The Supreme Court ruled today that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional. Chief Justice Roberts was the swing vote. He voted with the liberal justices. Did he do his job correctly or is this more political maneuvering?
CNN legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin, said today during an interview with Brooke Baldwin that Justice Roberts spoke sadly and not in his normal clear voice as he delivered his opinion. As it became clear that he was going to uphold the law, commonly called "Obamacare" by the right, pundits were shocked.
Roberts was a Bush Jr. pick and then Senator Barack Obama voted against him in the senate confirmation hearing. Yet, Roberts came through for Obama today. Or did he?
Chief Justice Roberts has voted to uphold military tribunals, siding with the Bush administration, while a circuit judge. The Supreme Court later overturned that decision 5-3 without Roberts in 2006.
He also signed a legal brief while working in the Bush Sr. administration urging the court to overturn Roe v. Wade. During his confirmation hearing he still insisted that Roe v. Wade had no legal basis in the court.
Clearly, Roberts leans right. But not today.
Could he have voted in favor of Obamacare just to pass the buck back to his conservative counterparts in Congress? To help Mitt Romney? Lord knows, Mitt needs all the help he can get.
All the pundits are saying this decision has invigorated the Republican base. It has fueled them to win in November. It has put the ball back in the voter's court. Roberts is even being called a "genius" by Republican Senator Lindsey Graham.
Did Roberts go out of his way to identify Obamacare as a tax? He most certainly did. He knows Grover Norquist is holding a sledgehammer over every Republican Congressperson's head. If they vote to raise taxes, they're not getting re-elected. That's the deal, right? So, any Republican that votes in favor of this healthcare bill will essentially be voting to raise taxes. Blam! Down goes Norquist's hammer.
Hopefully Americans are paying attention to more than the President's name in the voting booth this November. If Republicans control the House and Senate, expect Washington to come to a complete halt rather than the snail's pace it is today. A good President can only do so much without a functioning, sane legislative branch.
What to expect from this decision -- more fighting.
Image source: Wikimedia Commons
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 107
"turn-around the economic decline" What planet are you on. Obviolusly not earth and not this country. Regardless of the fault of the economic condition, his actions have not "turned it around".
Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Dems of financial and housing crisis; meltdown
"Did Roberts go out of his way to identify Obamacare as a tax?"
I do not give anyone associated with our government that much faith. I don't think that anyone put that much thought into the situation to make a fundamentally sound decision, much less attach an additional agenda to it. Actually, voting against Obamacare would have been a more sound move if it were actually politically motivated in favor of the right. I think there were some serious politics involved, as there always is with anything coming from Washington, but nothing that represented that level of thought. I do think there was some political arm-twisting involved.
Vic -
So, am I to understand you think Obama forced Roberts to vote with the liberals? But you won't entertain the idea that his arm may have been twisted by the Republicans to vote in favor of the law to get it bounced back to Congress and the voters...giving Mitt Romney something to campaign on?
I know you are thinking it could be true. Based on all your previous posts, about how you don't trust either side, you've got to be thinking it could be true. Especially with Roberts' knowledge of the constitution and your opinion that the law is unconstitutional.
What I don't get, Vic, is why you look at it from that perspective. If everyone buys insurance, there is no "tax". And why wouldn't everyone want insurance? Does anyone who can afford health insurance honestly go without it?
People of lesser education may view such tactics as being devious etc. and to a degree they are somewhat right. But that's what attorneys get paid to do. The better they are at their profession, the more valuable they are to their employers. (In this case, the American People) As such, if you wish to view the White House attorneys as being unethical etc, that is your choice, but remember, they are also your attorneys. Attorneys who have just won a big Constitutional ruling by the Supreme Court for your future wellbeing and they did it even though you did not have the common sense to realize that they were on your side and fighting for you.
R.F. this bill isn't going to save me and could never defeat me. Unlike you my life continues to improve regardless of who is in office. You are the one dependant on government and a generous welfare system.
Ahh, Jeff, The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is, Justice John G. Roberts, not someone by the name of "Rogers" as your posted comment states. It's hard to believe that you mistakingly wrote the wrong name, since he is the Chief Justice of the Highest Court within the American Justice System.
I realize that you are far less than estatic with Justice Robert's position and the Court's ruling on the ACA. However, if you were deliberately demonstrating your frustration with the Chief Justice by blatantly misnaming him in your comment, that would be unconscionably disrespectful.
If the wrong name was written in honest error, please state so.
To appease your anal retentive nature, not that it matters, I was chatting in a sports forum about the Packers and Aaron Rodgers last night so I mistakenly typed Rodgers instead of Roberts.
My God you liberals are weird...
Mister, you have on several occasion chastized others for using name calling, however, when you agree with the comment by Jeff then you are also agreeing with his name calling.
Marilyn, it's sad when a person can not post anything but snide remarks with no substance of thought on a website dedicated to debating issues.
Mister agreed that your behavior was weird. He didn't call you a name.
""it's sad when a person can not post anything but snide remarks with no substance of thought on a website dedicated to debating issues. ""
This coming from a jackass who wants to debate what I "really think" as opposed to what I really said? Pull your head out of your ass.
{i.e.} As the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court who's affirmative vote on the issue of ACA, (arguably the most important legislation of the century) he will forever be known to political historians as a man who put aside his personal ideology and life long political affiliation to make the right decision for the American people.
You got to admit, it's no crazier than some of the other opinions floating around.
The justices, including Roberts, voted the way they believed was right.
That is the way it was intended and the way it should be. In reality, pressure is applied to judges all the time to rule a certain way.
Do you actually believe that Justices Clarence Thomas and Antoni Scalia voted their conscience ?
You're suggesting that someone paid off Roberts to vote to uphold the Affordable Care Act?
The Republicans have the money than the Democrats. Marilyn must mean that the Republicans have been buying Roberts off to vote their way.
Judicial officials are bound by oath to support the Constitution. Therefore there should be no barrier between their conscience and the Constitution.
Naturally there will still be differences of opinion. That is why they have more than one justice deciding the case.
After this week, there seems to be little need for states or even the justices themselves.
This precedence will kill what is left of the constitution.
After Bush v. Gore and Citizens United, the SCOTUS was in danger of becoming seen as a mere appendage of political party- with 9 people who vote their politics instead of the greater good. Roberts gave us a break from that, and signaled that he wants to actually BE the Chief Justice instead of just a guy who carries the name around with him.
If the SCOTUS had overturned the law, they win! Obamacare is defeated!
If the SCOTUS doesn't overturn the law, they win! They are motivated by the Machiavellian manipulations of their diabolical Chief Justice.
Can't wait to hear them claim victory when Obama is re-elected in November.
They'll try to impeach him for....singing a Justin Beiber song.
If they argue the Comity Clause, I don't know how they could tho.