PDA

View Full Version : Rumor: Roberts switched vote? A fact: CBS



Soflasnapper
07-02-2012, 11:28 AM
Many observers had already claimed textual evidence in the opinions showed Roberts had switched his vote. The Volokh Conspiracy legal site, among others (maybe SCOTUSBlog as well?).

Now CBS has, they say, two witnesses stating this is a fact.

Link to CBS reporting (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57464549/roberts-switched-views-to-uphold-health-care-law/?tag=contentMain;contentBody)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">(CBS News) Chief Justice John Roberts initially sided with the Supreme Court's four conservative justices to strike down the heart of President Obama's health care reform law, the Affordable Care Act, but later changed his position and formed an alliance with liberals to uphold the bulk of the law, according to two sources with specific knowledge of the deliberations. </div></div>

Why would he do that?

Perhaps because, although he was willing to strike down the mandate and penalty aspects, he wished to keep the rest of the law in place. The dissenting conservatives would have none of that, and were intent upon using the striking down of those provisions to strike down the entire law, as there were no severability clauses in the law.

Evidently, he didn't want to go that far. And HAD the mandate/penalty been framed as a tax, that would have met muster, without much of any real distinction. So he, like Solomon, offered to split the baby, which in this case distressed not the mother, but the other woman (so to speak).

llotter
07-02-2012, 11:53 AM
The reason is that he 'matured' as so many have on the court. He is a coward who can be bought off by the kind words from the Left, exactly the opposite of why Justices are give lifetime tenure; to be free of such influence.

Soflasnapper
07-02-2012, 12:11 PM
I don't agree.

He didn't mature in his Citizens United vote, or his recent Montana vote, which the left has been strongly critical of (when some weren't supporting CU, as the ACLU and Big Labor did, for example).

Perhaps the key to understanding Roberts, like many on the court, right or left, is that they are corporatists. That's true of Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, Clinton's appointees, however much they are caricatured as on the left. (Ginsburg was suggested to Clinton by Orin Hatch, for example).

Soflasnapper
07-02-2012, 02:22 PM
Evidently the CBS reporter who authored this article is a conservative in good standing, and close to various prominent Federalist Society people.

Others have speculated that the information probably came from Clarence Thomas through his chatterbox wife, Ginni.

It's a severe breach of protocol on the tight-lipped SCOTUS, which keeps its deliberative process secret.

And it may likewise account for the various right wing sources accounts mid-deliberation, that Roberts was being said to 'go wobbly.' From the same inside sources.

Gayle in MD
07-02-2012, 11:41 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Evidently the CBS reporter who authored this article is a conservative in good standing, and close to various prominent Federalist Society people.

Others have speculated that the information probably came from Clarence Thomas through his chatterbox wife, Ginni.

It's a severe breach of protocol on the tight-lipped SCOTUS, which keeps its deliberative process secret.

And it may likewise account for the various right wing sources accounts mid-deliberation, that Roberts was being said to 'go wobbly.' From the same inside sources. </div></div>

More recent information throws some doubt on this "leaked" version of how things actually occured between the justices, and the timing of when Roberts actually decided his opinion in this case.


If one reads all of the writings, in order, the contention that Roberts changed his mind, begins to lose credibility.

There was a very good debate about this matter last night on The Last Word, with Lawrence O'Donnell.

I don't think Roberts ever changed his mind throughout his process.

Could be a bit of conservative mischief going on in this supposed leak, some gossipy RW revenge, perhaps.

G.

Qtec
07-03-2012, 12:51 AM
Maybe he got religious.

Maybe he decided that he could not in all humanity deny his fellow Americans access to basic HC.

Maybe, just maybe, finally a RW religious person asked them self, what would Jesus do,... and acted on it?


Q

Gayle in MD
07-03-2012, 09:01 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Evidently the CBS reporter who authored this article is a conservative in good standing, and close to various prominent Federalist Society people.

Others have speculated that the information probably came from Clarence Thomas through his chatterbox wife, Ginni.

It's a severe breach of protocol on the tight-lipped SCOTUS, which keeps its deliberative process secret.

And it may likewise account for the various right wing sources accounts mid-deliberation, that Roberts was being said to 'go wobbly.' From the same inside sources. </div></div>

More recent information throws some doubt on this "leaked" version of how things actually occured between the justices, and the timing of when Roberts actually decided his opinion in this case.


If one reads all of the writings, in order, the contention that Roberts changed his mind, begins to lose credibility.

There was a very good debate about this matter last night on The Last Word, with Lawrence O'Donnell.

