Single payer is what they have wanted all along.  And basically that is the equival3nt of nationalizing healthcare.  Because at that point everyone in healthcare will be working for the government.

220 Alternate Theory #2:

Imagine being brow beaten by three hideous harpies, - the wise-ass Latina, the lumberjack Kagan, and the Ginsberg mummy.

Is it a stretch to think that these women would pass up an opportunity to drive a man into a permanent state of dysfunction, both cerebral and erectile?  I think so.

221 Yes, but I mean mainstream it. Maybe 5 years is too generous. After the insurance companies raise their rates even more, the demonization will start anew. Maybe two years is closer. Posted by: blindside at July 03, 2012 06:26 PM (x7g7t) More power, more control. It's all they ever do. Click click click goes the ratchet, tightening down on us.

222 Roberts is a jerk.  He's not got some special tricky plan for ruling as he did to win Romney the Presidency or get ObamaTax overturned.  He's a jerk. 

223

GWB should be feeling regret now for nominating Roberts.

I'm quite sure he isn't, considering his profound stubborness, but he should.

224
Ace wields the club in the lower left hand corner of the print:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/758d24n

225 Hey, John! Buk buk buk buk BUK!! CHICKEN!!

(runs away)

226 183 As was posted in the other thread, Roberts Ruling can be re-written to say:

Not to defend his decision, but that's not exactly true. The things you mentioned involved constitutionally protected rights.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at July 03, 2012 06:10 PM (SY2Kh)

=============

Except for that pesky little 9th Amendment that used to say that all powers not specifically given to the federal government were retained by the people--you know, like the right to NOT do something.

So, yeah, constitutionally protected--but you still have to pay the tax.

Like I keep saying: Under the Roberts Ruling, you are still free to exercise all your rights you had before--the King is nothing if not generous--however, the King may, from time to time, decide your rights will be taxed. Perhaps to spur you to betterment for the greater good. The Kind does so care for his subjects. But, you are most certainly not free to refuse to pay the King his tax.

No! Fuck the piss-yellow coward. He is a fucking ass who finds slavery not so objectionable that Americans should not suffer under its yoke.

Some of you have said, "It's histrionics to compare this to Dredd Scott." Well, Chief Justice Taney had the decency to only keep a limited class of Americans in slavery. The piss-yellow coward sees us all as deserving slaves. And why not? As he says, 52% of us voted for it. It's not like we had a Constitution to specifically protect the rights of the minority from the rapaciousness of the majority or anything.

227

"Bush made a good pick in Alito. Credit and honor for that."

 

Alito wasn't Bush's pick.  Harriet Miers was Bush's pick.  When the Right rebelled he had to backtrack, and since everyone was watching and wouldn't put up with another one of his gimmicky smartass stunts, he behaved himself and picked a conservative.  Alito was the Right's pick.  Miers probably would have been as much an ass as Roberts - Bush seems to gravitate towards that sort of limp fake conservatism.

228 Like looking back at old school papers, I wonder if in a week Roberts will be like, "WTF?  Did I write that steaming pile of crap?"

229 There was no leak. There are no sources. This is all made up by the same bunch of bottomed up blow dried pin heads who told us the VC won the Tet Offensive.

230 Intended or not, there are good consequences from Robert's ruling on Obamacare:

1. It's made it more likely that Obamacare will be repealed, or defunded and die, and made it less likely that the left will be able to resurrect it once it's gone.  Electing more fiscal conservatives, Democrats as well as Republicans, will be key to killing it soon, though.
2. It'll be much much harder for the radical left to sneak across any other unpopular mandate, huge tax, or private sector takeover Trojan-horse law using the commerce clause.
3. It's much more likely now that Obamacare, even if it's not repealed or defunded, will collapse under it's own weight. 

The collapse is already starting to happen.  Making it clear that it is a tax will hasten it. 

Companies, who have provided healthcare as a benefit to attract and keep good workers, will not see that as advantageous any more, since all companies will have to offer the same level benefit and people can get it readily from other sources.  Rather than pay huge health benefit costs for no gain, they will simply pay the tax, and leave the employees to pick up their own health insurance on the exchanges. And sure as shinola, employers will not add the full cost of what they had been paying to employees' wages to offset the lost benefit. 

Employees will see how much they have to pay on the exchanges, and will realize how much they and their families gave up to insure other people -- and for lousier health care to boot.  And they'll start thinking about what else they could buy with that money.  And they will start paying the tax, too, instead of buying insurance, and pay routine health costs out of pocket (as we should anyway). 

And the tax is not enough to keep Obamacare afloat.  Poof!  

