General Discussion

pacalo

(24,857 posts)

49. My focus was first on the the switched votes between Roberts & Kennedy.

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 02:19 AM

Jun 2012

I wondered if there had been some collusion between the two to break the public's perception of fixed ideology on the court. It'll take many years to break that perception, though; Scalia & Thomas have irreversibly tainted the public's confidence in the court.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

120 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Maybe it's me but something is really fishy about Roberts supporting ACA [View all] LynneSin Jun 2012 OP

Maybe, just for once Mz Pip Jun 2012 #1

You know what, I hope that is the case LynneSin Jun 2012 #2

"The people" wanted the bill to go farther than it did. EFerrari Jun 2012 #4

Well they'd better rise to this occasion Mz Pip Jun 2012 #8

I believe you are referring to the Dem leadership after the Clintons' proposal failed. EFerrari Jun 2012 #14

I believe MZ is referring to taking the single payer advocates out of the room and killing public op robinlynne Jun 2012 #112

If Ted Kennedy was alive we would've had the public option. joshcryer Jun 2012 #43

But it was Max Baucus who wouldn't let single-payer advocates, Art_from_Ark Jun 2012 #55

Single payer wasn't going to happen despite having the votes in the House. joshcryer Jun 2012 #56

Of course it wasn't going happen Art_from_Ark Jun 2012 #58

Fair enough. joshcryer Jun 2012 #59

The single-payer advocates should at least have been allowed their say Art_from_Ark Jun 2012 #62

We agree. joshcryer Jun 2012 #63

The outcome was a foregone conclusion when the Bill was structured by Baucus rather leveymg Jun 2012 #92

I remember Baucus' blow up well. Ironically he was courting Olympia Snowe. joshcryer Jun 2012 #119

+1 leveymg Jun 2012 #120

I think he recognized that the SCOTUS would lose what was left of its legitimacy if it struck ACA. backscatter712 Jun 2012 #19

My thoughts exactly. But adding one more thing. PFunk Jun 2012 #34

That's precisely what Robert Reich predicted, very much like the New Deal flip. joshcryer Jun 2012 #42

My focus was first on the the switched votes between Roberts & Kennedy. pacalo Jun 2012 #49

Correct. hifiguy Jun 2012 #100

+1 robinlynne Jun 2012 #113

No Way! RobertEarl Jun 2012 #3

I think he did it to avoid the 'single payer' evolution alittlelark Jun 2012 #5

If I were a cynic, I would agree with you, Volaris Jun 2012 #27

I think this was an extremely hard call for him rufus dog Jun 2012 #6

I think there is some truth to this. Mz Pip Jun 2012 #10

W fucked up again? Gman Jun 2012 #47

How will the guy who was the father of 'Obamcare' ultimately run against it ? n/t PoliticAverse Jun 2012 #7

It was akin to a backhanded compliment. morningfog Jun 2012 #9

You know this guy and who he hangs with. EFerrari Jun 2012 #11

Maybe he saw this video: FarLeftFist Jun 2012 #12

The problem with that kid was she was born LynneSin Jun 2012 #22

It could very well be a "good cop, bad cop" sort of thing Art_from_Ark Jun 2012 #13

Roberts may have developed a new perspective loyalsister Jun 2012 #15

Observing someone's behavior over the course of their career is not the same EFerrari Jun 2012 #17

Do you believe there is a distinction between behavior and opinions? loyalsister Jun 2012 #20

As I said, observing behavior over an entire career EFerrari Jun 2012 #25

What behaviors are you referring to? loyalsister Jun 2012 #28

He's an umpire Ter Jun 2012 #51

He's not a robotic umpire loyalsister Jun 2012 #53

Oh definitely Ter Jun 2012 #99

I understand that loyalsister Jun 2012 #105

Agreed, NO trust for ROBERTS here. Tweety was drooling over his "integrity" today. UTUSN Jun 2012 #16

Of course Roberts voted for it. woo me with science Jun 2012 #18

Gotta agree here. It's collusion w the ins companies, plus (IMHO) a hopeful boost to the RW Nay Jun 2012 #24

We have reached a point of deliberate partisan delusion in this party. woo me with science Jun 2012 #80

Agree Strelnikov_ Jun 2012 #37

Money usually trumps everything, woo me with science Jun 2012 #65

LOL joshcryer Jun 2012 #40

That for-profit health insurance industry that spent millions lobbying against the bill..... jeff47 Jun 2012 #50

They were just pretending to be against it. joshcryer Jun 2012 #60

And the insurance companies just pretended to be *writing* it woo me with science Jun 2012 #73

They lobbied hard for aspects of it, that's for sure. joshcryer Jun 2012 #118

Agree sandyshoes17 Jun 2012 #77

At a certain point, woo me with science Jun 2012 #82

Exactly right. Who benefits? Warren Stupidity Jun 2012 #89

I think you nailed it. It's all part of the theater so we don't recognize that bbgrunt Jun 2012 #91

I've read elsewhere that Roberts may have had his 'Road to Damascus' coalition_unwilling Jun 2012 #21

