It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Chief Justice, John Roberts, A Loose Cannon?

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 11:39 AM
I have to admit that the Supreme Court has gone off the deep end with their rulings in the past week. Just my humble inarticulate non-attorney speak. After the decision from yesterday, I am beginning to think that Justice John Roberts is a loose cannon? I did not come to this conclusion on my own, and others have implied as much.

Those are two examples of how much of a shocker Robert's legal opinion was from both sides of the divide. Apparently, the good Justice changed his mind at the last minute? Lets take into account that Justice Roberts is a known epileptic, and had a few attacks.

John Bryson and others could help demystify seizures

On July 30, 2007, Chief Justice John Roberts collapsed on a boat dock at his Maine summer home. Although that seizure was Roberts' second, he offered little explanation. When Time magazine asked "Does Justice Roberts Have Epilepsy?" Roberts didn't answer, and he hasn't in five years.

Roberts Facing Medical Option on 2nd Seizure

But the drugs can have troubling side effects, including drowsiness or insomnia, weight loss or weight gain, rashes, irritability, mental slowing and forgetfulness. Many patients can be treated with minimal side effects, doctors say, but it may take trial and error to find the right drug.

I have heard from various sources that Robert's swing vote came at the last minute, and by all accounts his initial opinion was inline with other Conservative orientated Justices? Something happened? Of course the left is absolutely silent about his medical situation, and years ago it was an issue for them. I suppose if he had ruled in favor of dismantling Obamacare his medical history would have been cited by them. However, in a strange role reversal Roberts is getting attacked by his supporters over his medical history. Perhaps, he thought about his medical history coming up for not making a decision inline with the President? How can we forget the veiled pressures being flung by the White House in the direction of the Supreme Court leading up to the ruling.

Obama takes a shot at Supreme Court over healthcare

"And I'd just remind conservative commentators that, for years, what we have heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism, or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law," Obama said.

"Well, this is a good example, and I'm pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step," he said.

Maybe the President and his subordinates payed Roberts a visit the "Chicago Way," and made a offer he could not refuse? All I am saying is something was off yesterday. I mean we have a Justice that is perceived as liberal, Anthony Kennedy, motioning for the legislation to be eliminated altogether?

Kennedy slams 'judicial overreaching'

Supreme Court Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy slammed his colleagues for “a vast judicial overreaching” on Thursday by upholding key provisions of President Barack Obama’s health care law.

Reading his dissent from the bench, Kennedy wasted little time explaining where he and the court’s conservative justices stood on the Affordable Care Act.

“In our view, the act before us is invalid in its entirety,” Kennedy said.

I say again, what the heck happened yesterday? Chief Justice Roberts could be a loose end for all of us? Either way, both sides would have pounced on him if he did not rule in their favor. Perhaps, he is beholden to them instead of the American people and the US Constitution? There seems to be something amiss?
edit on 29-6-2012 by Jakes51 because: Formatting errors. Added more text and another source.

posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 05:58 PM
reply to post by Jakes51

Heres a Conspiracy for you. He did this KNOWING it would get Republicans, out to vote for Romney, in hopes of Romney, REPEALING this monstrosity . People are very angry about this.


posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 07:58 PM
reply to post by sonnny1

It is certainly a conspiracy. Whether it is an example of Roberts performing a get out the vote scheme to help Romney remains to be seen? However, like I have said on another thread. His swing vote helped the Obama campaign immensely. This victory is something he can pander to his base about, and smear in the face of his opposition. He may have very well gave Obama all the ammo needed to get re-elected? Most of his first term was centered around the success of this legislation. This victory gives him the opportunity to speak all high and mighty. On another note, Roberts was in and remains in a precarious situation. His health is something each side can comment on if a vote does not go their way. For example, I just saw an article with the MSM stating that Roberts may have saved the US Supreme Court with his vote?

Why Did Roberts Do It?

