If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Daily)   Obama and other Democrats may have received early leaks about SCOTUS' handling of the health-care case and used the info to try to sway Roberts. This can only end well   (thedaily.com) divider line 145
    More: Interesting, Democrat Party, U.S. Supreme Court, health cares, Rehnquist, Chief Justice John Roberts, Jan Crawford, Scalia, Discussion  
•       •       •

2446 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Jul 2012 at 11:37 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



145 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-10 07:31:50 PM
The butt-hurt never stops, does it.
 
2012-07-10 07:42:56 PM
Randy Barnett, is that you?
 
2012-07-10 07:48:50 PM
Did he use his Kenyan mind control trick to get Roberts to side with him? Why Roberts? He's pretty smart. Why not use it on Thomas. He's not very bright.
 
2012-07-10 07:54:18 PM
Of course it was leaked. Roberts was pressured. Roberts caved. Democrats have no class and Roberts is a big pussy. We'll get over it.
 
2012-07-10 08:00:48 PM

badhatharry: Of course it was leaked. Roberts was pressured. Roberts caved. Democrats have no class and Roberts is a big pussy. We'll get over it.


Erm...exactly how could Democrats pressure a conservative judge?
 
2012-07-10 08:02:37 PM

St_Francis_P: Erm...exactly how could Democrats pressure a conservative judge?


Compromising photographs involving him, Thomas, and Alito.
 
2012-07-10 08:15:26 PM

St_Francis_P: badhatharry: Of course it was leaked. Roberts was pressured. Roberts caved. Democrats have no class and Roberts is a big pussy. We'll get over it.

Erm...exactly how could Democrats pressure a conservative judge?


If you RTFA you see Obama and Leahy making some rather oddly timed and phrased statements that don't make much sense unless they knew what was going on in SCOTUS and wanted to try to bring public pressure to bear on Roberts.

These guys are supposed to interpret the law without regard to popular opinion or consequences or anything else like that, but they're human too, I guess.
 
2012-07-10 08:20:37 PM
Wow, we've already gone from the ridiculous story that memos were leaked simply to discredit Roberts to the ridiculous story that they were leaked and used by Obama to somehow sway him. Christ, you conservatives are pants on head retarded. He wanted to restrict the federal government's commerce clause power while keeping the rest of the act from being overturned.
 
2012-07-10 08:25:54 PM

Sensei Can You See: bring public pressure


And what exactly is the point of that when it cannot have any measurable effect?

Oh right, you're just pissed. I don't get why, Roberts actually gave you everything you wanted. Of course, you have to actually read it on your own and think through the consequences, which is why I'm sure you haven't done it.

Also, good job staying on the right alt.
 
2012-07-10 08:28:07 PM
Maybe the law was constitutional. Anyone think of that?
 
2012-07-10 08:34:38 PM

Sensei Can You See: If you RTFA you see Obama and Leahy making some rather oddly timed and phrased statements that don't make much sense unless they knew what was going on in SCOTUS and wanted to try to bring public pressure to bear on Roberts.

These guys are supposed to interpret the law without regard to popular opinion or consequences or anything else like that, but they're human too, I guess.


Please. The right has been gearing up for this narrative for months. They blamed the liberal blogosphere for talking about the Court's reputation and judicial legitimacy. It was terrific spin:

Outcome A: The mandate is upheld, and Chief Justice Roberts caved to liberal pressure.
Outcome B: The mandate is struck down, and Chief Justice Roberts stood up to those dirty dirty liberals!

Honestly, from the way the opinions are structured it looks like this:

Originally, Roberts, for whatever reason, wanted to sever and strike down the mandate (and probably the guaranteed issue provision with it), but save the rest of the law. The liberal four wanted to uphold the whole law on commerce grounds, and the other four conservatives wanted to strike the whole thing. Roberts spent much of the time between conference and the release of the opinion trying to convince the conservatives to join him on severability, and they him on the same.

When it goes nowhere, Roberts starts looking around for options, and chooses to uphold the mandate and the rest of the law with it, while getting from the liberals a compromise on the Medicare Expansion provisions. This was the best option available to him: striking down the whole law would have been drastic and would have spent a lot of the Court's political capital - there was literally no reason not to sever the mandate and its related provisions from the rest of the law; so much of it was completely unrelated to the mandate that it's impossible to imagine that Congress wouldn't have ever passed the rest if it didn't have the mandate. It would have been a blatant political decision, when there's still a sizable portion of the country a bit upset about Bush v. Gore.

