Maybe it's me but something is really fishy about Roberts supporting ACA

[LynneSin]

Think about it - they had it. The right-wing & tea party got were in grasp of what they wanted which was to shoot down Obama's Affordable Care Act (ACA). This has been 2+ years in the making with the formation of the Tea Party and that big election in Nov 2010 when the republicans took back the house.

Sure I thought there was a chance that ACA would survive the Supreme Court vote but I always suspected it would be Kennedy that would side with the progressives. Kennedy has been a swing vote in the past for other issues so he very well could have switched now.

But instead it was John Roberts, George W. Bush's handpicked 50 year old selection to not just be a Supreme Court Justice but to be the leader of SCOTUS for at least 20-30 years. These are lifetime appointments so picking Roberts to run the Supreme Court made sense since it's not uncommon to see Justices serving well into their 80s.

And let's face it, I haven't seen anything with Robert's voting record that would make me think he could be a wild card. When the issue at hand was a Progressive vs. Conservatives Roberts always sided with the Conservatives. So why would HE get a sudden case of Constitutional Guilt and vote to uphold ACA?

Now mind you, I really don't think the average GOP voter and especially those that adhere to the Tea Party mantra are all that bright. They remind me of the Sheep in George Orwell's Animal Farm. Animals none to bright but easy enough to train a new mantra when needed. Faux News, Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck and others are nothing more than the Pigs teaching those sheep what to chant. Crazy thing is this ACA benefits those people too but they would rather shoot themselves in the foot and suffer for lack of decent healthcare than to support anything a Democratic President enacted.

Don't get me wrong, I am glad that ACA was upheld but I just think we need to keep an eye open for what tricks may be up the sleeves of the GOP powers to be.

See to me, 'Obamacare' as the tea party crazies call it is their boogieman. That scary thing that liberals do that should frighten the masses. Not sure why it's scary but they say it is, '4 feet bad, 2 feet good' I guess. Romney has a tough campaign ahead of him and polls so far have not been very promising. So what happens if SCOTUS took away not just one of the GOP's favorite go-to boogieman scares (ACA or 'Obamacare') but take away another - that the Supreme Court is made up of activist judges. Suddenly Romney has nothing to campaign on these 2 scary issues because the issues no longer exist. And let's face it, there ain't many positive things that Romney can campaign ESPECIALLY since ACA was modeled on the healthcare plan that Romney brought to Massachusetts back when he was Governor.

I believe without a doubt in my mind that Roberts took the hit for this one. GOP didn't want to take away their 2 of their biggest scare tactics especially 5 months before the elections. PLUS how do you think voters would react when suddenly young people are no longer covered and seniors are paying higher prices for their prescriptions. Trust me, those voters won't remember that the GOP saved them from that scary Obamacare boogieman but that the GOP caused their healthcare costs to skyrocket again (or cease to exist).

So now Romney will spend the next 5 months campaigning about how not only he will save the country from scary Obamacare but that he will be the one that will get the court back into their favor since 4 of the members of the Supreme Court are over the age of 70 (2 on either side - Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsberg, Breyer).

Will it work? Probably not, Romney is just a wretched candidate meant to give some fight to Obama this fall. But still - let's appreciate what we got and hope there aren't any hidden timebombs in it.

[Mz Pip]

1. Maybe, just for once

Roberts didn't want to be on the wrong side of history.

Romney, et. al. will try to play this to their advantage, but a win is a win. Obama won this and it will be much harder to go out there and portray Obama as being ineffectual when he's done what no president in 100 years has been able to do.

What's Romney going to say? "I was for this before I was against it" ? That worked so well for Kerry.

The Democrats will have to do their part with this win and sell it to the people. They've really fallen short on that one. They have not been able to articulate that there is a positive place for government in the lives of people. Now is their chance. IF they blow it, we are screwed.

We can't let Mitwit frame the debate.

[LynneSin]

2. You know what, I hope that is the case

and if after the election nothing else comes of this vote then I would be happy to have many DUers start a thread and say 'I told you so'.

But after following politics as long as I have - nothing is ever as it seems especially when it comes to the GOP.

[EFerrari]

4. "The people" wanted the bill to go farther than it did.

Democrats didn't rise to that occasion.

[Mz Pip]

8. Well they'd better rise to this occasion

They have as lot of ground to make up if they ever want to have the opportunity for more. If they blow this then it will be decades before anyone touches health care reform again.

[EFerrari]

14. I believe you are referring to the Dem leadership after the Clintons' proposal failed.

There is no reason why another proposal would go the same way unless the party leadership was as risk averse as the Clinton camp became. Decades? Maybe only for the people like Hillary and Bill who are already taken care of.

I don't think you can generalize from them, or even from our current "leadership" to what actual people will put up with.

[robinlynne]

112. I believe MZ is referring to taking the single payer advocates out of the room and killing public op

option.

[joshcryer]

43. If Ted Kennedy was alive we would've had the public option.

Don't blame the Democrats, blame democracy.

[Art_from_Ark]

55. But it was Max Baucus who wouldn't let single-payer advocates,

mostly doctors and nurses, testify before the Senator Finance Committee.

[joshcryer]

56. Single payer wasn't going to happen despite having the votes in the House.

It didn't have the votes in the Senate.

Ironically the Baucus-Kennedy rift over the public option proves irrefutably that if Kennedy lived we'd have had it.

(Baucus said "private insurers, if they fail to meet cost reductions, public option trigger." Kennedy said, "no way, public option all the way!&quot

[Art_from_Ark]

58. Of course it wasn't going happen

since the Senator chairing the committee discussion treated advocates like criminals and had them arrested.