On top of that, the insurance companies and big pharma, which supported Obamacare when mandate was presented as not-a-tax, are not going to be so happy being hitched to the largest tax hike ever on their customers.  They thought they had a captive clientele, and that they would never have to compete again, and could just put their feet on their desks while the money rolled in with the IRS acting as enforcer and employers acting as bagman. Now they're going to see all their dreamed of easy profits going into the IRS rat-hole first, to be dribbled out in squirts and squibs later if there's any left.  Oh yes. The insurance companies, if they are smart, have got to be worried.

231 Q:  Do you know how much your employer pays for your healthcare benefit? 

It's time to find that out, if you don't.

232 They're grown ups and when they return from va cay cay, I'm sure they will try to get along. However, there has to be a lot of lingering butt hurt. How is Roberts going to get around that?

233 Posted by: starboardhelm at July 03, 2012 06:45 PM (hHgxI) 1) Doubtful (that it changed the odds). 2) Doubtful (nothing has changed that so far). 3) Taking us with it.

234

I hope there are people "in the know" who are investigating WHY Roberts switched: was it as simple as he turned Souter on us or is there a more nefarious reason? If it comes out that he was blackmailed... hoo, boy!

 

The sudden switch is very  suspicious to me. Have we ever heard of anything like this before? A Justice deciding one way  at first  and sticking to the decision for more than a month and even beginning the writing of the opinion, to then suddenly switch? C'mon!

 

Also, have Dissenters ever been this angry before? Have they ever leaked to the press like this before?

 

I think something's "up".

235 Why not? It doesn't take all that much work to change a criticism of "The Dissent" to "The Concurrence." Just a word search & replace. But they didn't even do that much.
To be fair maybe they were using Pixy's software.

236

Posted by: Fritz at July 03, 2012 06:32 PM (02fNe)

 

But those harpies didn't sway Kennedy! I'm sure they would've worked their magic on him first since he's usually a squish. it didn't work on Thomas, Scalia, or Alito. Why would they have thought it would work on Roberts.

 

There's more than meets the eye here, imo.

237 Kagan was the REAL Swing Vote.... someone who should have NEVER been anywhere near this case. Yeah... that's Roberts doing too. Completely illegitimate. Even Sotomayor is leagues above Kagan, she is Obama's Harriet Miers and the lockstep, conformist authoritarian left swallowed it right up. She should not have even been allowed on that case. The Roberts court is a fucking sick joke.

238 Will any of this rancor change Roberts decision?  Will any of this help us defeat Obamacare?  I see a lot of comments here that are simply steam venting, and that's ok, but I'd sure like to see more constructive stuff than all this weeping and amateur mind-reading.

Here's my contribution: 

http://on.wsj.com/12Dlpb

The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare, by John Mackey from August 2009. 

If Obama truly had wanted to be a healthcare hero, and not just a radical socialist rock star, he would have used this as his model.

Also, VoteBaumgartner.com

239 ______________________________

The theory that I subscribe to as to why Roberts defected has been best described by Charles Lane of the Washington Post who is a regular but infrequent panelist on Bret Baier's Special Report.

Lane says he was watching Roberts years before he was elevated to the Supreme Court and describes Roberts as a tremendously intelligent man. He pushes the "Roberts is playing chess while everybody else is playing checkers" theory.

Lane points out that when it comes to the issue of the States' rights to resist Federal influence/coercion that Roberts got two liberals to defect to form a 7 to 2 strong majority ruling regarding the Expanded Medicaid aspect of ObamaCare. Lane further points out that there are States' Rights cases working their way up to the Supreme Court that when they arrive: the liberal position will have a great deal of trouble being argued after the recent 7 to 2 ruling. And that it wouldn't be surprising if one or both of the liberal Justices who defected in favor of the States over the Federal Government in the ObamaCare decision could feel compelled to do so again in the coming cases with similar States versus Fed legal complexions.

Yes, that's a fairly convoluted explanation. (Just as the reasoning behind a series of chess moves can be convoluted.) And yet, in terms of motivation, that explanation makes a lot more sense than: Roberts is just a man of weak character who wants to be loved by the left.

Because even if Roberts can't peel away either of the current liberal defectors in similar coming cases of States versus the Fed, if the liberal lawyers arguing their cases are hamstrung in their written briefings and oral arguments: the resulting 5 to 4 conservative rulings won't seem controversial.
They'll seem obvious.
And it will be the liberal Justices who will seem outright self-contradictory and therefore partisan and callously lockstep.

And this could well begin to form a zeitgeist of States' Rights Constitutional sentiment in our politics. Does any conservative doubt that that is what is needed? 


