the reputation of this court - thinking an overturn would create such an outcry....and this would reflect on him- so a bit of a vanity call.

Second - money - ACA is also good for the insurance industry and Roberts is tight with them.....this is something Nichols raised on the Ed show.

Roberts is a corporatist first, conservative second.

I doubt after Citizens United (and its reaffirmation earlier in the week) that he worries much about the court's reputation.

I'm excited over the possibility of a wedge between right wingers. All we need to govern effectively is to throw the corporatists a bone, enough to peel off enough support to break up their solid front.

Hot dog! If there really is a falling out between Roberts and Scalia, it's good news for progressives.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-EKr3Irq5YVw/TohuCUNDTVI/AAAAAAAAFxY/w8IZMEsGx9A/s320/Scalia+and+Wuerl.jpg

He doesn't worry about the reputation of the court. That never enters the equation.

This is his court, his place in history will be made by the court decisions made by his court.

Plus he might thing that national health care is a pretty good idea. Not every conservative is a knuckle dragging mouth breather, how rare that might be...

We all know that the SCOTUS is a big tool for the corporations. Most of those right-wing judges are corporatist rats. They're not going to strike down the healthcare bill because the big insurance companies love it. Their profits have tripled since Obama signed this law. Big insurance still remains at the center of our system, making life and death decisions based on what's good for profits. So no--the corporoScotus would never stop this gravy train for big insurance.

Also--I didn't buy that they give a rip about how they appear to the Americsn people, nor do they care how we feel about them. These are the freaks who gave us Citizen's United, which destroyed free elections. That ruling rendered the people powerless and threw control of our elections to big corporate interests. They detest us.

I do agree that this vote, and also Roberts, look more fair now. However, they wouldn't fake us out because they care about us or what we think of them. They'd do it to shut us up and confuse us into thinking that maybe democracy snd our system really do work.

You wait. I bet the SCOTUS will now proceed to be more outrageous, radical snd pro-corporate than ever. We'll be told to sit down and shut up--because after all, the court proved that it has no partisan agenda with the healthcare ruling. You watch. Pretty soon, we'll see radical as we've never seen it before. The right and the corporations will be thrilled and we'll be told to quit whining because we've got ourselves a very fair snd impartial court that upheld healthcare.

I'd agree with your implication that the powerful tend to stay in power, but they have to deliver the goods. If they don't, they lose out to competitors, especially in a democracy which allows for peaceful political change. Obama played the health care reform issue very shrewdly, I think. He kept his fingerprints off it even though it eventually bore his name, "Obamacare."

The right has gotten more shrill and ideological over the past ten years, to the point where they argue for policies simply for internal consistency with positions they've gone out on a simb to support. We clearly need some kind of health care reform in America - we can't have 30 million people at the mercy of whatever illnesses may befall them.

Chief Justice Roberts was simply backed into a corner, in my opinion. If he sided with Scalia, he'd be accused of insensitivity, even pointy-headedness. Like other practical figures dealing with America's real problems, Roberts can't appear to have gotten out of touch with the lives of real people. He was simply beaten back, and I think this is a wedge that progressives will be able to use to break up the uingodly coalition between conservatives and ultra-conservatives.

He can be a hack...or he can be a hero (or at least be perceived as one).

He doesn't have to please anyone anymore, either. He's got the gig, and he's got it for life.

He's read all the history books; he knows he'll be in 'em one day, too. Dubya didn't give a shit -- because he'd be dead. I think Roberts is a bit more vain.

And who knows if it wasn't all planned ... no way did the Ins. Corps want to see the mandate struck down.

Its all about his legacy.

To keep it from becoming a political issue that Obama/dems can use against the repugs in the upcoming elections (which sorta goes w/1).

Plus they appointed Bush.

And then look at the way Scalia has been acting. I think Scalia may have turned him off.

Their 1% insurance company masters wanted the mandate, but the drooling Epublican shock troops for the 1% did not. Roberts decided to go with the real bosses.

With both this and Citizens United, he basically steered the ruling in unexpected directions. I think he wants to be seen as an independent thinker rather than a hack in the mold of Scalia or Thomas. It may be more personal than political.

I agree there's something personal in Roberts' motivations. Maybe he's had it up to here with Scalia, who seems lately to forget he's a judge, not an advocate. I also think Roberts doesn't want to be responsible for the deaths of people who can't afford health insurance. Call it Roberts' Epiphany if you like.