[joshcryer]

59. Fair enough.

But I don't think it would've happened even if they were allowed in there. We didn't have the votes.

I think we might have had the votes if Kennedy lived, but then I don't know.

We still needed Lieberman and I doubt he would've gone for single payer. :/

[Art_from_Ark]

62. The single-payer advocates should at least have been allowed their say

They were, after all, mostly health care professionals whose testimony could have been instrumental in getting wider acceptance of single-payer.

[joshcryer]

63. We agree.

I hate how that went down, it was total bullshit.

I still am not convinced it would've garnered us the votes, but in the end maybe it would've opened up dialog within the American public.

[leveymg]

92. The outcome was a foregone conclusion when the Bill was structured by Baucus rather

than being based in the Kennedy Bill, which would have produced a public option had it survived.

The ACA is similar to the 2003 Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act (MPDIM). The major difference is that the 2003 Law was primarily the product of the House Bill and the Conference Committee, and its main intended beneficiary was Big Pharma rather than private insurers. No drug cost containment or importation. Another initial purpose behind the 2003 Bill was to reduce Medicare enrollment (and increase the pool of HMO patients) by offering prescription drug coverage, but only to Seniors who moved from Medicare into HMOs. The Medicare reduction part of the original MPDIM did not survive, but its purpose of increasing enrollments for private insurers did finally carry over into ACA, as modified by the Roberts decision, which killed Medicare enlargement. See, http://www.gpcal.org/documents/medicarereport.pdf, pp 22-26.

Similarly, ACA's main purpose is to increase the number of patients forced into private industry coverage and to reduce costs of uninsured to the public hospital industry. ACA was engineered to be primarily acceptable to the Financial Industry, of which Insurance is part, which is why it was primary authors was the the Baucus Committee, and this also explains why it was upheld by the Roberts' Court. Look at how it developed. from the ACA Wiki, below:

On March 5, 2009, Obama formally began the reform process and held a conference with industry leaders to discuss reform and requested reform be enacted before the Congressional summer recess; but the reform was not passed by the requested date.[125] In July 2009, a series of bills were approved by committees within the House of Representatives.[126] Beginning June 17, 2009, and extending through September 14, 2009, three Democratic and three Republican Senate Finance Committee Members met for a series of 31 meetings to discuss the development of a health care reform bill. Over the course of the next three months, this group, Senators Max Baucus (D-Montana), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Kent Conrad (D-North Dakota), Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), Jeff Bingaman (D-New Mexico), and Mike Enzi (R-Wyoming), met for more than 60 hours, and the principles that they discussed became the foundation of the Senate's health care reform bill.[127] The meetings were held in public and broadcast by C-SPAN and can be seen on the C-SPAN web site[128] or at the Committee's own web site.[129] During the August 2009 congressional recess, many members went back to their districts and entertained town hall meetings to solicit public opinion on the proposals. During the summer recess, the Tea Party movement organized protests and many conservative groups and individuals targeted congressional town hall meetings to voice their opposition to the proposed reform bills.[125][130]

Away from the televised meetings, the legislation became a "bonanza" for lobbyists,[131][132] including secret deals that were initially denied but subsequently confirmed.[133][134] The Sunlight Foundation documented many of the reported ties between "the healthcare lobbyist complex" and politicians in both major parties.[135]

President Obama delivered a speech to a joint session of Congress supporting reform and again outlining his proposals.[136][137] On November 7, the House of Representatives passed the Affordable Health Care for America Act on a 220–215 vote and forwarded it to the Senate for passage.[125][138]

The Senate bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, bore similarities to prior healthcare reform proposals introduced by Republicans. In 1993 Senator John Chafee introduced the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act which contained a "Universal Coverage" requirement with a tax penalty for non-compliance.[139][140] In 1994 Senator Don Nickles introduced the Consumer Choice Health Security Act which also contained an individual mandate with a penalty provision.[141] However, Nickles removed the mandate from the act shortly after introduction, stating that they had decided "that government should not compel people to buy health insurance."[142]

[joshcryer]

119. I remember Baucus' blow up well. Ironically he was courting Olympia Snowe.

And what did Olympia Snowe do? She voted against health care reform (we had the votes without her at that point but why not put the public option back in at that point? Oh no...).

Just goes to show that you can't trust Republicans on shit, ever, for any reason.

I fucking hate bipartisanship. The Democrats are the only ones who seem to try. The Republicans are just sniveling assholes.

[leveymg]

120. +1

[backscatter712]

19. I think he recognized that the SCOTUS would lose what was left of its legitimacy if it struck ACA.

At that point, it would get harder and harder for them - pressure for Constitutional amendments, pressure for Congress to pass laws regulating the court, maybe even taking away some of their power, Congressional investigations, the people in general thinking the SCOTUS is a joke.

He didn't want to be the guy that provoked everyone else stripping the SCOTUS of its power.

[PFunk]

34. My thoughts exactly. But adding one more thing.

It was becoming more and more illegitimate in the eyes of many americans up to the point of 1 (or more) states may decide to just start ignoring it's decisions if it kept it's current path. While I still think this is possible in the future. At least he brought that staved off that day buy doing this.

[joshcryer]

42. That's precisely what Robert Reich predicted, very much like the New Deal flip.

Roberts’ decision is not without precedent. Seventy-five years ago, another Justice Roberts – no relation to the current Chief Justice – made a similar switch. Justice Owen Roberts had voted with the Court’s conservative majority in a host of 5-4 decisions invalidating New Deal legislation, but in March of 1937 he suddenly switched sides and began joining with the Court’s four liberals. In popular lore, Roberts’ switch saved the Court – not only from Franklin D. Roosevelt’s threat to pack it with justices more amenable to the New Deal but, more importantly, from the public’s increasing perception of the Court as a partisan, political branch of government.