I don't think Roberts ever changed his mind throughout his process.

Could be a bit of conservative mischief going on in this supposed leak, some gossipy RW revenge, perhaps.

G.


</div></div>

Correction, it was Rachael Maddow's program, last night, where this issue was pretty much rebuked, by a very knowledgeable fellow, I do wish I could remember his name, but he has been the Supreme Court Authority on on many programs, on this issue.

It was fully covered during a debate between him and another guy, but I can't recall their names.

It's probably on her website, although she wasn't there.

Chris Hayes, of the saturday and sunday programs, Up with Chris Hays, was taking her place. I think he is very good, and usually very accurate, as well.

Sorry for the mistake....senior moment. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

G.

Soflasnapper
07-03-2012, 09:24 AM
We are not going to get a definitive answer on this for a long time, unless Roberts or others on the court speak for the record.

However, things that seem unlikely may turn out to be true (as in this ruling, when the so-called smart money bet at a 75% rate that ACA would be overturned). Things that seem likely may turn out to be false (same example).

Although I think Chris Hayes is among the better hosts of MSNBC, and I haven't caught him doing this, sometimes the MSNBC hosts misrepresent or omit the arguments and evidence of those they are opposing. That makes for a more linear, and neater, but actually somewhat dishonest argument presentation, which I do not appreciate from my side.

Gayle in MD
07-03-2012, 09:31 AM
Hayes wasn't the center of the discussion. He was quiet while one theory was thoroughly presented, and then allowed full presentation of the opposing theory.

I am going to try to find out this fellow's name who IMO, knew exactly what he was talking about. Was just on that site, looking for it.

I'll post it when I find it.

G.

Soflasnapper
07-03-2012, 09:34 AM
Jonathan Turley is one of their go-to guys, and he is very knowledgeable on matters of the high court.

Gayle in MD
07-03-2012, 09:35 AM
Wasn't him.

G.

Gayle in MD
07-03-2012, 10:02 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Jonathan Turley is one of their go-to guys, and he is very knowledgeable on matters of the high court. </div></div>

Ok, found it! Boy was I off, right the first time, it was Lawrence O'Donnell's show.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45755883/vp/48053221#48053221


Hayes wasn't even Rachaels stand in, lol, it was Ezra Kline, but I included a link to the young woman who spoke so knowledgeably about this on his show as well!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/#48052783

Let me know what you think!


G.

Soflasnapper
07-03-2012, 10:49 AM
More recent information throws some doubt on this "leaked" version of how things actually occured between the justices, and the timing of when Roberts actually decided his opinion in this case.


If one reads all of the writings, in order, the contention that Roberts changed his mind, begins to lose credibility.

Actually, it's a mixed bag.

Paul Campos has ANOTHER inside source who says Roberts changed his vote, and his dissent from the CBS report that says the same thing with two inside sources is over the timing of when that happened, and who therefore wrote the dissent in chief.

Julian Epstein offers no insider information, but deductive reasoning instead, to claim all of those insiders and the reporters got it wrong.

I like Epstein, but as a lawyer and a political guy, he is a master spinner. Not sure what the point of his spinning this would be, and when you are a spinner, it becomes natural, and he may not even know what he's doing. But even if he is not spinning, his argument becomes 'it's hard to imagine,' more or less.

The disagreement with CBS that Campos brings forth from his insider is that Roberts changed his mind so late in the process that he was the one who wrote the dissent (except for the added on piece at the end, awkwardly set apart with literally a ******** divider, btw). The CBS report had the dissent written by Scalia after an early defection from Roberts, which allowed the month-long pressure from Anthony Kennedy that was alleged in that reporting.

So Epstein offers somewhat evidence-free arguments from the personalities involved, whereas the two persons mentioning the change of vote have insider sources.

To be sure, those insiders might be lying for some reason, but unless Epstein or others can find that reason, and/or get other insiders as well situated to contradict these reports, I score it (preliminarily) 2-1 for the idea that Roberts did change his vote in the process.

And there are textual reasons to believe this as well. The 'dissent' never mentions the majority opinion of the court until after the ****** section begins. It refers to Ginsburg's 'dissent' when it really is a concurring opinion to the majority opinion.

So it's still somewhat of a guessing game, but the weight of the evidence seems clear to me.

Soflasnapper
07-03-2012, 11:05 AM
Hayes wasn't even Rachaels stand in, lol, it was Ezra Kline, but I included a link to the young woman who spoke so knowledgeably about this on his show as well!


Dahlia Withwick says she give credence to the CBS report, given the high credibility of the reporter.

