Saturday, June 30, 2012

3 Possibilities: What convinced John Roberts to change his mind at the last minute and stab the conservative justices in the back?

Last night Mark Levin said that he had finished reading the entire SCOTUS decision on Obamacare three separate times. His conclusion is that "the Supreme Court is not a happy place."

His believable claim is that John Roberts -- at the very last moment -- changed his vote that would have struck down both the Individual Mandate and Obamacare. This claim did not originate with Levin. Various observers noted discrepancies in the opinions (e.g., Justice Ginsburg wrote as part of the "dissent"), including Senator Mike Lee, who clerked for Justice Alito.

[Lee] expressed concern about the “intimidation tactics” being used by Democrats and President Obama in preemptively attacking the Supreme Court, which “seemed to suggest that it’s just the job of the Supreme Court…to grant the imprimatur of constitutional legitimacy to any duly enacted major legislation.”

I asked if he thought these tactics may have influenced Roberts.

“I certainly think that was the intent underlying those statements,” he said. “I try not to engage in too many layers of speculation, so I can’t prove that Chief Justice Roberts switched his vote. There are certainly signals to that effect here. But even if we reach that conclusion, we can’t be certain without Chief Justice Roberts telling us that he was influenced by that or any other single factor. But what we do know is that was the rather clear intent of those that were making those statements and there are certainly signals Chief Justice Roberts changed his mind and changed his vote, just based on the way the opinions are set up.”

What were the intimidation tactics used by the Left?

Democrats far and wide pinpointed Roberts as threatening the legitimacy of the Supreme Court would he have overturned Obamacare.

• Sen. Patrick Leahy, self-admitted socialist from Vermont, was accused of trying to intimidate Roberts: "Leahy took to the Senate floor to warn the Supreme Court, particularly Chief Justice John Roberts, not to strike down the Affordable Care Act."

• In April, Barack Obama threw in his two cents, asserting that the act of a Supreme Court in throwing out a law as unconstitutional would be "unprecedented" (note: of course it's not, it's occurred over 100 times in American history): "I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."

• Former Clinton administration official Robert Reich wrote: "The immediate question is whether the Chief Justice, John Roberts, understands the tenuous position of the Court he now runs."

New Republic legal affairs editor Jeffrey Rosen stated, "The health care case will undoubtedly define his chief justiceship."

Given this as background, what possible reason would Roberts have for changing his mind at the last moment?

Option 1: Vanity

According to Washington insiders, Roberts enjoys nothing more than reading his press clippings. Howard Kurtz described Roberts:
...a longtime pillar of the Washington legal establishment, a member of the ultra-posh Chevy Chase Club, and someone who acquaintances say cares deeply about how he is portrayed in the press.
In this scenario, the combination of a man concerned with his image plus an unprecedented public intimidation campaign against Roberts, ultimately convinced him to change his vote.

Option 2: More Nefarious Threats

A conspiracy theory to be sure, but -- after all -- it's the Chicago Machine we're talking about. And the Obama administration and its various appendages haven't been shy about breaking new ground when it comes to presidential lawbreaking.

Allowing thousands of military-grade weapons to fall into the hands of the Mexican drug cartels, presumably to build up public support for stricter gun control measures, isn't exactly playing patty-cake.

Was a more serious and material threat directed at Roberts and his family?

Option 3: Promises

Another conspiracy theory revolves around a special "gift" to Roberts. Would a man fixated on joining an "ultra-posh" country club like, say, an extra $10 million to make his life easier and less stressful?

Obviously, it's doubtful we would ever know. Using electronic funds transfer and offshore accounts, such a gift could be executed surreptitiously, protecting all parties from unwanted publicity.

So which of the three options is it?

Besides these three options, I see no other logical explanations for Roberts' late switch on the most important Supreme Court decision in a generation. Something was behind his flip. And I'm betting that something would be profoundly disturbing should the American people ever find out.