[pacalo]

49. My focus was first on the the switched votes between Roberts & Kennedy.

I wondered if there had been some collusion between the two to break the public's perception of fixed ideology on the court. It'll take many years to break that perception, though; Scalia & Thomas have irreversibly tainted the public's confidence in the court.

[hifiguy]

100. Correct.

Roberts may be a corporate tool, but he's a smart man, unlike, say, Clarence Thomas. I saw an interview with Roberts on C-SPAN a few months ago and he discussed the SCOTUS' "self-inflicted wounds" and discussed Dred Scott at length as the prime example thereof.

He's a Chief Justice, not an Associate Justice. Chiefs are judged differently by history as their name is attached to the Court over which they preside. No Chief wants to see the prestige of the court diminished on his watch. The name of Chief Justice Roger Taney, who wrote Dred Scott, gives off a foul stench to this day. Roberts doesn't want to join the Taney club and I can't say I blame him.

This was in part a calculated move by Roberts to preserve the position and prestige of the SCOTUS. And principle happily coincided with expediency in this case.

[robinlynne]

113. +1

[RobertEarl]

3. No Way!

They are playing politics with the constitution? That piece of paper?

It is all politics at this point. So, you may have a point.

Could be though that Roberts is sickly and he saw first hand, or could at least empathize a bit, with the idea of health care reform.

[alittlelark]

5. I think he did it to avoid the 'single payer' evolution

If it had been struck down ppl would TALK - they might actually THINK and compare our system to all other 1st world healthcare systems (hell, many 2nd world as well)......


All that 'thinkin could lead to single payer.

[Volaris]

27. If I were a cynic, I would agree with you,

and add that SPECIFICALLY this was NOT upheld under the Commerce Clause, (as a precedent to be used in later cases, to say the Commerce Clause won't apply to regulating Corp's...)

Maybe he's just a process guy, and understands that this got passed in the first place because the GOP got KICKED the hell out in 2008, and then the Dem majority did what they got sent there to do. Legally and above board, and worked out as many bugs as they could. Maybe the PROCESSES of Self-Governance inside the American Democratic Republic are what he was REALLY defending today. If so, that gives me hope. Yes, CJRoberts is a Corporatist, but he might be that way ONLY so long as the status quo is Corporate-friendly. Laws can get changed, after all=)

[rufus dog]

6. I think this was an extremely hard call for him

He walked up to the Abyss and had to make a moral choice. He contemplated a Paul Ryan wet dream future and backed off, deciding he couldn't be the guy to throw
America over the cliff. Crazy thing is, had he not been made Chief Justice I think he would have figured he had cover. Due to a Shrub decision we were possibly saved.

[Mz Pip]

10. I think there is some truth to this.

Maybe there was some personal issue he was able to draw on. He's had some health issues. If he weren't in the position he's in he could very well be denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions.

Still I wish he had been as sensitive to the long term ramifications of CU.

[Gman]

47. W fucked up again?

[PoliticAverse]

7. How will the guy who was the father of 'Obamcare' ultimately run against it ? n/t

[morningfog]

9. It was akin to a backhanded compliment.

Roberts was able to avoid the political shitstorm fallout had the conservative Justices overruled the President's signature legislation, while giving the repubbies the frame for election season: "Obama authorized the BIGGEST TAX INCREASE EVAH!!11!1!" Roberts deemed the mandate valid a "taxing" power. Expect to hear a lot on that.

He gave Obama a slap while upholding his law. He avoided a fight with Congress and insulated himself from cries of partisan-ism and an illegitimate Court, at least for a while. A few more Citizens United's and it will be considered an anomaly.

[EFerrari]

11. You know this guy and who he hangs with.

They are never going to stop trying to game the system.

[FarLeftFist]

12. Maybe he saw this video:

[LynneSin]

22. The problem with that kid was she was born

Had she stayed a fetus the GOP might have cared about her. But once born they don't give a shit.

[Art_from_Ark]

13. It could very well be a "good cop, bad cop" sort of thing

It could be that Republicans could benefit from either decision.
It could be the "broken clock rule" in action.

[loyalsister]

15. Roberts may have developed a new perspective

He has had two seizures since he was appointed. Technically it takes two seizures to get a diagnosis of Epilepsy. I think he rejects that, but he has to be aware of the possibility of having more. He is certainly aware of the possibility of sudden change where insurance would have been necessary.
I know it's commonplace to demonize anyone who leans right. But, I think it is occasionally such possible that some events inspire empathy. If he gave a thought to what might have happened if

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1648384,00.html

[EFerrari]

17. Observing someone's behavior over the course of their career is not the same

as "demonizing" them.

[loyalsister]

20. Do you believe there is a distinction between behavior and opinions?

I think so. I think demonizing over disagreement is a little excessive.

[EFerrari]

25. As I said, observing behavior over an entire career

is not the same as demonizing someone over an opinion.

[loyalsister]

28. What behaviors are you referring to?

Have you observed Roberts' behavior up close?

[Ter]

51. He's an umpire

He isn't allowed to vote on what he thinks is good or bad. His vote is supposed to be entirely on if he thinks the bill is constitutional or not.

[loyalsister]

53. He's not a robotic umpire

Personal observations and experience will inevitably have some influence.

[Ter]

99. Oh definitely

But some umpiring has to be done. If someone writes a law that says restaurants must offer free food to guys 5'11, I'd love that, but I'd have to strike it down because it's not constitutional. The whole court is mostly partisan. Conservatives always line up together (except yesterday), and the same goes for the liberals, if anything they are more aligned together and rarely join the others. I'd love to see more actual umpiring.

