Our last bastion of freedom wants We the People to secure our own Blessings of Liberty.

Is the Supreme Court’s protection of our Constitution now about compromise?

According to a stunning report by CBS News, two sources with inside information concerning the ObamaCareTax deliberations confirmed that Chief Justice Roberts was, at first, firmly in agreement with Conservative Justices Alito, Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas in their conclusion that the individual mandate is unConstitutional.  But, over time and, possibly from external pressure, Roberts deserted his position and switched sides to join the Liberals.  The outrage of the other four Conservatives for Roberts’ defection shows in their joint dissenting opinion.  After vehemently pleading for Roberts to reverse his “wobbling” availed them nothing, the sources say Kennedy and Scalia wrote the repudiation of the ruling on behalf of the other two.  Incensed by the Supreme Court’s failure to protect the Constitution and individual sovereignty, the four Conservatives defiantly refused to join any part of the majority opinion.

Chief Justice Roberts made it clear in his ruling that it was not his job to protect the American people from their voting booth decisions.  No.  It’s his job to protect and defend the Constitution.  As the dissenting opinion states, the Supreme Court disregarded its obligation to preserve the “fragmentation of power produced by the structure of our government”, and by not doing so has placed our liberty “in peril”.

So, in one man’s spirit of public perception and compromise, We the People are on our own.

Via Ricochet, CBS News reported,

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.”

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, unsignedjoint dissent. They deliberately ignored Roberts’ decision, the sources said, as if they were no longer even willing to engage with him in debate.

The inner-workings of the Supreme Court are almost impossible to penetrate. The Court’s private conferences, when the justices discuss cases and cast their initial votes, include only the nine members – no law clerks or secretaries are permitted. The justices are notoriously close-lipped, and their law clerks must agree to keep matters completely confidential.

But in this closely-watched case, word of Roberts’ unusual shift has spread widely within the Court, and is known among law clerks, chambers’ aides and secretaries. It also has stirred the ire of the conservative justices, who believed Roberts was standing with them.

After the historic oral arguments in March, the two knowledgeable sources said, Roberts and the four conservatives were poised to strike down at least the individual mandate. There were other issues being argued – severability and the Medicaid extension – but the mandate was the ballgame.

It required individuals to buy insurance or pay a penalty. Congress had never before in the history of the nation ordered Americans to buy a product from a private company as part of its broad powers to regulate commerce. Opponents argued that the law exceeded Congress’ power under the Constitution, and an Atlanta-based federal appeals court agreed.

Continue below the fold.

The Atlanta-based federal appeals court said Congress didn’t have that kind of expansive power, and it struck down the mandate as unconstitutional.

On this point – Congress’ commerce power – Roberts agreed. In the Court’s private conference immediately after the arguments, he was aligned with the four conservatives to strike down the mandate.

Roberts was less clear on whether that also meant the rest of the law must fall, the source said. The other four conservatives believed that the mandate could not be lopped off from the rest of the law and that, since one key part was unconstitutional, the entire law must be struck down.

Because Roberts was the most senior justice in the majority to strike down the mandate, he got to choose which justice would write the Court’s historic decision. He kept it for himself.

Over the next six weeks, as Roberts began to craft the decision striking down the mandate, the external pressure began to grow. Roberts almost certainly was aware of it.

Some of the conservatives, such as Justice Clarence Thomas, deliberately avoid news articles on the Court when issues are pending (and avoid some publications altogether, such as The New York Times). They’ve explained that they don’t want to be influenced by outside opinion or feel pressure from outlets that are perceived as liberal.

But Roberts pays attention to media coverage. As Chief Justice, he is keenly aware of his leadership role on the Court, and he also is sensitive to how the Court is perceived by the public.

There were countless news articles in May warning of damage to the Court – and to Roberts’ reputation – if the Court were to strike down the mandate. Leading politicians, including the President himself, had expressed confidence the mandate would be upheld.

Some even suggested that if Roberts struck down the mandate, it would prove he had been deceitful during his confirmation hearings, when he explained a philosophy of judicial restraint.

It was around this time that it also became clear to the conservative justices that Roberts was, as one put it, “wobbly,” the sources said.

It is not known why Roberts changed his view on the mandate and decided to uphold the law. At least one conservative justice tried to get him to explain it, but was unsatisfied with the response, according to a source with knowledge of the conversation. …

The fact that the joint dissent doesn’t mention Roberts’ majority was not a sign of sloppiness, the sources said, but instead was a signal the conservatives no longer wished to engage in debate with him.

The language in the dissent was sweeping, arguing the Court was overreaching in the name of restraint and ignoring key structural protections in the Constitution. There are clear elements of Scalia – and then, there is Justice Kennedy.

