Inside SCOTUS

 Posted by at 11:44 am  Politics
Jul 022012
 

I have always pictured the Supreme Court of the United States as a very formal setting, where collegiality and propriety prevail at all times.  In addition, Justices regularly claim that the atmosphere was non-political.  A rare glimpse inside SCOTUS puts both those myths to rest.

SCOTUS3Chief 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… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <CBS>

This actually surprised me.  To a large extent I had bought into the myths about the decorum of the court, even though I knew that the Court id dominated by right-wing political activists.  I suppose it’s time to smell the coffee.

This tends to validate my position that Roberts wanted to goose step with the Republican Regime, but so soon after unconstitutionally deciding Citizens United, he correctly determined that unconstitutionally overturning the ACA, would permanently stain the legacy of the Court that bears his name.

The partisan bullying pursued by the other Republican activists underlines the importance of reelecting Barack Obama and keeping Republicans out of the White House, as the following graphic demonstrates.

ScotusNew

Share

  14 Responses to “Inside SCOTUS”

  1. Phyllis says:
    July 2, 2012 at 12:55 pm

    The decision, however arrived upon , is what really counts : Somehow Robert Court got it right :
    Most important : It underscores the need to VOTE — only getting out the vote for President Obama will make us all safer-
     

  2. SoINeedAName says:
    July 2, 2012 at 1:51 pm

    There was a very prescient observation back in March by Brian Beutler of Talking Points Memo during oral arguments titled "John Roberts May Have Tipped His Hand On ‘Obamacare’ Reasoning"  that turns out to be spot on.  Two quick exchanges during Oral Arguments setup how Roberts easily concluded that the mandate, at least inside the walls of the Supreme Court, functions as a tax.
     
    First, Solicitor General’s exchange with Justice Kagan opens the door to that consideration:
     

    JUSTICE KAGAN: I suppose, though, General, one question is whether the determined efforts of Congress not to refer to this as a tax make a difference. I mean, you’re suggesting we should just look to the practical operation. We shouldn’t look at labels. And that seems right, except that here we have a case in which Congress determinedly said, this is not a tax, and the question is why should that be irrelevant?

     

    SOLICITOR GENERAL VERRILLI: I don’t think that that’s a fair characterization of the actions of Congress here, Justice Kagan. On the — December 23rd, a point of constitutional order was called, too, in fact, with respect to this law. The floor sponsor, Senator Baucus, defended it as an exercise of the taxing power. In his response to the point of order, the Senate voted 60 to 39 on that proposition. The legislative history is replete with members of Congress explaining that this law is constitutional as an exercise of the taxing power. It was attacked as a tax by its opponents. So I don’t think this is a situation where you can say that Congress was avoiding any mention of the tax power.

     
    Then this exchange between Chief Justice Roberts and the Plaintiffs attorney, Katsas (BOO!):
     

    CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: But the idea that the mandate is something separate from whether you want to call it a penalty or tax just doesn't seem to make much sense.

     

    MR. KATSAS: It's entirely separate, and let me explain to you why.

     

    CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: It's a command. A mandate is a command. If there is nothing behind the command. It's sort of well what happens if you don't file the mandate? And the answer is nothing. It seems very artificial to separate the punishment from the crime….

    Why would you have a requirement that is completely toothless? You know, buy insurance or else. Or else what? Or else nothing.

     
    And this is what Beutler wrote way back in March:
     

    For over a year now, observers and experts have assumed that the court’s final decision will hinge on the extent of Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce. But the justices could also upend that conventional wisdom, and in a worrying sign for the plaintiffs on Monday, Roberts unexpectedly highlighted one way they could do that.

     

    In an exchange with a plaintiffs’ attorney, Roberts suggested he’s skeptical that the mandate and its penalties can be treated separately and may have opened the door to finding that Congress’ power to impose the mandate springs from its broad taxing power.

    [snip]

    That wasn’t what the challengers wanted to hear. A key feature of their argument is that the individual mandate is distinct from the fine the government will assess on people who fail to purchase insurance. They say the case isn’t about Congress’ power to tax or penalize people but rather about its power to force people to take actions they may not want to take. Roberts dismissed this distinction.

     
    http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/03/did-john-roberts-throw-a-wrench-in-major-argument-against-obamacare.php

  3. Rixar13 says:
    July 2, 2012 at 4:26 pm

    "This tends to validate my position that Roberts wanted to goose step with the Republican Regime, but so soon after unconstitutionally deciding Citizens United, he correctly determined that unconstitutionally overturning the ACA, would permanently stain the legacy of the Court that bears his name."
    I am very relieved however, Tea-Baggie Rick Scott and AG Pam Bondi are not following the rule of law again.. sigh

  4. Lynn Squance says:
    July 2, 2012 at 11:52 pm

    And you thought that SCOTUS was a very formal setting, where collegiality and propriety prevail at all times.  Well here is a description of the Supreme Court of Canada from Wikipedia.
     
    "At sittings of the Court, the justices usually appear in black silk robes [with white collars and two white tails (ties)] but they wear their ceremonial robes of bright scarlet trimmed with Canadian white mink in court on special occasions and in the Senate at the opening of each new session of Parliament."
     
    Although no mention is made of it, they may also still wear the white horsehair wigs on ceremonial occasions, similar to those that were worn in Britain and Australia.  Auch!  itchy!
     
    CBS — "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." — For the law to be just, it must be truly blind to all influences, both conservative and liberal.  It seems however for Thomas that it is okay to be unduly influenced by right wing partisan politics, but not by any liberal ideas that might stick like dog scat on his shoe.  Heaven forbid that SCOTUS should actually be non-partisan! 
     
    "The partisan bullying pursued by the other Republican activists underlines the importance of reelecting Barack Obama and keeping Republicans out of the White House, . . ." — AMEN!!!  Love the graphic
     
    Vote Democrat 2012!!!!!     Vote Obama/Biden 2012!!!!!
     

  5. Patty says:
    July 3, 2012 at 4:48 am

    SCOTUS was at one time an honorable part of our government. At least Roberts realized the legacy his court would leave with their Right -wing decisions and upheld the law this time. I really do hope Scalia and Kennedy retire while Pres. Obama enjoys his second term in the White House.

  6. Jack Jodell says:
    July 3, 2012 at 8:36 am

    The conservative SCOTUS judges are stubborn, inconsiderate pigs who are NOT acting in the interest of the majority of citizens. The fabulous chart at bottom summarizes why Romney must NOT be elected!!!

  7. Lynn Squance says:
    July 3, 2012 at 11:19 am

    PS forgot to say that I just love that kangaroo court  teabuggery party!

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.