Here, I'll add some of my own unfounded speculation.
If Roberts was thinking/ruling along the chess-like line that Charles Lane is suggesting: then it would not also be surprising if Roberts believed that the American voting public ought to be the force to address and likely (hopefully) bring down ObamaCare. That if it's taken out of the voters' hands, then the problem is solved too easily. It encourages them to go back to sleep and to not hold their outrageously feckless representatives accountable. In that case, Drudge was especially poignant with his headline splash: "Take Your Medicine!"

I personally have a real problem with the Supreme Court declaring something that is obviously a penalty - and obviously not a tax - a tax. I hate it when tortured logic is passed off as legitimate because it promotes the alienating strategy of torturing logic in the future in order to selfishly arrive at a preferred result. It is vicious validation of that which is obviously invalid. And that is a recipe for a subsequent catastrophic abuse to be heaped upon a prior disastrous abuse. 

But, in his defense, maybe Roberts thinks that it is about time conservatives wake up and use similar asymmetrical intellectual warfare tactics that the left has been using for decades.
Look at the bullshit reasoning the left used to arrive at Roe v Wade which has plagued our politics and social culture for decades. A right to privacy (nowhere enumerated in the Constitution) from which a woman's right to abortion is derived (also nowhere enumerated in the Constitution).

It might also be a fair argument to essentially say, "Hey, if you ever want to discourage the left from using such intellectually dishonest tactics in legislating from the bench, then you had better show them the sword cuts both ways." 

240 Roberts is a traitor. The only effective way to deal with him is to impeach him. More serious reforms are needed for the court as a whole.

The psychology of betrayal is deep and complex. John Le Carrie wrote a series of spy novels based on the betrayal of Kim Philby and friends in England. Worth reading.

In the end there is a high probability that his betrayal has given us socialized medicine for as long as anyone reading this blog will be alive.

The lower end of probability is that conservatives and tea-partiers will get Romney and a bunch of Senate candidates elected so that some of the damage Obama has done can be moderated.

One thing I used to like about Jimmy Connors was that he fought for every point to the last point of the last set. He never gave up. So in that spirit we need to keep fighting even though this betrayal (and more to come no doubt) is dispiriting.

241 What a debacle.  Has it ever been more aparent how broken this whole system is?  An incumbent Congress that needs to be whitewashed.  A POTUS that needs to be kicked to the curb.  A wholly mismanaged federal bureaucracy at essentially every level - including the military.  And now all those arguments I've been hearing for years about how SCOTUS will save the Constitution just went out the window as well.  The whole machine is a joke. 

242 Lane further points out that there are States' Rights cases working their way up to the Supreme Court that when they arrive: the liberal position will have a great deal of trouble being argued after the recent 7 to 2 ruling. Right, just like Roberts had 'a great deal of trouble being argued' on both sides of the tax issue at the same goddamn time in the same ruling. Oh wait, no he handled it alright. What a smartie! Since when have hacks like Ginsburg ever been bothered with being consistent? That's some 3d chess right there, all right... What a clever man, I suppose the lefties will all just vanish in a puff of logic now. Roberts will no doubt go down with Neville Chamberlain as one of the greatest negotiators ever. Look at all these magic beans!

243 @248, good luck with that.  In case you weren't paying attention... Roberts voted with the MAJORITY.  On what grounds would you impeach?  The only way to impeach him is if he did something illegal... but that isn't really possible either because HE IS THE LAW.  Nice words but get real.  Want to seriously impeach him?  Whitewash Congress.  Replace every single rep with guys like Mike Lee, Ron Paul, and Jason Chaffetz.  Short of that, aint a thing in the world going to change in 2013.  McConnell is already laying out the ground right now for not repealing Obamacare.  ROFL.  People need to wake up and stop sleeping with the enemy.

244 wake up and use similar asymmetrical intellectual warfare tactics Magic beans are asymmetrical intellectual warfare tactics now?

245 I'm all for impeaching Roberts in January, 2013.

246 Here's the thing, really. Warfare tactics, intellectual, asymmetrical, or otherwise, are about destroying your enemy. Not feeling smug because you think you made them look silly while getting everything they want. Brainiacs like this should be kept far away from important decisions.

247

"My job is not to protect the voters from their decisions."

 

How about protecting the non-voters, future voters and future non-voters from 52% of today's "voters." Is that in your fucking job description?

248 My theory? Roberts isn't Roberts. He was replaced weeks ago by a pod person. The real Roberts is dead and we'll be stuck with this simulacra forever. Posted by: Purp (@PurpAv) at July 03, 2012 05:32 PM (D3+jW) More likly "100 days of the Dragon" scenario...