[loyalsister]

105. I understand that

I think the perception that they are running for office is inaccurate. I also think general philosophies and interpretations may be applied in different and surprising ways.
Suppose a conservative person sincerely believes that our government and constitution were designed with an intention that American citizens have a duty to take personal responsibility for the things they do that might impose on others.
Could it be that (if they weren't hysterically consumed with hate and anger) a person would want to support this this law with that in mind?

[UTUSN]

16. Agreed, NO trust for ROBERTS here. Tweety was drooling over his "integrity" today.

My first impression was that ROBERTS and KENNEDY took the heat for each other, my surprise being greater that KENNEDY's dissenting opinion was that the whole thing was no-go. In a way it's like they were doing a tag team thing, KENNEDY shooting it ALL down on the wrong side while ROBERTS was putting a stranglehold on the Libs, putting his own spin higher than their rationale. So not only was KENNEDY spared from taking all the heat himself, but ROBERTS got p.r. for supposedly being high minded. And they both did damage from all sides.

The Mark LEVIN wingnut was SEETHING with more contempt for ROBERTS than the other wingnuts who were yakking. He was incredulous that with KENNEDY safely stashed for overturning ROBERTS threw it away.

[woo me with science]

18. Of course Roberts voted for it.

Corporatists in both parties wanted this mandate to prop up the for-profit health insurance industry and entrench it for every single American. The mandate was a Republican idea at the outset, but, just like austerity budgets and drone wars and police state legislation, it was convenient to sell under a Democratic President, because you break the united opposition.

There's no need to go looking for mysterious motives here or to assume a sudden, noble change of heart on the part of Roberts. This song of collusion by corporatists in both parties is familiar and just as transparent as it was in the Kabuki theater of the debt ceiling "negotiations." And the outcome was just as predictable; the corporations win, and the people lose. Welcome to our government under corporate lease.

Anybody who didn't see this coming has not been paying attention.

[Nay]

24. Gotta agree here. It's collusion w the ins companies, plus (IMHO) a hopeful boost to the RW

crazy base voting bloc, which is now so enraged about their "freedum" that they'll be voting en masse in November against the soshulist Obama.

Roberts doesn't give a rat's ass about his legacy, uninsured people, or doing what is right. Don't EVER make those mistakes.

[woo me with science]

80. We have reached a point of deliberate partisan delusion in this party.

When the desperation to prop up Republican policies just because they come from Third Way Democrats has reached a point of needing to imagine moral epiphanies on the part of John Roberts....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=146626

[Strelnikov_]

37. Agree

Except I still thought they would vote it down to knock Obama.

Money trumped political posturing in this case.

[woo me with science]

65. Money usually trumps everything,

as we have seen over and over and over again...

[joshcryer]

40. LOL

[jeff47]

50. That for-profit health insurance industry that spent millions lobbying against the bill.....

So.....how exactly do you explain their attempts to kill it, if it's such a gold mine?

[joshcryer]

60. They were just pretending to be against it.

Once they had it they had to pretend to be against it!

Seriously! That's the argument!

[woo me with science]

73. And the insurance companies just pretended to be *writing* it

Last edited Fri Jun 29, 2012, 07:49 AM - Edit history (1)

and to use Heritage Foundation-inspired for-profit mandates as the basis. Mandates that feed corporate profit and empower profit to influence health care decisions, by the way, that are unheard of in any other developed country that actually provides *affordable* health care.

Propping up parasitic middlemen in the system, who contribute NOTHING except to place themselves between us and our doctors for profit, is good for Americans!

Seriously! That's the argument!

[joshcryer]

118. They lobbied hard for aspects of it, that's for sure.

And in the end they got rid of the public option which would've been highly competitive with them (and eventually put them out of business for general coverage).

But generally they lobbied hard against ACA and the Heritage Foundation disavows "mandates" at this point. The other institutions like Cato were never for "mandates." And of course, Heritage Foundations "mandates" were a credit and not a penalty, which does have a substantive distinction.

It's just a shame that Obama campaigned on insurance companies getting paid and campaigned against mandates despite failing to realize that a non-mandated "universal" plan was far more costly than one which was mandated. Darn CBO projections.

[sandyshoes17]

77. Agree

Roberts history tells it all. He sides with corporations most of the time. That's why he was put on the bench.

[woo me with science]

82. At a certain point,

Democrats need to face reality about what is being done here, over and over and over again. Corporate Republican policies are corporate Republican policies.

Entrenching corporate, profit-sucking middlemen into our health system is Republican policy.

It's time to face reality, for god's sake.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=146626

[Warren Stupidity]

89. Exactly right. Who benefits?

The republican party is not monolithic, the real ruling party is the corporatist duopoly and it has strength in both official parties.

[bbgrunt]

91. I think you nailed it. It's all part of the theater so we don't recognize that

both sides are behind that curtain supporting corporate control.

[coalition_unwilling]

21. I've read elsewhere that Roberts may have had his 'Road to Damascus'

moment over the issue of declining SCOTUS legitimacy in the eyes of the public. To wit, SCOTUS decisions are now increasingly viewed as the product of political partisanship and not of impartial consideration of the law, the Constitution and precedent. Roberts may have wanted to act in such a way that his SCOTUS did not approach the level of the Taney Court ("Dred Scott&quot back in the 1850s.

If such is the case, Roberts decided in such a way to respect the powers granted to the Legislature as a way of shoring up the SCOTUS' own legitimacy and powers.

Just thought I'd put the 'institutional perogative' out there as yet another possible explanation of Roberts' decision.