In response to this, the rest of the conservative justices, in a fit of pique, almost completely refuse to acknowledge the Chief Justice's opinion, clinging to the original draft, modeled as a majority opinion that would have struck down the whole law. At the end of the thing, they tack on a relatively small opinion to turn it into a dissent.

It looks to me like a lot of intracourt wrangling, coupled with conservative justices counting their chickens before they hatched.
 
2012-07-10 08:46:25 PM
so now it's a conspiracy?

well ok, but somehow you've gotta work in chemtrails and ancient aliens or it doesn't count.
 
2012-07-10 08:48:21 PM

Weaver95: so now it's a conspiracy?

well ok, but somehow you've gotta work in chemtrails and ancient aliens or it doesn't count.


Someone put a donkey's head in Robert's bed.
 
2012-07-10 08:56:00 PM

St_Francis_P: badhatharry: Of course it was leaked. Roberts was pressured. Roberts caved. Democrats have no class and Roberts is a big pussy. We'll get over it.

Erm...exactly how could Democrats pressure a conservative judge?


They learned that it was Roberts' pubic hair that was found on Thomas' Coke can.
 
2012-07-10 09:01:35 PM

Weaver95: so now it's a conspiracy?

well ok, but somehow you've gotta work in chemtrails and ancient aliens or it doesn't count.


I thought Roberts was a gay Manchurian candidate whose family was kidnapped.
 
2012-07-10 09:06:36 PM

mrshowrules: Weaver95: so now it's a conspiracy?

well ok, but somehow you've gotta work in chemtrails and ancient aliens or it doesn't count.

I thought Roberts was a gay Manchurian candidate whose family was kidnapped.


that was last week. THIS week the working theory is that he was zapped with evil kenyan voodoo mind magic and tricked into socialisms.
 
2012-07-10 09:10:13 PM

Weaver95: mrshowrules: Weaver95: so now it's a conspiracy?

well ok, but somehow you've gotta work in chemtrails and ancient aliens or it doesn't count.

I thought Roberts was a gay Manchurian candidate whose family was kidnapped.

that was last week. THIS week the working theory is that he was zapped with evil kenyan voodoo mind magic and tricked into socialisms.


That would explain why Roberts flubbed the oath of office. That is probably when Obama placed the spell on him.
 
2012-07-10 09:12:55 PM

mrshowrules: Weaver95: mrshowrules: Weaver95: so now it's a conspiracy?

well ok, but somehow you've gotta work in chemtrails and ancient aliens or it doesn't count.

I thought Roberts was a gay Manchurian candidate whose family was kidnapped.

that was last week. THIS week the working theory is that he was zapped with evil kenyan voodoo mind magic and tricked into socialisms.

That would explain why Roberts flubbed the oath of office. That is probably when Obama placed the spell on him.


Obama would have needed some hair or nail clippings for the voodoo doll whammy to work. plus he'd need a secure ritual space.
 
2012-07-10 09:15:18 PM
Obama's people at the DNC held the family dog hostage and sent a picture of the dog with a gun to it's head like that National Lampoon cover, except the nite said "IF IT'S NOT CONSTITUTIONAL WE'LL KILL THIS DOG"

Faced with that what else could the man do?
 
2012-07-10 09:17:42 PM

GAT_00: Sensei Can You See: bring public pressure

And what exactly is the point of that when it cannot have any measurable effect?


Um -- I said that it COULD have an effect.

Oh right, you're just pissed.

I am? As far as I know this is first time info has leaked out of SCOTUS since the aftermath of Watergate. I am intrigued and interested. But pissed? No.

I don't get why, Roberts actually gave you everything you wanted.

No he didn't. If I'd had my druthers he would have ruled on constitutionality of the individual mandate instead of deciding it was really a tax after all.

And before you think I'm a bootstrappy Teabagger or whatever, be advised I have serious health issues and take a medication that retails at about $75 per daily dose, which my insurance pays for but not fully, and which makes life insurance or switching policies an iffy business at best -- and I still don't think Obamacare is a good idea.