249

What was Robert's recourse if Kagan had recused?

250 I think letting him know he betrayed the Conservative moment by letting an unconstitutional law stand is perfect. He was swayed by an outpouring of left wing dissent. He might be swayed by an outpouring of conservative disgust. How to we know the lefties on the court didn't leak this to further gloat and ruin Roberts if they feel he might not be on their side again in the future?

251 ______________________________

While Charles Lane's assertion that Roberts ruling is based on overarching conservative strategy makes far more sense than that Roberts so ruled out of vanity.   

But even assuming his ruling was strategic (and we're all engaged guess-casting anyway), as I have said: Roberts strategy seems dubious because it involves tortured logic. And it's generally - if not always - a horrible idea to try and uphold the rule of law (especially our Constitution) based upon tortured logic.

252 <i>Re this Roberts quote:
"My job is not to protect the voters from their decisions."

Except the voters didn't want Obama(care). It was enacted without our consent.
What was the phrase? Oh yeah. No taxation without representation. Rather feels like that's what we have now - our electedReps don't or won't represent us.
I suppose you could say that the judiciary branch should be protecting the voters from the unconstitutional decisions of Congress.

Posted by: soulpile at July 03, 2012 05:39 PM (Mk/IQ)</i>

 

yes, exactly!! the voters did everything in their power at the time to oppose it, even mass. elected a repub. pledged to defeat it to teddy kennedy's old seat. the dems cheated and used reconciliation to shove it up our ass and roberts used it as an opportunity to go and blow any credibility he had.

253 ______________________________

One reason that it would be better if Roberts voted to uphold ObamaCare out of (misguided) strategy rather than self-consuming vanity is that at least he'd still be attempting (if unpredictably) to serve conservative causes.

That would be better than Roberts voting for rulings that got his precious ego stroked by elites on the left.

My larger point is that there are good reasons to believe that Roberts was not kissing the left's feet in making his bad defection on ObamaCare.
And likewise, there's no reason to suspect that Roberts will be kissing the left's feet in his future votes.

254 But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government,

255 Here, I'll add some of my own unfounded speculation.
If Roberts was thinking/ruling along the chess-like line that Charles Lane is suggesting: then it would not also be surprising if Roberts believed that the American voting public ought to be the force to address and likely (hopefully) bring down ObamaCare.

Voters have little power.  Ask McConnell what he will do as majority leader.

256 #261 after this and the arizona vote its hard to say just what roberts will do. he has displayed quite a bit of faithlessness to the constitution last week.

257 Roberts was last seen at a rest stop along the Garden State Parkway waiting for ex governor McGreevy.

258

One reason that it would be better if Roberts voted to uphold ObamaCare out of (misguided) strategy rather than self-consuming vanity is that at least he'd still be attempting (if unpredictably) to serve conservative causes.

 

How is Roberts rewriting the law from the bench serving conservative causes?  Legislating from the bench is not a favored cause of conservatives.

259

"My job is not to protect the voters from their decisions."

 

Actually, that is exactly what SCOTUS' duty is. If all of America suddenly wanted to be commmie, but still kept the Consititution, it's the SCOTUS' job to  decide things based on the Consititution, not on the will of the people.

 

Besides, the will of the people IS the Constitution! Each state has had to ratify that document. We want to live under it! It's the SCOTUS' job to see that we do.

 

Roberts failed on that head.

260

Posted by: Andrew at July 03, 2012 07:26 PM (HS3dy)

 

Which is why I hope there are people "in the know" finding out why he switched. If we could prove he did so because of blackmail or illegal influence, then the decision is suspect. If we could prove that he was derelict in his duties, etc.

261 ______________________________

Buzzion,

I agree with you completely that Roberts was rewriting Federal legislation from the bench. I further completely agree with you that such is antithetical to conservatism. And as a conservative, I hate such actions. I hate that Roberts used the Supreme Court to effectively declare what was a non-tax penalty a tax. It's tortured logic, it's not conservative, and I hate it.

What I'm saying is that Roberts failure in this case does not mean he will automatically join the liberals in the future. I think that's unlikely.

Rather, I think there are good reasons to believe that Roberts will lean conservative in his future jurisprudence. - Namely, that his past jurisprudence is overwhelmingly conservative and originalist. 

262 _ Dave_ I am not in the lynch mob but the only constructionist motivation for upholding the ACA that I can see is judicial restraint, but that does not fly as ruling it a tax from the bench is itself judicial activism. Overturning it with instruction to Congress to rewrite as a tax was the right answer if judicial restraint was the principle driving his reasoning. I believe his logic was tortured and that history will not be kind to him regardless of whatever happens with future elections and repeal efforts.