I'm kinda hoping that is the case LynneSin Jun 2012 #23

Add to that he's showing Scalia who's boss. DevonRex Jun 2012 #38

Lyne courts have been rather partisan in the past nadinbrzezinski Jun 2012 #41

I know that lifetime appointments are distressing, but if we did not have them, JDPriestly Jun 2012 #67

It's already subject to the political influence LynneSin Jun 2012 #85

It would be worse if the appointments were shorter term. JDPriestly Jun 2012 #109

True and since they are there for life, they don't have to stay liberal or conservative treestar Jun 2012 #108

Maybe his kids or wife told him "Don't be a dick today" the morning he made up mind. Hoyt Jun 2012 #26

Nice=)... Volaris Jun 2012 #29

Talk was that he didn't Control-Z Jun 2012 #30

Then why did he uphold Citizen United the day before LynneSin Jun 2012 #32

I have no idea. Control-Z Jun 2012 #52

'cause I think he thought the public wouldn't notice it much. PFunk Jun 2012 #87

Most people would want to uphold their own previous decision muriel_volestrangler Jun 2012 #94

But he wasn't on the court leftynyc Jun 2012 #64

It is not my argument. Control-Z Jun 2012 #104

Earl Warren Republican did not start out as a liberal or as a progressive. gordianot Jun 2012 #31

Roberts is The Big Cheese now. He is NOT "beholden" to the GOP anymore. MADem Jun 2012 #33

We're talking one right vote out of hundreds! he has presided and voted in hudnreds of bad decisons robinlynne Jun 2012 #115

Well, I haven't heard about "hundreds" of bad decisions. MADem Jun 2012 #117

maybe he doesn't want to continue being a partisan hack Skittles Jun 2012 #35

you can see it as veganlush Jun 2012 #36

he also didn't want to court itself to become an election issue to rally dems. PFunk Jun 2012 #88

According to the lawyer I talked to today nadinbrzezinski Jun 2012 #39

I, too, thought from early on that this should be considered to be an exercise of the tax and JDPriestly Jun 2012 #69

Well it was written in tax committees. nadinbrzezinski Jun 2012 #103

Good point. JDPriestly Jun 2012 #106

I wanted to think that Roberts is protecting the integrity of the court but Gman Jun 2012 #44

you spelled it out clearly. thanks. bbgrunt Jun 2012 #93

May be a plot. May have been an epiphany considering his strokes as suggested on a thread. freshwest Jun 2012 #45

perhaps it was because he has Epilepsy, and empathizes with those who don't have insurance? /nt still_one Jun 2012 #46

That was suggested on another thread. Could be. freshwest Jun 2012 #48

The curious thing is he essentially wrote the argument that the government should have been making still_one Jun 2012 #97

The court conservatives were between a rock and a hard place eridani Jun 2012 #54

Erm, that's not Rober Riech's take... joshcryer Jun 2012 #61

That's an opinion eridani Jun 2012 #68

Reading his statements, I don't believe that's the case. joshcryer Jun 2012 #70

I'm more inclined to put my hopes in state level action eridani Jun 2012 #71

If there is any hope of a public option at all, it will come from the states. woo me with science Jun 2012 #75

you've got great instincts. bbgrunt Jun 2012 #95

fishy? he was a dick about it. pansypoo53219 Jun 2012 #57

He defined the mandate as a tax. For Republicans, that was a positive thing that JDPriestly Jun 2012 #66

+1 Exactly. And after a bit of delay, every repuke in the nation had a talking point. BumRushDaShow Jun 2012 #76

The REAL winners here are Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife. stlsaxman Jun 2012 #72

I agree with your reasoning customerserviceguy Jun 2012 #74

It's not fishy. He lays out his reasoning in the ruling stevenleser Jun 2012 #78

It is actually a pretty conservative ruling quaker bill Jun 2012 #79

I think this is a good point muriel_volestrangler Jun 2012 #96

Another DU thread has some insight on this Shrek Jun 2012 #81

Roberts is an establishment Republican who doesn't have to care about his approval rating Arkana Jun 2012 #83

I agree -- I find it very difficult to believe that we would get an honest vote out of Roberts Time for change Jun 2012 #84

He made sure in his opinion that the federal...... NCTraveler Jun 2012 #86

I don't think that Robert's vote had anything to do with avebury Jun 2012 #90

I think Roberts is more concerned about his legacy as Chief Justice and the Supreme Court itself. Hosnon Jun 2012 #98

Maybe to offset Kennedy. Kennedy trying to offset his past. Festivito Jun 2012 #101

Fishy as in red herring ? dipsydoodle Jun 2012 #102

I may try to read that part of the decision treestar Jun 2012 #107

Roberts did not make the decision for any 'legitimacy' of the court. former9thward Jun 2012 #110

You must read Robert Reich's article; Why the Supreme Court Will Uphold...Obamacare robinlynne Jun 2012 #111

It's about disabling the Commerce Clause. alarimer Jun 2012 #114

some "support" ... 30 pages of zbdent Jun 2012 #116