She only demurs that she doubts the whole story has been told, so she's thinks some parts of the revelations are incomplete and/or self-serving. But she does not doubt that Roberts switched, just the details of that switch and its reasons (and maybe timing).

Gayle in MD
07-03-2012, 11:12 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">More recent information throws some doubt on this "leaked" version of how things actually occured between the justices, and the timing of when Roberts actually decided his opinion in this case.


If one reads all of the writings, in order, the contention that Roberts changed his mind, begins to lose credibility.

Actually, it's a mixed bag.

Paul Campos has ANOTHER inside source who says Roberts changed his vote, and his dissent from the CBS report that says the same thing with two inside sources is over the timing of when that happened, and who therefore wrote the dissent in chief.

Julian Epstein offers no insider information, but deductive reasoning instead, to claim all of those insiders and the reporters got it wrong.

I like Epstein, but as a lawyer and a political guy, he is a master spinner. Not sure what the point of his spinning this would be, and when you are a spinner, it becomes natural, and he may not even know what he's doing. But even if he is not spinning, his argument becomes 'it's hard to imagine,' more or less.

The disagreement with CBS that Campos brings forth from his insider is that Roberts changed his mind so late in the process that he was the one who wrote the dissent (except for the added on piece at the end, awkwardly set apart with literally a ******** divider, btw). The CBS report had the dissent written by Scalia after an early defection from Roberts, which allowed the month-long pressure from Anthony Kennedy that was alleged in that reporting.

So Epstein offers somewhat evidence-free arguments from the personalities involved, whereas the two persons mentioning the change of vote have insider sources.


<span style="color: #990000"> Highly unusual, don't you think so? IMO, those sources have their own agendas, that's why I don't take their word on any of it. </span>

To be sure, those insiders might be lying for some reason, but unless Epstein or others can find that reason, and/or get other insiders as well situated to contradict these reports, I score it (preliminarily) 2-1 for the idea that Roberts did change his vote in the process.

And there are textual reasons to believe this as well. The 'dissent' never mentions the majority opinion of the court until after the ****** section begins. It refers to Ginsburg's 'dissent' when it really is a concurring opinion to the majority opinion.

So it's still somewhat of a guessing game, but the weight of the evidence seems clear to me. </div></div>

<span style="color: #990000">And I'm not so sure about that, mostly because of how angry the Repubs are over this whole thing, and how vicious they can be about slandering someone who crosses them, hence, my doubts about so called sources, again, highly unusual, when it comes to the Supreme Court!.....

However I'm also beginning to think the whole thing may not be constructive, anyway...see this: </span>

http://thelastword.msnbc.msn.com/



G.

Soflasnapper
07-03-2012, 12:36 PM
Yes, the ruling on the Medicaid expansion is a blow.

However, it was joined by Ginsburg and Breyer, iirc.

And there IS a sense in which it is unfair to pull the rug out from the states by cancelling ALL their subsidy money currently in law for their Medicaid spending, if they do not take the expansion.

However, to make it pass muster would be simple, if no less egregious. Repeal ALL the Medicaid subsidies, and then reinstitute them, with the conditions of the expansion. Then the 'take it or leave it (all)' position would be legal under how these things have always been done.

Still, it probably isn't as dire a situation as it might be, as it stands now. You'd have to have governors standing firm against their own constituents' interests, as most politicians shrink from doing, and/or get replaced at the ballot box if they continue such actions.

The SCHIP expansion of health care coverage under Medicaid for children whose household incomes are above the poverty line by 25% or 30% provides a test case. That was wholly voluntary, no coercion (stick), just the carrot subsidy that if the state would expand that coverage, the feds would kick in some large part of it. And mainly, governors and state legislatures have taken that step, with but a few holding to stingier benefit schedules.

Sev
07-03-2012, 03:59 PM
36 states have not moved to begin to put the exchanges in place.

Just stay 400% under the poverty level and they pay 80% of your health care.

Soflasnapper
07-03-2012, 05:33 PM
If the states don't make the exchanges, the federal government is empowered to do so in the passed law.

What you meant to say is stay under 400% above the poverty level, but the rest of what you said isn't true even with that correction.

Gayle in MD
07-03-2012, 09:02 PM
Thanks for answering so clearly.

I do think, as you say, that nay sayers will connect, after they have beaten this political horse to death.

As you say, when they must face their constituents, their choice will likely be to board the train, and finally agree to go forward. They will take the money, and shut up!

They will eventually come around, when it is in their best political interests, of course. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

G.