Scalia is making a mockery of the Court. Roberts wasn't prepared to let that happen. Scalia is willing to take the High Court hostage to his radical right-wing ideology. Roberts could come up with a way to save the Court's reputation - his legacy - and still throw a bone to conservatives: the individiual mandate is a "tax."

My feeling is that critical decisions and events, such as this SCOTUS decision are rigged and completely determined by the powerful corporate and monied interests that run this nation.

For one thing, Obama's healthcare plan was loved (and in fact penned by) the large health-insurance companies. Their profit centric model remained intact and no real cost controls were included. Corporate America didn't hate the bill, so there was no need to decimate it.

I think all of this is a big fake display. I think it was largely orchestrated to prop up Romney's presidential campaign and to energize snd galvanize their base. I think they're trying to drum up votes for Romney and make it a tight race.

I don't think healthcare was ever in jeapordy. I think these theatrics are all crafted and worked out behind closed doors. The powers that be decide how it's all going to go down. They need us polarized, and they need all if the right-wing zealots amped up on hate, paranoia and white-hot rage. Listen to talk radio--and dare to tell me that I'm wrong.

Did Scalia Scare Off Roberts?
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/29/scalia.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/30/us/conservatives-see-silver-lining-in-health-ruling.html?pagewanted=all

1. Roberts is a corporate supremacist first and foremost, as I have posted on another thread, the mandate to purchase a product from private for profit corporations and the Citizens United decision go together like a hand and glove. Roberts was making sure that his corporate clients or masters best interests were being served.

2. By being the only justice on the SC to refer to the mandate as a "tax" versus arguing for its' legitimacy or lack thereof from the Commerce Clause angle, Roberts hopes to damage President Obama in the coming election by making it easier for Republicans to claim that Obama and the Democrats essentially raised taxes on the middle class.

The other conservatives didn't go along with Roberts because they didn't need to, it only takes 5 to approve of the mandate.

Thanks for the thread, SoDesuKa

I never thought for a minute it would be struck down. Couldn't understand why anyone did. The Ins Corps wrote that bill and the most profitable part of it for them, was the mandate.

He probably realized that if they struck it down, after November if Dems win a majority, they would push the PO, leaving the Corps without their big windfall.

that the ruling is consistent with his interpretation of the constitution? He's not running for election or raising money for a campaign. The court is intended to be beholden to no one. Although there are times when it doesn't seem to function that way, there are also times when it does and Roberts just happened to agree with us this time.

One of the republican tenets\talking points is "personal responsibility." The mandate is entirely in line with that.

Right wingers have to decide whether they're going to govern America or whether they're going to resist needed changes simply because they conflict with right wing ideology. John Roberts was in the positiion John Boehner was in last year during the standoff about the budget.

It's absurd to let 30 million Americans go without access to health care simply because there's no way for right wingers to approve it. Roberts thought about it and said to himself, I'm going to look like I have my head up my ass if I reject sensible law. It doesn't bother Scalia to look like he's got his head up his ass; his name is not on the door. But John Roberts is the Chief Justice . . . he will get the blame if ideology prevails over common sense.

It remains to be seen whether this is the first of many victories over dunderhead Republicans. My hunch is that Obama has turned out to be a lot more shrewd than they expected.

But at the same time not everyone who leans right is a part of the worst elements among republicans. I disagree that Roberts was in a position similar to Boehner. The threats to Boehnor were totally different. He might have been primaried and lost his seat. John Roberts is not and never will be subject to a primary. He is pretty young and has plenty of time to build a legacy.

Not all republicans are a part of the radical right wing movement. There are some who sympathize with the republican platform but also reject some of it and reject them. I have talked with some who are ashamed that the republican brand is associated with the tea party. I'm willing to consider the possibility that he was acting as a SC justice should

He had a seizure last year and maybe such a brush with one's mortality as well as the healthcare system gave him a different picture than his right wing brothers.

I've heard the explanation that since this court has his name on it that he wanted to prevent to politicizing of the court, but that doesn't explain a lot of his other votes...especially CU. Or that he's a "strict constitutionalist" who believes that the judiciary should not try to overturn legislation passed by the House & Senate. In essence he shunned being an activist jurist.

The last and most interesting explanation I heard was his faith...that he saw this issue as a matter of compassion. He didn't want to sleep knowing he cast the vote that denied so many needy people basic health care.

I personally have no clue...guess we'll have to wait for his book...

He is also a Catholic and there are times when religious traditions and beliefs sneak up on a person.

The government might not have been able to collect taxes or SS anymore. I don't think there was apolitical motive.

