If this article by Jan Crawford of CBS News can be believed, one of the Justices on the Supreme Court was a source for her, and they dished dirt on Chief Justice John Roberts. Take a look (emphasis mine):
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.
Roberts then withstood a month-long, desperate campaign to bring him back to his original position, the sources said. Ironically, Justice Anthony Kennedy – believed by many conservatives to be the justice most likely to defect and vote for the law – led the effort to try to bring Roberts back to the fold.
“He was relentless,” one source said of Kennedy’s efforts. “He was very engaged in this.”
But this time, Roberts held firm. And so the conservatives handed him their own message which, as one justice put it, essentially translated into, “You’re on your own.”
It sure sounds like she’s directly quoting a Justice, but even if she is not it must have been an authorized disclosure. I can’t imagine a clerk risking their legal career to leak something like that. Especially because the next part makes it sound like the conservatives on the Court reacted to Roberts’ decision with hostility and spite:
The conservatives refused to join any aspect of his opinion, including sections with which they agreed, such as his analysis imposing limits on Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause, the sources said.
Instead, the four joined forces and crafted a highly unusual, unsigned joint dissent. They deliberately ignored Roberts’ decision, the sources said, as if they were no longer even willing to engage with him in debate.
Isn’t it nice to know that the Supreme Court of the United States is as dysfunctional as the House of Representatives?
That kind of behavior doesn’t stem from a disagreement over legal interpretation – that happens at SCOTUS all the time. That hostility and spite is purely political – and, if true, puts the absolute lie to any notion that the conservative SCOTUS bloc is not politically motivated. In a just world, combined with years and years of additional circumstantial evidence, it should be enough to impeach any and all of them, starting with the guy whose dissents are Limbaugh talking points and the guy whose wife is a highly paid Party operative.
this is delicious. Good to know that the conservatives on the highest court are as unhinged and vindictive as their supporters.
Rather Stalinesque if you ask me. Next thing you know, they’ll be erasing Roberts’ face from official portraits.
Uncle?
Fat Tony was whining like a woman scorned in both the immigration and the healthcare cases.
and the look isn’t good on him
It’s either Fat Tony, or the Justice whose wife works with the Teahadist know-nothings.
sounds like a bunch of children instead of Supreme Court Justices.
I observed at the time of his appointment that he may surprise us all, that he wasn’t necessarily the reich-wing freakazoid the reich-wing freakazoids held him to be. But everyone is a know-it-all, and no one listens to me (who, admittedly, have a great deal to learn).
So what, whoop-tee-do, la te da.
If anything makes me think more highly of Roberts. Clearly his move is about maintaining the public image of the court. If he gets angry enough at the disconnect his fellow justices seem to suffer from historical precedent and any sort of moral constancy, this could be the beginning of a significant pivot in judicial philosophy. Kind of “I thought I married a hard working family man, but he turned out to be a mobster keeping secrets from me. Now I’m on a crusade against these monsters,” sort of a rebirth.
It’s not necessarily likely, but it’s worth keeping an eye on. Roberts clearly puts a high priority on the reputation of the court. If he starts to see that his cohort are a bunch of cavalier ideologues he could come to despise them. 9 people is a small group to be locked up with over the course of the rest of a life…
If Roberts really does care about the reputation of the Court, can we dare to hope that the pissy nature of SKAT response to him will only serve to put him off more?
let’s hope. And although I know cynicism rules these days, it’s not just reputation of the court, it’s his legacy. his name is attached to what this court does. SKAT – very nice
Hmm, so now we know that, indeed, Roberts changed his mind. However, that “sustained campaign” that had went after him wasn’t to get him to switch to “yes,” but to switch to “no.” Quite the opposite of how it was initially reported; perhaps because opponents from the left wanted to be vindicated that the health industry was relentless to get him to switch.
don’t understand what you’re saying here. is your “because” about why it was reported wrong or why ppl wanted him to change
I’m saying that a lot of people on the left who either wanted the law struck down or were indifferent were looking for excuses as to why Roberts voted the way he did. When there was evidence that he changed his mind to “yes,” people brought up old articles showing that people were “leaning heavily on him” to change his mind. Yet here we see that those people who were heavily leaning on him were those trying to get him to strike it down, not big business trying to keep him on.
IOW: it sounds to me that this had nothing to do with the PtB, and was more of his own doing. We still don’t know what changed his mind, but it seems it wasn’t the health industry.
Sounds like someone has been bought or otherwise influenced to me. That was my first reaction and this only confirms it. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if some people like Anonymous spilled the real beans here!!!
A crooked, jiveass court in the pay and/or under the influence of the PermaGov.
Who’d a thunk it? Other than those who realized the truth of the matter when the elections were stolen in 2000 + 2004, of course.
Duh.
Let us pray.
AG
Before this decision Roberts had never ruled against the interests of monster corporations. He still hasn’t.
To me this is yet another example of the inherent tension within the conservative movement. On the one hand we have those who, like Roberts, have clear visions on the prize – maximizing profits for the most powerful. On the other hand you have the ideologues who believe the crap that they are feeding the conservative proletariat on hate radio and hate cable.
This would be an entertaining battle were the future of the species not at stake.
.
Justice Scalia on Obama’s Immigration policy: “Before the Civil War, Southern states could exclude free blacks from their borders.”
Cross-posted from my diary – Chief Justice Roberts ‘Threading A Needle’
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."Mean girls.