Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Marr

(20,317 posts)

16. Maybe he saw that, ultimately, this was an argument over a REPUBLICAN policy.

Reply to yurbud (Original post)

Sun Jul 1, 2012, 11:28 AM

Jul 2012

And that, were it struck down, the only other route would be Medicare for all. The demands for access to medical care certainly wouldn't disappear with the law, after all.

Roberts isn't an idiot, and he routinely uses his post to push a corporate political agenda. Whatever his motivation was in this particular decision, I think I'm safe in assuming he didn't just act on a devotion to legal principle.

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

22 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Was Roberts vote conservatism/neoliberalism blinking? [View all] yurbud Jun 2012 OP

I voted Other because TeamPooka Jun 2012 #1

This. He's a conservative judge, but as chief, didn't want to deligitimize the image of SCOTUS /nt Proles Jun 2012 #8

exactly TeamPooka Jun 2012 #9

so it was a lesser blink yurbud Jul 2012 #18

That's why I voted "Other" too...nt SidDithers Jun 2012 #10

I voted other because Roberts is the right age to know that act is a conservative idea Johonny Jul 2012 #14

I have no clue. Maybe Roberts is ill, we don't know it, and he's Sarah Ibarruri Jun 2012 #2

No, they never blink or quit or back down. MrSlayer Jun 2012 #3

if they never blinked, Bush would have figured out a way to privatize SS without congressional yurbud Jul 2012 #19

No. elleng Jun 2012 #4

He voted for a republican policy potentially limiting xchrom Jun 2012 #5

The five drew straws to see who was going to support the corporatists instead of the crazies.. Fumesucker Jun 2012 #6

He set a dangerous precedent Ruby the Liberal Jun 2012 #7

i just shuddered... silvershadow Jun 2012 #11

Here are a couple of articles about this Ruby the Liberal Jul 2012 #13

I see it more as conservatism and neoliberalism fluttering their eyelashes at one another Tom Ripley Jul 2012 #12

LOL EFerrari Jul 2012 #15

Maybe he saw that, ultimately, this was an argument over a REPUBLICAN policy. Marr Jul 2012 #16

I agree that going the other way COULD have led to Medicare for all, but... yurbud Jul 2012 #20

It was an entirely conservative ruling quaker bill Jul 2012 #17

one of the few times I was more optimistic than general DU opinion yurbud Jul 2012 #21

It was ROBERTS & KENNEDY doing a tandem stranglehold on both decision writing sides UTUSN Jul 2012 #22