“The fragmentation of power produced by the structure of our government is central to liberty, and when we destroy it, we place liberty in peril,” the dissent said. “Today’s decision should have vindicated, should have taught, this truth; instead our judgment today has disregarded it.”

Read the entire article here.

 

 

Disable Refresh for 30 Days

Cookies and JavaScript must be enabled for your setting to be saved.

1 2 3 4

`
  1. “Compromised?” I would call it an act of tyrrany.

  2. Roberts has disgraced himself and the Court.

    There is nothing to celebrate about this decision.

    He probably doesn’t realize it with the pats on the head from the Left, but now both the Left and the Right view him with contempt.

  3. This regime is no less brutal than that of a Chavez or Castro. I have no problem beieving that information about Roberts childrens adoption was used as blackmail. I also have no problem believing that the death of Andrew Breitbart was no accident. Look at what the DOJ has already done, does anyone really think that the current regime is above using any means necessary to achieve their goal ? Republicans always underestimate the enemy.

  4. It makes no sense that a Chief Justice of The Supreme Court would worry about media coverage. The Supremes are an equal branch of Government sworn to uphold the Constitution. I believe that someone made Roberts an offer he couldn’t refuse.

  5. What’s the story about Roberts children’s adoption?

  6. Traitor should resign from the Court and go work at a MacDonalds.

  7. “Inside Sources Say Chief Justice Roberts Compromised”

    Correction:

    “Inside Sources Say Chief Justice Roberts IS Compromised”

  8. Chief Justice Robert’s “wobbling” smacks of blackmail.

  9. Inquiring minds want to know what it took from the Chicago Politics team to “encourage” Chief Justice Roberts to flip sides, throw out his credibility, his character and his allegiance to the Constitution, and find a way to spin it for the White House.

    As they say in DC, there’s usually a “dead girl or live boy” involved in such matters of Democratic power politics and coercion (though if you are a Kennedy or know Barney Frank, neither of those rules apply).

  10. New York Times investigates adoption records of Supreme Court nominee’s adopted children………….http://www.bigsoccer.com/community/threads/ny-slimes-investigates-adoption-records-of-supreme-court-nominees-children.227991/………

  11. Does Chief Justice Roberts have offshore slush funds, potentially in violation of Federal law? Hopefully Breitbart is digging…

    http://www.dailypaul.com/154751/slush-fund-of-top-politicians-found-at-vatican-bank-obama-clinton-roberts-legatus-split

    We know he’s more than eager to whitewash issues of ethics (as are many entitlement-attitude Harvard pedigreed progressives), as the Justice Integrity Project reports: http://justice-integrity.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=533&catid=44&sectionid=1&Itemid=1

  12. If it’s not the job of the Supreme Court to protect the American people from government overreach and abuse, why the h- are we paying them?

  13. ++

    unsignedjoint dissent

    ==

  14. I said when ObamaCare was first passed people like Ben Nelson would bury their face in their hands some day and weep over the tyranny they have started. I imagine it may be the same with Justice Roberts. If they have a conscience that is.

  15. Traitor should resign from the Court and go work at a MacDonalds.

    Megyn Kelly interviewed a couple of lawyers following this disastrous decision. One had helped argue the case before SCOTUS.

    He said the same thing #6 Pink Tie did. Well, everything but “Traitor” and “go work at a McDonald’s.”

  16. Sorry folks the link doesn’t provide alot of detail ……….This was from Drudge in Aug 4, 2005…………NewYork Times investagates adoption Records of Supreme Court nominee’s Children………Drudge report has uncovered a plot in the NewYork Times’newsroom to look into the adoption of the children of Supreme Court Nominee John G.Roberts .The Times has investigative reporter Glen Justice hot on the case to investigate adoption records of John Roberts ‘two young children ,Josie age 5 and Jack age 4,a top source reveals………..Judge Roberts and his wife Jane adopted the children both children where adopted from Latin America…..

  17. Roberts decision will result in the deaths of the unborn, the elderly, and all others seen as a “bad risk” for soon to be precious health care resources. The momentum has unfortunately just shifted back to the Progressives.

  18. I am in my mid sixties, and thus a potential victim of the so called death panels. While I am in good health now I cannot foresee this state of affairs lasting forever. Should I be denied care under this odious system, I may indeed go into that “good night”, but I will not go quietly, nor will I go alone.

  19. Resign you Freaking coward!

  20. ++

    ponderon #16 July 2, 2012 at 11:11 am

    New York Times Investigates Adoption
    Records of John Roberts Children
    8/05

    more links..

    ==



1 2 3 4


`

© Copyright 2014, TheGatewayPundit.com. All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms and Conditions