[LynneSin]

23. I'm kinda hoping that is the case

I'm having a serious problem with these lifetime appointments that judges receive. Anymore Presidents are now looking for potential SCOTUS judges that are around 50 years of age so they can be on the bench forever. I mean geez, Clarence Thomas has been on that court for 22 years now and he's only 64. He could be on there for another 22 years and let's face it - I defy someone to pick a worse SCOTUS judge ever other than Clarence Thomas.

Because of those lifetime appointments the courts are becoming too partisan and sometimes we get judges that serve way too long because they want to wait and retire when it's safe that they'll be replace by likeminded justices.

I'm not sure what the fix is but as far as I'm concerned the Supreme Court is nothing more that a political tool.

[DevonRex]

38. Add to that he's showing Scalia who's boss.

Big baby whiny Scalia has been publicly throwing tantrums over this and that in a way most unbecoming to any Supe. Recent decisions have been controversially conservative, too.

What better time for Roberts to assert his independence and leadership than on a case that actually does some good for millions of Americans if he can side with the liberal justices for a change?

It also somewhat legitimizes the wacko opinions he's handed down. Cough cough.

[nadinbrzezinski]

41. Lyne courts have been rather partisan in the past

For example, the court during the 1920s was the most right wing court of the 20th century.

This is not new.

[JDPriestly]

67. I know that lifetime appointments are distressing, but if we did not have them,

then our Supreme Court would be more subject to political influence and stare decisis would be even more neglected. We could end up with even less consistency and continuity in the interpretations of our laws. We could end up with something approaching legal chaos on some issues.

[LynneSin]

85. It's already subject to the political influence

Presidents are putting 40-50 year old judges on the bench in hopes that those judges will be around for 30-40 years making the same type of decision that the president who appointed them would make.

Geez we've got Ronald Reagan still influencing us (appointed Kennedy and Scalia) and Bush Sr still has his hand in the pot with Thomas. Reagan was last in office 1988 and Bush over 20 years ago with 1992. And yes, Clinton still has impact with his 2 appointments (Breyer and Ginsberg).

And when Renquest retired in 20005 under Bush Jr term he could have picked from Thomas or Scalia but instead put a 50 year old man in as head judge which means George W. Bush is going to have serious impact on this court for a long long time.

So everything you've said - it's already happening.

[JDPriestly]

109. It would be worse if the appointments were shorter term.

[treestar]

108. True and since they are there for life, they don't have to stay liberal or conservative

They are free to really think about what the law is. Wasn't one of Nixon's appointees more liberal over time? I think that can happen.

[Hoyt]

26. Maybe his kids or wife told him "Don't be a dick today" the morning he made up mind.

[Volaris]

29. Nice=)...

but, somehow, that strikes me as the most reasonable and honest of all possible scenarios.

[Control-Z]

30. Talk was that he didn't

want to get a third strike for "his" court after Bush v Gore and Citizen's United. People were starting to call the "Robert's Court" a partisan, activist one. And that is exactly what they are, as you know. History would not be kind if he were to get that 3rd strike by making another partisan decision, killing the ACA and leaving people with nothing.

Sounds at least as good a reason as anything else I've heard at this point.

[LynneSin]

32. Then why did he uphold Citizen United the day before

Just saying

[Control-Z]

52. I have no idea.

I only told you what I had heard.

[PFunk]

87. 'cause I think he thought the public wouldn't notice it much.

Boy he was wrong (it empathized the bi-partisanship of the court and added to it's low opinions) and that result may have helped in his decision.

[muriel_volestrangler]

94. Most people would want to uphold their own previous decision

Call it vanity, certainty you were right, the feeling you need to look firm, or whatever.

[leftynyc]

64. But he wasn't on the court

for Bush v Gore. He as nominated by Bush. Unless he was protecting the reputation of the court as a whole, your argument can't be the reason.

[Control-Z]

104. It is not my argument.

It is what was talked about on MSNBC.

[gordianot]

31. Earl Warren Republican did not start out as a liberal or as a progressive.

He was key to internment of Japanese American during World War Ii. Somewhere along the way he turned. I still think Roberts is worried about the reputation of the court after he wrecked Democracy with Citizens United. Warren had to know how future generations would view him after denying Civil Rights. I do wonder if this is some sort of penance? You are right not to trust Roberts. Remember the keen work Warren produced when John Kennedy was assassinated. Never trust a Republican.

[MADem]

33. Roberts is The Big Cheese now. He is NOT "beholden" to the GOP anymore.

He is the Chief Blahblahflacking Justice of the Frigging Supreme COURT, now! He gets the same paycheck if he's buddies with the GOP, or not.

And he's got a clown on the bench with him--Fat Tony, aka Nino, Scalia, who thought that Roberts stole the job that was rightfully his.

He's up there with the GREATS....it's the damn ROBERTS COURT, now, and he is a YOUNG man--relatively speaking.

He might be trying to show Nino who's boss. Or it could be something else entirely.

He has a choice. He can lie down with GOP dogs, and be a partisan tool, and he can get up with fleas....or he can build and burnish a lasting legacy, full of rulings that describe an arc across the history of the 21st Century.

He can be the dude who wrote the decisions that MADE A DIFFERENCE. Historians will write books about "The Roberts Court" if he plays his cards right.

It very well could be hubris that is driving him.

I really don't care--but I hope he keeps making the right calls, even if it's for selfish, legacy-building reasons.

[robinlynne]

115. We're talking one right vote out of hundreds! he has presided and voted in hudnreds of bad decisons

[MADem]

117. Well, I haven't heard about "hundreds" of bad decisions.

The Supremes only take, what? Fifty to seventy five a year, or so? Surely not every decision save this one was "bad?"