263 It's tough to watch the peacocking from the lib/dems about obamagreatesttaxinthehistoryoftheworldcare.  With that decision they are so sure of BO's second term.  But, just in case, they allude to the fact that if it isn't a lockdown, they can make it so.  It's disheartening.  You find yourself wondering how so many people could have been raised thinking lieing or parsing or whatever you want to call it is ok and the ends justifies the means and a moral compass is something everyone's great grandfather had but isn't necessary to survive in today's world.

They also feel not only do they have the upper hand now but that this won't be discussed in the election cycle becasue, after all, they argue, romney is indeed the father of obamagreatesttaxinthehistoryoftheworldcare, becasue of romney care. 

Also, there are a lot of things in that bill that don't belong in a health care bill and a lot of new taxes.   And there are some things people really like which, of course, are kicking in waaay before the things they will hate so that the election cycle goes smoothly. 

I think romney has tried to allude to keeping the stuff people like and fixing everything else.  I think conservatives would prefer he keep nothing but republicans and independents like some of the stuff, like the kids on the insurance policy until 26.  

I feel sorry for romney cause he wants to appeal  to the independents and some republicans but he doesn't want to lose the independents.  I think he needs to really start educating everyone and, if romneycare didn't turn out to be a disaster, then say so.  If it did, then talk about it.  We all learn from our mistakes, it would bring him down to the level of the rest of us.  Or he could say, these are the things that turned out well and we should have and these are the things that didn't turn out well and we should learn from that.  He might also say, no matter how you slice it, since my area of expertise is looking at things and figuring out how to keep the best parts, get rid of the worst parts, keep as many people as possible employed all while turning a profit and doing it for the lowest cost, no matter what, I'm the guy to address this issue.

264

How can any conservative claim Roberts was "brilliant" in this when Kagan, Soto, Gins, & Breyer all agreed? Those people are not "brilliant" or conservative  and they wouldn't agree to anything that was.

Also, by claiming he's "brilliant", it indicates that Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy are *not* or wouldn't they have agreed with Roberts? The fact that those men, four of whom are stalwart, Constitution-loving  conservatives, did not agree with him is all the proof I need to know that it's ROBERTS who is in the wrong here. I am not going to throw my favorite Justices under the bus for one man named Roberts. 

265

Rather, I think there are good reasons to believe that Roberts will lean conservative in his future jurisprudence

 

You mean like with the Arizona law.  Oh wait.

266 _Dave_ I see your reply to Buzzion stipulates my main point, so I will address yours. Until he explains why he flipped and contradicted himself dissent/opinion & restraint/activism it is impossible to guess what he might do in the future. I will stipulate his trend line is conservative but this outlier is a huge one so it seems possible there was some sort of disconnect that could signal a new direction. I hope not.

267 We haven't discussed all the other rulings much.  I'd be interested to hear what everyone is thinking.  Cause to say that he will lean conservative in the future seems to me to be wishcasting.  The same kind of maneuvering some dems are doing now realizing that they don't like a lot of the stuff BO did and wondering if he should get their vote again.   You sort of have to be willing to suspend logic to vote for him again if you feel let down and betrayed.  The same is true of Roberts, you'd have to suspend logic to assume he's going full on conservative for the rest of his life.   Makes no sense.

268 ______________________________

Grumpy the Younger,

I agree with you that the only plausible legal rationale for upholding the Affordable Care Act would be legal restraint. And yet to rewrite the Individual Mandate penalty as a tax is 180 degrees out of phase with judicial restraint.
Roberts can't have it both ways. The liberals on the court know that which is why they would have preferred to use the horribly abused Commerce Clause to justify upholding the ACA.
And so, yes, you have pointed out yet another piece of gratuitously tortured logic which Roberts has employed in upholding the ACA.

I'm just saying that I don't think Roberts did this as a favor to the left in return for being lauded by the media and schmoozed at fabulous, elitist parties.
 
While I specifically hold that Roberts was in the wrong, I think he was motivated in an attempt, (a failed attempt) to serve conservative principles.

269 34
In regard to AZ law, Roberts thinks it's his job to protect illegals from the law.

Funny, that.

Posted by: Soothsayer, of the Wolverines at July 03, 2012 05:22 PM (G/zuv)

-

THIS! EXACTLY THIS!!

270 ______________________________

Grumpy the Younger,

RE: Robert's future direction and vote trend. You make a fair point that we just really don't know.