Why did he do it? Quite simply, to save the court. As Jeffrey Rosen has noted, the ACA case was John Roberts’ moment of truth—and today’s opinion proves that Roberts knew it. In the aftermath of Bush v. Gore and Citizens United, the percentage of Americans who say they have “quite a lot” or a “great deal” of confidence in the Supreme Court has dipped to the mid-30s. A 5-4 decision to strike down Obamacare along party lines, whatever its reasoning, would have been received by the general public as yet more proof that the court is merely an extension of the nation’s polarized politics. Add the fact that the legal challenges to the individual mandate were at best novel and at worst frivolous, and suddenly a one-vote takedown of the ACA looks like it might undermine the court’s very legitimacy.

So now, Roberts is the so-called hero of the left and the President of the United States. However, what if the vote was the other way around, and Obamacare was ruled unconstitutional? You can bet the MSM and the left would have been frothing at the bit over it. In a strange twist, the shoe is on the other foot and Roberts is now under attack by the Right. Are we living in the Twilight Zone?

posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 08:20 PM
reply to post by Jakes51

You are missing the most important fact about Justice John Roberts, he is a conservative judge that was appointed by then president Bush.

He with his rewording of the so call "mandate" that is actually unconstitutional and changing it to "tax" just handle over the presidency of the US on November to the Republicans again.

He was just brilliant, regardless of what pro Obamacare say to you or may think the so call rewording of the mandate under tax has to go to congress again to dictate the guidelines of how to enforce that tax.

Is election year, not politician right now will touch the subject of taxing Americans and voters, so actually the Obamacare implementation will start at some point but without the redefinition of the tax you are still not obligated to buy it.

Because is one thing Americans are afraid is taxes and the IRS, Justice Roberts did the biggest favor for the Republicans to win the elections in November, making the new tax a big issue and people will do anything to stop more taxes.

Nobody wants more taxes, and neither the IRS breathing with new powers behind everybody's arses.

posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 08:33 PM
reply to post by marg6043

Perhaps, he may have pulled a Jedi Mind Trick? It would have been much easier to toss the whole thing in the waste basket and start from scratch. It took years to get this legislation off the ground in the first place.

Mandate or tax can be dealt with by Obama and his supporters. He just wanted a victory, and he got one from Justice Robert's swing vote. They can spin the details anyway they see fit. His monster is alive and breathing. That is all that matters. It would have been so much easier to strike it down, and have the President send its remains back to Congress if he wanted it re-animated. We will have to see what happens come November?
edit on 29-6-2012 by Jakes51 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 09:19 PM
reply to post by Jakes51

No really because it was not for Justice Robert to legislate about the Obamacare but the main purpose of the bill brought to the supreme by the 30 states opposing it was the constitutionality of the "mandate".

Actually Roberts just told Obama in other words that if he wanted his bill in his totality including the clause he will have to redefine the mandate and make it tax, as a mandate it can not be implemented as a tax it can.

But this have to go to congress, do not expect congress to do anything in election year.

If Romney becomes president that mandate AKA tax will probably never happen, but that doesn't mean that the Obamacare bill will be completely death, I find not reason why healthcare can not be affordable and that people have to be denied care or denied insurance due health problems, my issue is with the mandate AKA tax.

So let see what happen in November.

posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 09:25 PM
I think he is brave to go with his judgement regardless of political consequence

shame on those claiming he was bought

sour grapes, and ironic because if he had voted the other way just to please the party that put him on the scotus they would be ok with it

posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 09:39 PM
reply to post by Jakes51

One of the weird things about law that I have learned over the years is that of judges following other judges opinions. While this adds some predictability to the practice of law, it does not allow us to explore each issue with a refreshed viewpoint. One of the things I noticed in the opinion issued the other day was some key decisions which the court relied on to justify its opinion.

1.) The Courts must assume the law is constitutional; and,
2.) If it isn't Constitutional as written whether it can be justified under another power of the Constitution.

SCOTUS did exactly that. Saying that a mandate is unconstitutional, but that it could be called a tax and remain constitutional. I'm not sure how that makes the Chief Justice a loose cannon. As you noted ruling one way or another would have subjected him to scorn. Just because he changed his mind at the last minute to me, makes me think he was actually thinking about the issues, and impact of those issues. Unlike many of the horses in the race that chose their side before even hearing the issue.

posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 09:46 PM
Good thing his post is for LIFE.