I'm not saying the guy is a choir boy, or ever could be expected to be one.

What I AM saying is that if Roberts decides that his "legacy" and his "good name" are things he would like to see go down in history for his children to remark upon, for students to study in school a hundred years from now, if he does the RIGHT THING, even if it is for the WRONG REASONS, I'm fine with that.

Time will tell.

[Skittles]

35. maybe he doesn't want to continue being a partisan hack

SCOTUS 5-4 has become a predictable bad joke

[veganlush]

36. you can see it as

Working for the right in two ways; it saves the court from looking too partisan and they still will win in the end because citizen's United will bring about one-party rule for the foreseeable .

[PFunk]

88. he also didn't want to court itself to become an election issue to rally dems.

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. According to the lawyer I talked to today

http://www.eastcountymagazine.org/node/10213

Using tax law is not unprecedented. While not cited in the decision, the best known of these is actually the 1935 decision on social security. Roberts actually was not a wild card, but rather consistent.

I was not surprised and expected Roberts to rule this way from his questioning. Granted, expected Ennedy too.

[JDPriestly]

69. I, too, thought from early on that this should be considered to be an exercise of the tax and

spend authority of Congress.

I felt that it would be constitutional under that section.

So, maybe Roberts was just trying to be objective and apply the law fairly.

The Norquist Ninnies will go nuts, but that is their problem.

Our problem is explaining the law so that people understand that their costs will actually be lower with the ACA than they were without it and then getting people out to the polls.

[nadinbrzezinski]

103. Well it was written in tax committees.

[JDPriestly]

106. Good point.

[Gman]

44. I wanted to think that Roberts is protecting the integrity of the court but

I'm not that naive or stupid. There are several things going on here:

Roberts is a corporate lawyer first. Business trumps political ideology any day. So Roberts gave a big kiss to the health care industry. I saw a report right after the decision that hospital stocks were going throug the roof.

At the same time, Roberts also gave a big kiss to the right wing in the form of a huge issue in November, and the means to blast it in November with Citizens United and voting to turn down Montana.

It's a new tax, another big GOTV issue. Is the plan to take the House, Senate and WH, repeal it and make it a moot point? Then business and the RW will never have had it so good and the country so bad.

What really puzzles me is his vote in Arizona. Did he give them another GOTV issue in Arizona? They need their base to be even more motivated than they were in 10. They need the RW to solidly get behind Romney because he's floundering. Romney the billionaire businessman. Roberts the corporate lawyer.

I agree this stinks to high heaven.

[bbgrunt]

93. you spelled it out clearly. thanks.

[freshwest]

45. May be a plot. May have been an epiphany considering his strokes as suggested on a thread.

Or it may have been personal to his family. I've seen this happen up close. A crucial vote was changed over a mother telling a legislator she saw how she ignored the pleas of constituents on a matter of concern. Their children were best friends. Mom said she did not feel comfortable having her child at the home of someone so rude. She was shamed and was more considerate.

Another was combating a privatization scheme. The opposition called an out of state investor and the name was posted. They advertised about selling a place off to wealthy people for asssisted living. The current residents didn't have money, so they'd be homeless. Someone knew the investor and called him to tell him of their plight. When it was explained the scheme was to toss the poor, he was shamed, withdrew the bid and the home was saved.

We don't know why Roberts went how he did; but these guys are human beings and can be pressured. Articles came out yesterday about Scalia in the Guardian, and Dionne saying he needed to resign.
And that the USSC should have their funding cut off for violating the public trust. Those are in threads here, but they came from elsewhere and were heard in many places. It's possible they felt the weight of public opinion against them.

Never discount how people feel, even if they appear careless. Lawyers and legislators are experts at wheedling and weasel language. Some agreement are easy to lose and one may not make their goal. It is part of the reason Obama is as soft spoken and concise as he is.

Not all of us have the gift, I sure don't. It really does pay off and one has to have a certain kind of disposition to succeed. His wife, a brother, someone may have told Roberts it would be hypocrisy for him to shut down a law that gave people healthcare for a pre-existing condition when he would be in trouble himself. We may never know, but we're right to be curious and ask questions.

[still_one]

46. perhaps it was because he has Epilepsy, and empathizes with those who don't have insurance? /nt

[freshwest]

48. That was suggested on another thread. Could be.

Last edited Fri Jun 29, 2012, 02:18 AM - Edit history (1)

[still_one]

97. The curious thing is he essentially wrote the argument that the government should have been making

to preserve the ACA

[eridani]

54. The court conservatives were between a rock and a hard place

Rule for ACA, and they piss off the Republican Party. Rule against it and they piss of the insurance industry, which wants the mandate. Roberts chose his true master--not hard to understand at all.

[joshcryer]

61. Erm, that's not Rober Riech's take...

...basically if he ruled against it he would've de-legitimized the entire SCOTUS.

[eridani]

68. That's an opinion

Mine is that Roberts chose his true masters over their drooling low-information shock troops.

[joshcryer]

70. Reading his statements, I don't believe that's the case.

The Commerce Clause was trumpeted by some lower courts. It would've been a lot easier to use that argument. The Commerce Clause was dismissed by the other right wing justices, though, so from my point of view Roberts chose the only philosophical way out. That it was basically a tax.

For him to contort his logic in the way that he did (as some believe, changing his mind after the fact) suggest to me that he didn't want the SCOTUS to lose legitimacy. The American public probably wouldn't have cared so much, we're a bunch of "have our cake and eat it too" types, but history would've looked back on the decision as a farce. Roberts did what he thought would at least preserve the SCOTUS from a historical perspective.

