Inside Sources Say Chief Justice Roberts Compromised

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.


You Might Like