An Occupier was discussing it today, calling it another crumb thrown from the ivory tower to placate the masses into believing in the two-party electoral system, instead of unifying as the 99% and claiming everything which is already ours. To make us forget that it's ours, and that no one leads if no one follows, and that the illusion of scarcity is just that.

How do the powerful retain Kontrol?

Roberts sides with the Conservatives ... ho hum, no news here. He's "upholding the Constitution", at least whatever the 'baggers think is in the Constitution.

BUT ... his 30+ page attack on the legislation will be pretty much ignored by the "liberally-biased media".

This way, he rules that, yes, it IS constitutional ...

[BIG]BUT ...[/BIG]

the discussion turns to his manifesto to the 'baggers and RWers to fight on to "get rid of this horrid piece of 'constitutional' trash!"

I'd certainly welcome the idea of a Chief Justice who's as genuinely non-partisan as Roberts claimed in his pre-confirmation hearing that he would be as a sitting Justice. Imagine that - a guy who genuinely callls 'em as he sees 'em, without fear or favor.

Some of the comments on this thread show an effort to link Roberts' judicial philosophy as expressed in Citizens United to his reasoning in ACA. If there is such consistency, let us rejoice in the possibiility that Roberts may similarly dissent from the conservatives in future cases. However, I don't trust John Roberts. I think he's a snake.

http://verdict.justia.com/2012/06/29/why-chief-justice-roberts-dared-not-overturn-president-obamas-healthcare-plan



The whole article is well written and uplifting.

...than it is not much of a stretch to reconsider Helvering v. Davis (1937), in which the Court upheld Social Security against constitutional attacks. Social Security was upheld based on Article I, Section 8, empowering Congress to impose and collect taxes "to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." Sound familiar?

The elephant that is hiding in the room is that four justices were in favor of blowing out HCR. If HCR were held unconstitutional despite Article I, Section 8, then what is to stop conservatives from asking the Court to reconsider Helvering v. Davis and other cases that eventually upheld the New Deal? Afterall, this Court did strike down decades of campaign finance case law.

The fact of the matter is that there are many conservatives who still insist Helvering v. Davis was wrongly decided. Sadly, at least four of them are sitting as Supreme Court justices. We are just one Supreme Court justice away from a wholesale invalidation of Medicare and Social Security.

My take is that Roberts saw the writing on the wall. Once the Supreme Court blows out HCR, there would be no real reason not to visit all of the cases that upheld New Deal legislation. I think Roberts understand the incredible instability this would generate and the backlash against the Courts. Already, public perception of the Court has significantly declined with Thomas's wife being an active Tea Party activist. I think Roberts was acting to try to shore up the legitimacy of the Supreme Court.

I hope you're right that Roberts sees a distinction between right wing and too right wing - something the Scalia wing doesn't see. This decision could mark the opening of a wedge between conservative politicians and absurdly conservative politicians . . . who've become numerous in the Republican Party.

I'd like to think the ultra-conservatives have flogged the horse they are riding till it can't give any more. Obama's long game is one of his great strengths; and this victory may be the first of many. Watch for press reports about how "lucky" Obama is getting . . . as things just happen to break favorably for him.

Basically the court was getting to a point where it was a laughing stock so Robert's had to contort himself.

... I'd love to see his take. Was it before or after the decision?

http://robertreich.org/post/26086712733

Although back then the New Deal switch happened because FDR threatened to pack the benches.

Especially since he knows all eyes will be on the courts this November. He knows the GOP is trying to steal the election, especially Rick Scott with up to 180,000 people off the rolls in a state where 527 determined the election. If it comes down to the Supes again, people will riot, and the very legitimacy of the constitution itself may be in jeopardy.

What does this have to do with the decision?

Because, if the court struck down ACA, and in less than half a year, tried giving the election to Romney, then the stink would hit the four corners of the globe. The Supreme Court would have less credibility than the WWE. Sadly, Roberts knows that fat Tony and his crew will try to steal the election AGAIN. I think he is simply doing damage control, because he knows come November, all eyes will be on the court.

What does this mean?

It means that if the court rules that DOMA is unconstitutional, then we may need to be careful, not that DOMA does not deserve death, but rather because Roberts may be trying to set things up so that the election theft will seem to stink less, after all, the court gave Obama two victories, right? Victories a Romney win could erase.

It's one thing to favor a right centrist policy over a left centrist policy, it's quite another to go with a radical right policy that bends the law every which way!