The same sort of thing, as Rober Reich pointed out, happened during the New Deal, with one of the staunchly right wingers switching sides just to maintain sanity in the SCOTUS. History has a way of repeating itself.

The public option will be passed in the next 5-10 years, depending on whether we can get our act together sooner rather than later and elect a Democratic House.

[eridani]

71. I'm more inclined to put my hopes in state level action

--for single payer. Sanders and McDermott are sponsoring legislation to make that easier.

[woo me with science]

75. If there is any hope of a public option at all, it will come from the states.

Last edited Fri Jun 29, 2012, 08:39 AM - Edit history (2)

Let's cut the denial and fantasy, already. We already saw this White House deliberately move to eliminate the possibility of a public option even when they didn't have to, when polls were overwhelmingly in support of one. Not to mention the long record of colluding with Republicans in favor of corporate interests on this issue and so many others. It is incomprehensible that anyone who has been around for the past four years still maintains the fantasy that a public option is even on their agenda at all.

State-level actions are the only hope right now, especially now that the corporate mandate has been upheld and the profit motive entrenched into the system. I will eat my hat if this President EVER spontaneously mentions a public option during his second term. They will move on now that this massive corporate gift has been delivered.

The push for a public option is going to have to come from the ground-up, because it is demanded. It is not going to receive any spontaneous pushing from the top.

[bbgrunt]

95. you've got great instincts.

[pansypoo53219]

57. fishy? he was a dick about it.

he said it was ok if it was a TAX.

[JDPriestly]

66. He defined the mandate as a tax. For Republicans, that was a positive thing that

they can now fight. They will criticize the bill as raising taxes. They will not mention that most Americans have to pay that "tax" to the insurance companies already and will actually pay a lower "tax" in the future thanks to ACA.

Why will the "tax" be lower on individual Americans? Because the hidden profits in health insurance will be barred and health insurance companies will have to be transparent with regard to how much they really spend on health care. Health care insurance companies will not be able to spend so much money on reviewing claims and excluding pre-existing conditions and ineligible customers (some of whom are only told they can't be covered after they have paid for a while). Further, Americans will not have to pay the "tax" in the form of paying for certain preventive care they now pay extra for.

Also, Roberts limited the scope of the Commerce clause. I'm not sure whether that is part of the holding or will just be considered to be dicta -- extraneous language or opinion that does not serve as precedent in future cases.

Anyway, those are a couple of benefits that Roberts reaps from his decision.

This is just my opinion. Others may disagree with me -- and they may be right. Any comments?

[BumRushDaShow]

76. +1 Exactly. And after a bit of delay, every repuke in the nation had a talking point.

However the distaff side view is that this is how Social Security works ("payroll tax&quot .

This is why during the entire sausage-making process, they avoided using the term, and took the argument all the way, although as I understand that the administration lawyers added the taxing clause as the other argument.

Thing is, the public is becoming more and more aware of the psychopath Norquist, and more and more repukes are dropping out of his club.

[stlsaxman]

72. The REAL winners here are Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife.

Now that the "Personal Mandate" part is accepted by The Court, any lobbying charges and the like that may have been brought against Thomas' wife have disappeared in a puff of smoke.

Thomas was able to VOTE AGAINST IT and it still became law! Double Bonus!

it's a BIG WIN for the Health Insurance Industry... w/o the mandate they would never have allowed their minions (congress) to pass it.

[customerserviceguy]

74. I agree with your reasoning

Roberts managed to get the progressive members of the Court to sign on with his opinion by pretending to give them what they want. He's playing the long game here, and he knows that Mittens isn't generating too much excitement yet. This will give independent voters a clear choice in November, and he engineered this.

Besides, if it doesn't work, he's still Chief Justice of the SCOTUS, no downside for him other than extreme grumbling by the reich wing, who he knows is powerless to remove him from office.

[stevenleser]

78. It's not fishy. He lays out his reasoning in the ruling

Which he wrote for the majority opinion.

[quaker bill]

79. It is actually a pretty conservative ruling

A true conservative jurist would look carefully for a rationale to uphold a law created by the other two branches. To do otherwise would be judicial activism - legislating from the bench.

While I think there are other reasons to uphold, the tax argument was always the easiest and most simple to explain.

The easiest way to "fix" the law (had it been needed) and leave every other bit of it intact, was simply to collect the insurance premiums as a tax, and then spend the revenue to buy insurance coverage for the people. In this scenario the only "mandate" would be paying taxes due to the government. We would end up in precisely the same place, except that the freedom to choose providers and the freedom to not participate and choose to pay the penalty would be gone.

Roberts decided the thing was pretty much like the energy efficiency tax credit, you can only get the credit by buying stuff from the private sector.

[muriel_volestrangler]

96. I think this is a good point

Roberts may not be a radical right wing partisan (ie someone who always looks for a way to disadvantage opposing politicians, so they can change the country, which Scalia and Thomas obviously are, and Alito looks like one too) but an actual 'conservative' - someone looking to keep most of the status quo, with occasional tweaks when a problem is clearly identified. And, as many here have said, this bill fits that - a compromise forced on Congress by centrist Democrats, that leaves for-profit health insurance and health providers in place, but tries to get rid of the worst outcomes the current system produces.

[Shrek]

81. Another DU thread has some insight on this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101633536

[Arkana]

83. Roberts is an establishment Republican who doesn't have to care about his approval rating

or a reelection campaign.

And if he wanted to be a hero to the right he could have struck down the individual mandate and left the rest of the law intact, but he didn't--he upheld the whole thing.

