Breaking: Was Chief Justice John Roberts Intimidated into Upholding the Indivicual Mandate?

MAINSTREAM MEDIA REPORTER:  ROBERTS HAD DECIDED AGAINST HEALTH CARE BILL BEFORE HE VOTED FOR IT

by Sharon Rondeau

(Jul. 1, 2012) — On today’s Face the Nation, it was reported that U.S. Supreme court Chief Justice John Roberts had planned to vote against the health care bill and then changed his decision in May.

The decision, announced on June 28, 2012, has been described as “unexpected,” “a complete stunner,” and “surprising.”  The blogosphere has already suggested that Roberts could have been blackmailed into voting to uphold the law through a “backdoor” channel.

Legal and political reporter Jan Crawford told Norah O’Donnell this morning that “Roberts initially sided with the conservatives in this case and was prepared to strike down the heart of this law, the so-called individual mandate…”  But on Thursday, the Supreme Court’s decision indicated that Roberts was the fifth “liberal” vote which, in effect, “saved Obamacare.”

Roberts upheld the law as constitutional if viewed as a tax which Congress is authorized to collect, a factor about which Crawford said, “That strained argument had received almost no attention in the lower courts, which had uniformly rejected it. It was seen as a long-shot by the law’s supporters.”

Crawford reported that two sources close to the Supreme Court’s inner deliberations told her that Roberts had been set to vote with the other four “conservative” justices against the individual mandate.  Why then, did he “switch views?”

Roberts’ arguments against the individual mandate’s unconstitutionality are strong and sweeping in the first third of the opinion released on June 28, 2012.  The dissenting opinion has been described similarly by Crawford.

Roberts left the country for Malta the day after the Court’s decision was announced.  He has been called a “coward,” guilty of “treachery,”

The question “Is it fair to assume that Obama threatened the Supreme Court?” posted on June 28, 2012, presumably after the Court’s decision was announced, has been deleted. A slightly altered version of the question was published.

However, in early May, Canada Free Press has reported that “the Obama Administration has been quietly sending missives to the Supreme Court threatening that if it doesn’t rule in his favor on ObamaCare, Medicare will face disruption and “chaos.”  Therefore, if SCOTUS rules in favor of the US Constitution, Obama & Co will begin its campaign to either destroy Medicare or make those on it suffer greatly.  The Obama syndicate is said to be threatening to hold off Medicare payments to doctors and hospitals if SCOTUS does not comply with Obama’s demands and submit to him.”

Following oral argument by both sides on the debate of the health care bill in late March, Obama had “warned” an “unelected Supreme Court” not to declare the PPACA unconstitutional in what he said would be an “extraordinary step” for the court.  Following Obama’s public statement, a federal appeals court in Georgia demanded that putative Attorney General Eric Holder explain the regime’s opinion as to whether or not it believes that the courts “have the right to strike down a federal law.”

Why would Roberts want to rewrite his legacy?  Several law professors based in Washington, DC applauded Roberts’ decision.  A biased news source “thanked” Roberts for his decision.

Crawford called Roberts’ focus on the taxation issue a “lobbying effort.”  She reports that the four justices who joined in the dissenting opinion refused to join Roberts on any of the points he made in his decision for the majority.  While Roberts made strong statements about limiting Congress’s ability to interfere with people’s lives, he maintained that the “tax” interpretation of the individual mandate could be upheld as constitutional.  Included with his majority opinion was the statement, “It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”

Why would the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court make such a statement?  Was Roberts “stared down” by Obama?  Why did Roberts take a “long-shot” approach to upholding the mandate?

Although Roberts and Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg voted in the majority, Ginsberg disagreed with many of his assertions.  On page 128, the dissenting opinion begins and asserts that the Tenth Amendment and the concept of federalism have been violated by the PPACA.

During his confirmation hearings, Roberts had stated that, if confirmed, he would issue decisions “based on the Constitution,” not to “set policy.”

Representatives of the Obama regime had predicted that the law would be upheld as early as last fall.  How did they know, or did they?

After the Court’s decision was announced, commentator Rush Limbaugh asked, “What happened to John Roberts?”

Obama reportedly learned of the Supreme Court’s decision “from a White House lawyer at the Supreme Court and from SCOTUSblog.com.”

In an article to be released shortly on the health care bill ruling, The Post & Email interviewed an analyst who stated that with the Medicaid expansion mandate ruled an overreach of Congress, the PPACA cannot be enacted because there will not be enough money to fund it.  At least one judge has agreed that the law could not be enacted without the individual mandate.

Two federal appeals courts upheld the mandate, while the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals stated that it was unconstitutional.  It has been predicted that the law will “kill jobs” by South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley.

Not one judge in the country has allowed a case challenging Obama’s constitutional eligibility to go forward with discovery, although Florida’s Judge Terry Lewis reportedly has an opportunity to do so.