271 How can any conservative claim Roberts was "brilliant" in this when Kagan, Soto, Gins, Breyer all agreed? Those people are not "brilliant" or conservative and they wouldn't agree to anything that was. ********* There is this from the syllabus-- ROBERTS, C. J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, and III–C, in which GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined; an opinion with respect to Part IV, in which BREYER and KAGAN, JJ., joined; and an opinion with respect to Parts III–A, III–B, and III–D. GINSBURG, J., filed an opinion concurring in part, concurring in the judgment in part, and dissenting in part, in which SOTOMAYOR, J., joined, and in which BREYER and KAGAN, JJ., joined as to Parts I, II, III, and IV. SCALIA, KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., filed a dissenting opinion. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion. *******

272

What am I -  chopped liver?

273 Roberts is a damned traitor and the justices on the right could give a shit whether he gets embarrassed by letting everyone know the sort of man he is.

They know Roberts wussed out like some callow teenage girl who is afraid she won't get a date to the prom and they know that the US is more or less over because of all of this.  There is damn near nothing the government can't do to you as a result of this.

How in the hell do you think they feel sitting on a bench with that asshole?

The leftists on the court are known quantities.  They have no shame and will vote the Democratic agenda down the line.  That was their ONLY qualification for the job.  Roberts supposedly knows better but wants to meet everyone halfway which means the ratchet always turns to the left.

Idiot!

He deserves to be cursed and hounded the rest of his days and that will not be near enough punishment for what he has condemned us all to.

I am just glad I was smart enough to shut down my business when this all started so I could get something for it before it was worthless.  The small business guys are heading to the exits like so many people caught in a fire at a rock concert. 
var __chd__ = {'aid':11079,'chaid':'www_objectify_ca'};(function() { var c = document.createElement('script'); c.type = 'text/javascript'; c.async = true;c.src = ( 'https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://z': 'http://p') + '.chango.com/static/c.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(c, s);})();

274

So if theres a contested election this year and the Supreme court rules one way or the other, will the losing side accept the outcome, leave the streets and go home?

 

 

275 Posted by: _Dave_ at July 03, 2012 08:21 PM (/nxRb)

Initially, on first read, I too would not impute motives to Roberts although I had said I thought he'd do something solomon esque.  I was expecting some kind of shocker so I wasn't shocked.  I hope that the twelve dimensional chess folks are right and, in the long run, this ruling will not prove the undoing of the Constitution.    I don't see the Constitution as living and breathing as some of my peers do.

I agree, if there is nothing to be done, then people should make sure the nominee is willing to take down the law.  I mean, at this point, the guy has to sign an iron clad, no loopholes, plain english contract with the American people promising to take the law down and include the goodies they love in the new law.  I'm thinking this ruling was the straw that broke the camels back and that people will no longer vote for he other guy cause of the judges or because the guy already there will ruin the country, they won't vote, they will think they aren't crazy about romney and the other guy, and they can't win, using as their rationale this ruling, so why bother.  That is the biggest problem the republicans are facing and sadly they haven't a clue that this is what is coming.

276 Mike, it is hightime we stop just accepting. OWS should have taught us something. The tea parties were organized and peaceful; we even cleaned up after ourselves. Yet we were still vilified as violent and racist such that popular opinion of them was highly negative.

277 I always wondered why the tea partiers were vilified.  the people I know who were/are tea partiers are everyone great grand parents and grand parents.

278 Haters. See you on the cover of Newsweek. NOT!

279 "Melinda Gates: “Right.”The old population control movement existed for more or less the same reason, to eradicate poverty by eradicating the poor. In fact, the only major difference between the two movements is one of semantics. Today’s newest generation of population control proponents are still billionaires, still from the first world, and are still convinced that the poor are at the center of the world’s woe.

WhatÂ’s changed is their marketing campaign and rhetoric.'"

http://tinyurl.com/7nfvp8h

As I was reading this it occurred to me that it's the same twisted logic that Roberts employed but on another issue.

280

@239

Gavel Rochambeau?

281 The facts are simple and clear. No matter how much happy-juice people put on it to try and say Roberts was putting it back into politics and not the law...limiting the Commerce Clause argument...blah...blah...blah.

Fact is, he could have killed this abortion of a law and stopped the Commerce Clause argument without extending a lifeline to this abortion. He could have, and he didn't.

Why?

Because he simply saw a chance to attach his name to a landmark case, a la Roe v Wade or Citizens United, and get his pontificating arse enshrined in the hallowed halls of Fame, as exemplified by the Press.