[Time for change]

84. I agree -- I find it very difficult to believe that we would get an honest vote out of Roberts

We should also keep in mind that this health care reform bill is something that the insurance industry was in favor of. They retain control of health care in our country. True, they are faced with certain restrictions, such as having to cover people with pre-existing conditions. But since they get to raise their premiums to cover the money lost on things like that (which they've already done to a large extent), that probably doesn't bother them much.

The purpose of Obama's health care reform bill was to make health insurance/health care more affordable to the American people. I believe it is yet to be seen whether that will happen, given the rate increases by the insurance companies. Yes, many people will benefit from it. But I believe many will suffer from it as well. The number of uninsured Americans today is higher by a few million than the number of uninsured Americans when the bill was passed. It could be said that the reason for this is that some of the most important provisions have not yet gone into effect. Maybe when they do, the insurance companies will raise their rates still higher to make up for that.

With regard to the mandate, it could be said that it is comparable to a tax. If so, it seems to be a very regressive tax. Think about it. Who does the mandate affect? It affects the currently uninsured. Most people who are uninsured are uninsured because they can't afford health insurance. I think it's evident that the bulk of the money paid because of the mandate will come from people at the lower end of the income scale -- not the very bottom (because of the subsidies), but still pretty low. And unlike a tax, it will be going directly to the insurance industry, making them ever more wealthy and powerful. And what will happen to people who can't afford health insurance who are mandated to purchase anyhow, at much higher costs than were previously the case?

In order to avoid these problems, there needed to be a public option for people to buy insurance from the government -- as Obama promised in his 08 campaign. That health insurance would not have been subject to large increases in premiums that characterize the current situation.

Will this bill eventually accomplish its purpose, making health care more affordable. That remains to be seen, but I have grave doubts about it.

[NCTraveler]

86. He made sure in his opinion that the federal......

governments powers were expanded in no way.

[avebury]

90. I don't think that Robert's vote had anything to do with

"doing the right thing." I think it was Roberts trying to save the "bacon" of the Supreme Court. After Scalito's political rant on the Immigration ruling the Supreme Court was at risk to finally being recognized for what it has become - a group of life time appointees who vote on court decisions more and more on the grounds of political ideology then legal discourse. The way the public views the court does matter and it would be Robert's reputation as the head of the court that is most at risk.

[Hosnon]

98. I think Roberts is more concerned about his legacy as Chief Justice and the Supreme Court itself.

The public's opinion of the Court it extremely low, and most Americans think it is politically motivated. A 5-4 party-line decision knocking down a Democratic President's major legislation would only support that assumption.

At least in part, I think he ceded the battle to win the war. Obamacare stands but the Court doesn't look partisan and he was able to limit the growth of the Commerce Clause, which is a huge win for conservatives.

[Festivito]

101. Maybe to offset Kennedy. Kennedy trying to offset his past.

Does Kennedy need to make some Clarence-Thomas-style-family-money?

It's all secret now, so we'll never know.

[dipsydoodle]

102. Fishy as in red herring ?

[treestar]

107. I may try to read that part of the decision

It could be he really thought the law allowed for it, whether he was for it or not.

The Commerce Clause argument kind of makes sense. I'm glad it wasn't the only way.

[former9thward]

110. Roberts did not make the decision for any 'legitimacy' of the court.

The very people who are praising Roberts now will be blasting the court with the next 5-4 conservative decision. Roberts actually helped conservatives with his Commerce Clause ruling. Conservatives have long said Congress expands the government too much by using the Commerce Clause as the basis for laws. Now Roberts has put a break on that. Worse he got Breyer and Obama appointee Kagan to agree with him on that. He says you have to call it a tax. Congress hates to pass any laws on the basis of its ability to tax. In the future you will see the ACA ruling jammed down the throats of Congress as a limit.

Roberts may have provided the vote to pass ACA but he said in his decision that "it is not the job of the SC to protect people from the political choices they make". That was a signal to Republicans to get out the vote in November and defeat the ACA that way.

[robinlynne]

111. You must read Robert Reich's article; Why the Supreme Court Will Uphold...Obamacare

He predicted that Roberts, exactly Roberts, would vote for the ACA.

full article can be found at RobertReich.org, posted on June 27, 2012

excepts:
Three reasons for my confidence:

First, Chief Justice John Roberts is — or should be — concerned about the steadily-declining standing of the Court in the public’s mind, along with the growing perception that the justices decide according to partisan politics rather than according to legal principle. The 5-4 decision in Citizen’s United, for example, looked to all the world like a political rather than a legal outcome, with all five Republican appointees finding that restrictions on independent corporate expenditures violate the First Amendment, and all four Democratic appointees finding that such restrictions are reasonably necessary to avoid corruption or the appearance of corruption. Or consider the Court’s notorious decision in Bush v. Gore.

The Supreme Court can’t afford to lose public trust. It has no ability to impose its will on the other two branches of government: As Alexander Hamilton once noted, the Court has neither the purse (it can’t threaten to withhold funding from the other branches) or the sword (it can’t threaten police or military action). It has only the public’s trust in the Court’s own integrity and the logic of its decisions — both of which the public is now doubting, according to polls. As Chief Justice, Roberts has a particular responsibility to regain the public’s trust. Another 5-4 decision overturning a piece of legislation as important as Obamacare would further erode that trust.

[alarimer]

114. It's about disabling the Commerce Clause.

As applied to things like the New Deal. Ultimately that is what they want, to get rid of all of the social safety net completely.

Not to mention that corporations stand to benefit hugely from this.

[zbdent]

116. some "support" ... 30 pages of

"This sucky legislation, it hurts me to say, is constitutional ... but if the TeaHadists want to undo it in the House, they can count on me to back them up."

Or something to that effect ...