As Chief Justice of the Supreme Court...he's got the safest job in the madhouse called Washington D.C.

he's still young, everyone in the Congress will have been replaced by the time he goes anywhere.

a man has certainly overestimated himself when he thinks John Roberts is someone he should focus his energy on.

posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 01:39 AM
reply to post by marg6043

Well put! I suppose you are correct in your assessment. The mandate was unconstitutional, but how can the government impose a tax on this as well? His opinion did not make any sense to me. Let me say that I am no lawyer. However, if a piece of legislation is full of red herring as this one seems to be? Why not toss it out in its entirety? That is all I am saying.

As it stands now, the bill is largely intact, and is set to come full circle in a few years. I think it is scheduled to be implemented in its entirety in 2014 or something? I am all for this thing going back to Congress, and hopefully they can sort things out as should have been done in the first place. I believe the government should step in to some degree on the matter of healthcare like the preexisting condition controversy, but I don't think they should take it over entirely. Or penalize a person for not getting health insurance. That is just me though, and I still think this bill is train wreck. We will have to wait on November to see how things shake out.

posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 01:51 AM
reply to post by ExPostFacto

I only implied that he may be a loose cannon as account of the general consensus among those opining about the decision on the left and the right. The report by the Young Turks goes on as saying that the other more conservative Justices apparently believed that Chief Justice Roberts was on their side when it came down to making a final ruling on the matter.

Then out of the blue, Roberts switched votes and ruled in favor of the bill minus the mandate. When in all reality, it looked like it was going to be quashed altogether with the ruling by the three conservatives and the ruling by often liberal orientated Justice, Anthony Kennedy. That seems to be the shocker. I have to say that this last week in June 2012 will be mulled over for many years to come by legal scholars of today and those whom have yet to be born. What a wild week!

posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 01:52 AM

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
I think he is brave to go with his judgement regardless of political consequence

shame on those claiming he was bought

sour grapes, and ironic because if he had voted the other way just to please the party that put him on the scotus they would be ok with it

Like I said earlier. How do you know this wasn't the "plan" all along ? Do you know how many people are angry,with this decision ? Do you think Obama is going to get more votes,because this thing was upheld ?

posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 02:00 AM
reply to post by sonnny1

I think it could give Obama more votes, because this was the hot button issue during his first term. We all know that his administration has been affected by scandals and repeated failures. As it stands now, his bill remains intact minus the mandate, and you can bet that this victory is going to be cashed in as much as possible during the campaign.

It is going to be rubbed in everyone's face, and including the Republican candidate. Personally, I think that someone got to Chief Justice Roberts, but that is my tin hat conspiracy. Somebody may have something juicy on him, or something about his epilepsy was threatened to be released. Just my opinion.I think the ruling helped Obama, and weakened the Republican footing.
edit on 30-6-2012 by Jakes51 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 02:10 AM
I went through the gamut, from shock to confusion, disbelief, anger, & even wondering if someone had kidnapped his children. It simply made no sense.

So I went back & started reading through my notes on the bill. Now I see brilliance.

I haven't yet decided whether Roberts outsmarted everyone, or if the fallout is a positive byproduct of a traitorous call. We'll see.

But I'm hoping that he was crazy like a fox.
edit on 30-6-2012 by AtlasShrugging because: danged keyboard can't spell

posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 02:22 AM
So the crybabies are still going strong....
"calling a (Unenforcable) tax a tax in an election year"-brilliance?

Actually, raising taxes has been a big talking point for quite a while now.

Also: Ayn Rand relied on a government enforced monopoly to earn her livelyhood (She wrote books)

posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 02:26 AM
reply to post by AtlasShrugging

You bring up a lot of good points. I was upset yesterday, and remain so. However, I am still digesting the ramifications of the Supreme Court decision. Personally, I thought it was going to get thrown out. I think many thought that would happen. However, the Chief Justice shocked everyone.

Both sides were in awe from the Democrats to the Republicans. Furthermore, Justice Roberts piled on more complexity to already complex bill. Was there a method to his alleged madness? That remains to be seen? One thing is for certain, it has definitely raised the stakes politically for all involved. That was one heck of a curve ball!

new topics

top topics


log in