He over-reached on Citizen's United. Maybe he's experiencing buyer's remorse. The Koch's are semi-respectable. After all, David supports the New York Ballet! It's only right that wealthy people who are obviously knowledgeable because how else would they be wealthy, should have a significant say in governing the country. ( ) I doubt Roberts foresaw handing the election over to the whims of Adelson! It's one thing to bend the law for your buddies, but the fingerprints aren't supposed to show!

If we get out the vote this year and take the Congress,

if Harry Reid gives up the filibuster

if the Blue Dogs can be brought into line

a country enraged at the Court may very well go along with the impeachment of a justice or two and/or the addition of a couple extra judges to the existing line-up.

If this were overturned we would have had a huge united push for "medicare for all" .

The other conservatives were steadfast in throwing out the whole bill. Roberts couldnt find a constitutional justification for throwing out the whole bill, and late in the game found wiggle room to justify the mandate, and allow the whole bill. Recall the several day postponement? That was to allow the opinions to be amended to account for Roberts late flip.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002881904

By casting the decisive vote (who knows whether it really was the deciding vote, or whether the right-wing majority made it look that way) Roberts acted in the best interests of corporate conservatism, for-profit healthcare companies, and - most importantly of all - of the far-right political force which is today's Republican Party.

- snip -

Weighing the Options

- snip -

It also would have given new momentum to the single-payer movement, galvanized Democrats, alienated independents, and strengthened the argument against electing a Republican President who would provide more Justices in favor of Bush v. Gore type decisions.

- snip -

The Decision

By defending the law, Roberts made the right decision for Corporate America. He was also able to severely limit the Federal government's ability to regulate commerce, which I believe is a major setback in a number of legal areas that's likely to provide a lot of benefit to corporations in the years to come. Since I'm not an attorney, I'll leave that analysis to others. But I'm surprised that aspect of the ruling hasn't received more attention.

Stock prices in the for-profit hospital industry soared, rising 7 percent in heavy trading immediately after the Court ruling. Stocks for the nation's largest health insurers barely moved, despite what must have been some heavy pre-Court betting that the conservative majority would overturn the entire law.

- snip -

Red Meat

By joining with the liberals, Roberts was able to write the ruling himself. He did it in a way which the other four disagreed with, but which was designed to provide talking points for Republicans and the Right. He labeled the mandate's penalty a "tax" (which it is; so is the so-called "Cadillac tax" on higher-cost health plans, which Obama campaigned against and then personally inserted into the bill).

http://www.alternet.org/story/156091/why_justice_roberts_opinion_could_set_alarming_precedents?page=entire

Collecting the premiums as a tax and then contracting with the insurance companies in the same way we buy B-2 bombers was a simple solution. I don't think he liked that answer any better.

The transcripts are interesting and suggest that Roberts saw it as a tax all along. Some of his questions went directly to that argument, and Verilli's answer was simple: "it is collected by the IRS on form 1040"..... Roberts allowed that answer to stand without followup.

He premised that line of questioning with a statement to the effect "the politicians say this is not a tax".... Verilli stated in reply that "what the politicians call it is not relevant, what it actually is matters"

This little maybe 10 sentence exchange was actually all that mattered.

What's so complicated about that?

I guess they are on the side of the little people.

Roberts took the bullet and the criticism from the Right -allowing Alito and Scalia and Thomas to maintain the pretense that they were against it.

The exact same behavior is seen in the Senate and Congress.

Don't be so naive.

Many judges, including more conservative ones, stick to the proper principle of law that you must allow the legislature extraordinary deference in enacting laws that you don't overturn them or even parts of them without truly compelling constitutionally-justified reasons for doing so and there must be great consideration of precedent. ACA should be been upheld by all the judges under all three theories argued, especially the commerce clause. But Roberts was able to at least find a way to support the law under taxation powers.

It may just be that he is very wary of overturning laws, as are many judges as they should be. There needs to be great deference extended to the legistlative branch.

on the Citizens United Decision, they even unnecessarily broadened the case in order to do so.

in the higher echelons of thought, conservative thinking failed the test at the hands of one of their own. This should be a wake up call to conservatives everywhere.

Maybe Kennedy was tired of taking all the heat from the right-wingers.

Roberts was taken and replaced by a human facsimile, we got lucky the replacement might be better than the original.

1) If they shot it down it wouldn't be horribly hard to make changes and work around the ruling.
2) Roberts has an ego and doesn't want to have 'his' court go down in history as the most political ever.
3) Obama is going to be re-elected. After he's re-elected there will be SCOTUS seats to refill and if Roberts looks a little more reasonable now there will be less demand later to refill those seats with a solid liberal to 'balance things.'