Roberts is a thrall of the Beltway and the Cocktail Party Circuit. His fortitude has always been suspect and as Coulter said, these weak sister nominees never work out well for us, NOT EVER.

Embarrass him for wanting the SCOTUS to become the Roberts Court a la Rehnquist Court or Warren Court and acting accordingly. A straight killing of Obamacare doesn't do that: saving that abortion does. The Press lauds his feckless gutlessness, eases up on His Court and he gets temporary butt boy privileges with the hostile press.

But now he'll be expected to curve left consistently, and being a man with some ego, he will eventually go off the reservation, and then  this whole bag of crap comes unglued...and his Court will be reviled again.

He will never have the respect and love of the MSM that he craves. He has made himself a tool and will be wielded as such until he resists, and then he will be reviled again.

Being a slave to temporary considerations will damn his tenure to recriminations and doubt, second guessing and vilification.

And he did it all himself. Kennedy can withstand scorn, Roberts apparently cannot.

He should resign. Then Apologize.

282 The reference to Ginsberg's dissent is in reference to her dissent on the unconstitutionality of the mandate under the commerce clause. (7-2)

283

All this circumstantial and play-by-play personality crap is irrelevant.  It is of zero importance whether someone leaked, or the CJ changed as reported, or Kennedy lobbied and is pissed - utterly irrelevant.  The only non-material item of limited interest is the bizarre preamble to the decision - the stuff about not protecting the public from its choices.  And that's of interest only because, if the CJ wrote it, as seems unavoidably the case, he's parading both a vapid side and a serious lack of fitness for his position.  To say it's a bizarre comment is mild.

 

All that really matters is the substance of the CJ's absurd "ruling".  First, how can a law provision be a tax on Thursday when it wasn't a tax on Wednesday?  (Anti-Injunction Act test)  More importantly, how can a CJ issue a ruling that is simply ridiculous and baseless in terms of existing, settled, clear constitutional law on taxation? (his new magic tax cannot be shoehorned into any existing tax category - all of which would have, in any case, required a rewriting of the bill by Congress to pass the normal tests)  The other major item - how can a CJ (or any justice) declare that federal power of coercion b use of taxation - to include coercion to force citizens to engage in commerce - can possibly be contemplated under our constitution.  Simply ridiculous on its face.

 

I don't give a rat's ass if Roberts is political, or weak.  I find it devastating that the substance of his rulings can be so absurd, and, in constitutional terms indefensible.  Further, I find it devastating and sort of fatal for the country that the SCOTUS is so degraded, and the collapse of the "left" into raving authoritarians with no similarity to Americans, that four potted plants can sit there and rubber-stamp any unconstitutional idiocy that comes from Congress.  Finally, little hope is left when in the face of such surreal absurdities from what is supposed to be a serious institution, the predominant reaction is mindless "deference" to that institution by even "conservative" judicial types, and idiotic kremlinological speculation by most others.

 

 

 

 

284 272 How can any conservative claim Roberts was "brilliant" in this when Kagan, Soto, Gins, Breyer all agreed? Those people are not "brilliant" or conservative and they wouldn't agree to anything that was. 

Posted by: Aslan's Girl H8s Roberts & Roberts' defenders at July 03, 2012 08:10 PM (KL49F)

I'm brilliant. Everyone was saying how "brilliant" I am. David Greenberg at the L.A. Times said I was "manifestly brilliant".Jeffrey Rosen at The New Republic said I was "absolutely stellar". That's why I'm on the Supreme Court despite having almost no other qualifications besides being a minority, being a woman and being a hard-line a left-wing activist.

We're all brilliant, though I'm the most brilliant. We're all liberal activists with identity politics credentials and no hesitation about advancing our agendas from the bench. That makes us even smarter in a practical sense: we go straight for the goodies, because we aren't distracted by worrying about what the framers of the Constitution would have wanted. because we don't care what the framers of the constitution would have wanted. We fight for our team, we fight as a team, and we fight to win.

The only way John Roberts did something brilliant for conservatives that we all voted for too is if we are all morons. Believe me, we're not all morons. We're the smartest, legally unscrupulous hard-line liberals that could be found in the United States of America.

285

I knew once that crusty ole hag Ginsburg was commenting that the shit was gonna hit the fan.  I just didn't think it was going to be Roberts.  If this is not a tax then why one God's green earth doe we have the IRS involved in enforcing the provision.  I guess being a liberal means there really are no rules, lie, cheat, screw over anyone, everyone and anything just to get the result you want. 

Oh yeah, I just want to know why we don't have any hot chicks on the court?  Why all these dried up crusty ole goons that couldn't get laid after happy hour in a lesbo bar.  If we are gonna put lesbians on the court, I say we go with lipstick lesbians ftw!