Matthew W said...

Option # 1
Vanity and EGO

This puts the stamp of history on the "Robert's Court"

Anonymous said...

vanity and the desire to be accepted by the beltway elites. this disease afflicts nearly the entire senate and many long time house members also. think of Washington as one giant special interest with enormous power, which will stop at nothing to protect and defend it's territory. It's the enemy of a free people.
Washington and it's connected cronies and enablers (unions, Hollywood, antique media) is at war with country.

Anonymous said...

#4: None of The Above

The only thing standing between America and a Dictator is The Roberts Court. We only have 3 branches of government. Obama has neutered Congress and has been attacking the court since his first State of the Union. The court maintains legitimacy only so long as the country perceives it as legitimate. Roberts ruling returned the power to keep or strike Obamacare to the people while maintaining the integrity of the court, bolstering the 10th Admendment, limiting Federal Power, removing the teeth of the law, and, buy relabeling it a tax, providing procedures for repeal. Brilliant. If America doesn't want Obamacare we must get rid of Obama. What the Chief Justice gave us was the ability to use free will, and there's nothing more Constitutional than that.

Zilla said...

Also possible:
#4 A seizure that effected his mental capacity
or (related)
#5 his mind was effected by seizure medication
I forget where I read that, maybe it was from someone who linked to Michael Savage.

But my first thought when I heard the news was that "someone got to him".
lgstarr has a post with more on the thug tactics to intimidate by the 0 regime, and also on the growing body count of those who had become inconvenient or displeased 0bamao.

Anonymous said...

I have a dog who has seizures.

Sometimes, due to the meds, He sits there and stares into space or barks at things that aren't really there.

I've also seen him, a few times after having one, run at full speed, head first, straight into a wall.

Before or after a seizure, your brain can do really strange things. That time period can last from a few minutes to a a few weeks, depending on the person.

So it's not unrealistic to think his Epilepsy and treatment could cause problems.

But I actually think he was somehow coerced. That seems to be Obama's Modus Operandi.

My bets are on blackmail.

Anonymous said...

You left out one conspiracy theory. Several court watchers in the past have claimed that justices have switched their votes specifically because Justice Scalia was so arrogant that he would offend them in the back and forth of writing opinions and they would change their votes. Maybe that happened this time or maybe they just made the right decision. I mean after all, if it is legal for the Feds to require us to buy retirement insurance (social security) why wouldn't it be legal to require us to buy health insurance.

Anonymous said...

I hope one day to have another Mafia goon from NY threaten me with unemployment, I'm not 16 any more.
Look at what Barry communicated personally and through his lackeys - and one has to say Roberts was coerced. Now it is up to us to say "no".

Anonymous said...

I wasn't particularly happy with the decision but I'm not comfortable with suggesting that the President threatened a Supreme Court justice's family or accusing the Chief Justice of accepting a bribe with zero evidence to suggest either took place.

Punditry in a vacuum is all very well but the simple truth is that we don't know why Roberts decided as he did and, unless he chooses to explain himself further, we never will.

directorblue said...

@Anon 8:59 -

#2 and #3 are properly labeled "conspiracy theories".

That said, we have a particularly lawless administration running the Executive.

Americans should be cognizant of said lawlessness, because the ramifications are truly ominous.

Georg Felis said...

Once you have paid the Danegeld, you will never be rid of the Dane.

Once you have buckled to the screaming of the League of the Perpetually Outraged, they will never cease their attacks upon you in order to sway your opinion.

You know all that screaming and whining the Dems did in the press over the last few months? It's going to double, and then some.

The_Bad said...

I think Anon@4:36 has it right. Less than 6 months before America votes to keep or fire a President who promised no tax increases on those who make less than $250k, the Roberts court determined that this law is the largest tax increase in the history of the world ... one which 75% of will be paid by those making under $120k.

Now, it is up to Americans to throw the bums out of office and to put this law into the circular file cabinet.