[mattduke]

This weekend CBS News’ Jan Crawford reported that Chief Justice John Roberts switched his vote in regard to upholding the bulk of the Affordable Care Act. Crawford reports that Roberts voted with the rest of the court’s conservatives to strike down the individual mandate, but in the course of drafting his opinion changed his mind, and ended up siding with the court’s four liberals to uphold almost all of the law.

In response, according to Crawford’s story, the four conservatives then independently crafted a highly unusual joint dissent. If so, this would represent a powerful symbolic gesture: Joint Supreme Court opinions are rare. Normally a justice authors an individual opinion, which other justices may choose to join. Jointly authored opinions are reserved for momentous statements of principle, such as in Cooper v. Aaron, when all nine justices jointly authored an opinion declaring that the court’s anti-segregation decisions were binding on state governments that disagreed with the court’s constitutional interpretations.

Yet that, I am told by a source within the court with direct knowledge of the drafting process, is exactly what happened. My source insists that “most of the material in the first three quarters of the joint dissent was drafted in Chief Justice Roberts’ chambers in April and May.” Only the last portion of what eventually became the joint dissent was drafted without any participation by the chief justice.

Roberts wrote both the majority and the dissenting opinions. Four supreme court justices still vehemently believe Obamacare is unconstitutional. True to his words to flee to an "impregnable fortress", Roberts has fled to Malta.
http://www.salon.com/2012/07/03/roberts ... e_opinions
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/0 ... d-webmail1

[seahorse3]

I for one am glad to see a person, in particular a justice of the highest court, that can change an opinion- whether it was for ideological reasons- to keep this country united or bc he truly changed his opinion on the Constitutionality of the law, I am glad to see someone act with courage. It is one of those few moments that gives me hope in our institutions. And I applaud his courage even though I too felt like the law was unconstitutional, but it's not my decision.

[Plantagenet]

Roberts wrote both the majority and the dissenting opinions.

A classic example of what George Orwell called "doublethink" in his famous novel 1984, i.e. the ability to hold contradictory ideas at the same time. A more modern term for this is "cognitive dissonance."


"Obamacare is unconstitutional constitutional"

[Sixstrings]

Roberts wrote both the majority and the dissenting opinions.

A classic example of what George Orwell called "doublethink" in his famous novel 1984, i.e. the ability to hold contradictory ideas at the same time. A more modern term for this is "cognitive dissonance."

Law schools teach just this, how to examine all sides of an issue and be able to argue either side. In oral argument, the justices will ask all sorts of questions and play devil's advocate and examine the issues from all angles.

It's not cognitive dissonance, one just has to be extremely intelligent to be able to do that. That's how you figure things out. And that's what Roberts did.. he went down one road, struggled, then made a decision and went the other way.

[Sixstrings]

I for one am glad to see a person, in particular a justice of the highest court, that can change an opinion- whether it was for ideological reasons- to keep this country united or bc he truly changed his opinion on the Constitutionality of the law, I am glad to see someone act with courage. It is one of those few moments that gives me hope in our institutions. And I applaud his courage even though I too felt like the law was unconstitutional, but it's not my decision.

Agreed.

If the SCOTUS were always strict constitutionalists then we'd still be living in the 18th century. You WANT justices who aren't ideologues, who CAN think about the good of the country and figure out a way to make it constitutional when need be.

For example, Bush v. Gore. My feeling at the time was they did that for the good of the country. Florida was a mess, hanging and dimpled punchcard chads and people fighting over microscopic impressions that may or may not be intent to punch the chad. A protracted legal battle would have been a mess. So that's why they did it, agree or disagree.

Now conservatives must accept this as well. It's for the good of the country, we have a healthcare emergency here.

P.S. I predicted all this in that other thread. Kind of surprised to see my hunch turn out to be right. That's another angle here, Roberts knows how bad this court has been looking lately. He's chief justice. He cares about the reputation of the court and the future. Same thing when FDR was president, the Court had to wise up and back down after FDR threatened to pack them with more justices.

And besides.. the penalty IS a tax. So it's constitutional. Tea Party needs to re-read their Constitution, Congress has authority to tax. A mandate to participate in commerce that didn't have a tax for non-compliance, say jail time instead or some other penalty, could be unconstitutional.

Another way to think of it.. I'm not married and I have no kids, so I'm being taxed higher as a penalty. I can either keep paying my higher taxes or I can marry and have kids. Government is influencing behavior here with tax penalties, like it or not it is constitutional.

Lastly, we really do have a healthcare crisis. I saw a thing on CNN the other day, the US Army is now doing field hospitals to help desperate impoverished Americans -- not really to help them, it's to train for 3rd world nations overseas.

[seahorse3]

The lesson here is maybe we should all follow his lead, reach out across the aisle, and work together. It's harder to now than ever. I've always believed that the hardest thing to do in life is to do what's right, whether it's what your eating, studying, exercising and in this case making fundamental decisions about policy. Everyone in the three branches should follow his lead and work together. It's easier to simply become entrenched in the Somme and go nowhere. It's harder to quit fighting and work with each other. Whether his decision was right or wrong on the Constitution, to get mired in that debate misses the bigger picture of what he did and what we should all do on this forum. I tire of all the personal attacks between many of the posters here, everyone picking an ideological position and then keeping score like this is all a game. It's not a game to me. I would like to understand the world we live in, the facts, and work towards a common goal which benefits us all.

[dinopello]

I for one am glad to see a person, in particular a justice of the highest court, that can change an opinion- whether it was for ideological reasons- to keep this country united or bc he truly changed his opinion on the Constitutionality of the law, I am glad to see someone act with courage. It is one of those few moments that gives me hope in our institutions.

Amen to that ! I suspect that those who think this would be odd have never served on a deliberative body where you must render a binary vote on a complex issue. I've only been on a few advisory commissions and a corporate board and just from that realize you can go into something being sure you are going to vote one way but after deliberation and contemplation come out differently. This is the whole point to having discussion and thought.

[Cloud9]

Roberts saved the second amendment. I am pleased as punch with him.