Oh yes, think about it people Roberts has made history, he will be remembered forever!  Just like Benedict Arnold, Judas and the like.

 

286 "Leaks, Counter-Leaks and the Reason for RobertsÂ’ Switch"    http://tinyurl.com/7vo64z4

"Sometimes, the Court must strike down laws that violate the Constitution even when doing so is highly unpopular and might subject the Court to far greater criticism than Roberts would have gotten for ruling against a mandate that the vast majority of the public actually wanted to see invalidated."

The Constitutional Oath

"I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.  So help me God."

The Judicial Oath

"I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States.  So help me God."

The Combined Oath

"I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States; and that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.  So help me God."

http://tinyurl.com/8xregkn

Which oath did Roberts take, the combined or the two separate?

287

"The Senate has confirmed a man with an astute mind and kind heart.", Bush said "  All Americans can be confident that the 17th chief justice of the United States will be prudent in exercising judicial power, firm in defending judicial independence and above all a faithful guardian of the Constitution."

In brief remarks Roberts called the bipartisan vote for his nomination "confirmation of what is for me is a bedrock principle, that judging is different from politics."

"But Roberts refused to tell senators how he would rule on specific cases and said precedents can be overturned.

His rulings, he said, would not be based on personal views, but on the facts of cases, the law and the Constitution."

http://tinyurl.com/79nke6f

288 It's interesting to read this stuff, two conservative groups opposed Roberts, they must be patting themselves on the back today:  http://tinyurl.com/76n8hje

289 "Obama was among 22 Democrats in the US Senate to vote against Roberts in his Supreme Court confirmation hearing."
http://tinyurl.com/9awqoj

290

"Brian Fahling, senior trial attorney for the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy, told WND he has read enough of RobertsÂ’ opinions to know that the judgeÂ’s involvement in the Romer case does not undermine his commitment to judicial restraint.

“I am absolutely convinced that this does not suggest differently,” Fahling said.

But Fahling added that, personally speaking, he could never be involved in such a case.

“It seems [Roberts is] a faithful Catholic, and for him to be on the front end of a case that literally put a dagger squarely into the moral heart of America – there are as some incongruities there,” Fahling said."  http://tinyurl.com/73l56aa

the article also has a laundry list of conservative "rubber stampers"...

291 I was surprised to see this satire:   http://tinyurl.com/6s9xyjv

If you are the type that gets offended by behinds...don't click.  Or jokes about gays, don't click.

292 So what's the point of voting for Romney? He'll just add more progressives to supreme court just like bush.

293 Romney will add more progressives to the Court just like Bush. That means that something under half the time he will accidentally appoint a judge that is somewhat conservative.

Obama will add more progressives to the court like he already has. That means that every single one of them will be hard core liberal activists.

294 And he deserves the embarrassment. That said, if he now feels betrayed, this weak man will cozy up fast enough with the swell people whose opinions are the only thing that matters to him, i.e., liberals.

Um, that ship has sailed.  Roberts is no longer on the conservative bloc.  He will vote for small bore stuff with the conservatives, but do you really see him voting with the conservatives on bigger stuff?  Affirmative action?  The Voting Rights Act?

Now that he has shown himself too weak to stand up to pressure, do you think the pressure the media/left puts on him is going to get worse or better? 

Instead of worrying about whether he will further defect to the left, we need to do everything in our power to embarrass Roberts and make his suffer.  I want him to feel like the coward and idiot he is every moment of every day.

295 Romney will add more progressives to the Court just like Bush. That means that something under half the time he will accidentally appoint a judge that is somewhat conservative.

Obama will add more progressives to the court like he already has. That means that every single one of them will be hard core liberal activists.

Posted by: Daybreaker at July 04, 2012 08:51 PM (JQ147)

SCOTUS appointments simply don't matter all that much anymore.  the Obamacare decision essentially put into law that the Constitution holds ho boundaries for gov't power.  So now what?  What difference does it make now if Romney becomes president and appoints a moderate like Kennedy (which is the best we can hope for, since the GOP refuses to fight for truly and avowedly conservative judges in the Senate).

We are being delusional clinging to the dream that a President Romney will do anything worthwhile.  The GOP is not going to repeal Obamacare and Romney/GOP is never going to tackle tough issues that will require unpopular actions, like entitlement reform and spending.

Its over.  Until America wakes up (which it is nowhere close to doing with close to 50% still considering re-electing Obama) and realizes that Greece-like socialism is going to destroy the country, we are going to continue heading that way.