We need reform, but IMHO the AFA act was a solution worse than the problem.


Of course, you have to actually read it on your own and think through the consequences, which is why I'm sure you haven't done it.

I read the decision in its entirety the day it came out, including Roberts' rebuke of the Democrats for trying to treat the Commerce Clause as blanket permission to mandate purchases from from cradle to grave and his remarks that it's not SCOTUS' job to protect the US from bad legislation -- only unconstitutional legislation.

Also, good job staying on the right alt.

This is my left alt.

But seriously, folks -- I don't have any alts. Never have.
 
2012-07-10 09:21:53 PM

Weaver95: mrshowrules: Weaver95: mrshowrules: Weaver95: so now it's a conspiracy?

well ok, but somehow you've gotta work in chemtrails and ancient aliens or it doesn't count.

I thought Roberts was a gay Manchurian candidate whose family was kidnapped.

that was last week. THIS week the working theory is that he was zapped with evil kenyan voodoo mind magic and tricked into socialisms.

That would explain why Roberts flubbed the oath of office. That is probably when Obama placed the spell on him.

Obama would have needed some hair or nail clippings for the voodoo doll whammy to work. plus he'd need a secure ritual space.


The oath do-over would have been perfect. They controlled the photographer. I think this is what Breibart knew.
 
2012-07-10 09:25:22 PM

ib_thinkin: These guys are supposed to interpret the law without regard to popular opinion or consequences or anything else like that, but they're human too, I guess.

Please. The right has been gearing up for this narrative for months. They blamed the liberal blogosphere for talking about the Court's reputation and judicial legitimacy.


I'm not saying it happened. I'm saying that although the Legislative and Executive branches can't pressure SCOTUS the way they can manipulate each other, it's certainly possible for a justice to be swayed by public opinion or pressure.

All I think is that there's enough evidence of leaks in this case to take it out of the realm of Truther or Birther rumors and warrant a serious look.

The contention that there were leaks are coming from both sides of the aisle and both biases of the media, and they've got enough evidence that Leahy and Obama were more than just really, really good guessers to warrant examination.

Were any laws broken? I don't know. But I grew up watching the Supreme Court enjoy pretty much bulletproof security and I'd hate to see it start leaking all over the place the way Congress and the White House do.
 
2012-07-10 09:36:09 PM
This thread reminds me why I decided to put Freepers in hot pink. It works great for catching the concern trolls later on.
 
2012-07-10 09:37:30 PM
Walter Olson, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, writes often on legal issues and edits Overlawyered.com.
 
2012-07-10 09:40:08 PM
Sensors detect large quantities of alpha-male bovine excrement, Captain
 
2012-07-10 09:45:15 PM
FTFA: Since conference had been held six weeks earlier, anyone not in possession of confidential information would have assumed it far too late to persuade Roberts of anything.

Wow. Its like all of a sudden everyone forgets its an election year and that the bases of both parties need energizing by people like Patrick Leahy. And its not uncommon for SCOTUS deliberations to be visited after conference and even see a switch of the majority. We have memoirs by John Paul Stevens and Sandra Day O'Connor that even tell us this. The author of TFA is counting on readers being too dumb about the way the Court works. There are perfectly reasonable explanations that do not require some stupid conspiracy.
 
2012-07-10 09:54:53 PM

ib_thinkin: St_Francis_P: Erm...exactly how could Democrats pressure a conservative judge?

Compromising photographs involving him, Thomas, and Alito.


Don't be silly. Good Republicans never compromise.
 
2012-07-10 09:58:36 PM
"He didn't rule the way we wanted so there's obviously some vast left-wing conspiracy!!"

Grow up
 
2012-07-10 10:03:38 PM

St_Francis_P: The butt-hurt never stops, does it.


Funny how they want some activist judges now, ain't it?
 
2012-07-10 10:05:58 PM

mrshowrules: Weaver95: so now it's a conspiracy?

well ok, but somehow you've gotta work in chemtrails and ancient aliens or it doesn't count.

I thought Roberts was a gay Manchurian candidate whose family was kidnapped.


the rabbit hole goes deeper than that - Obama is John Roberts' family. He's the result of a drunken weekend Roberts spent with Angela Davis.
 
2012-07-10 10:19:00 PM

ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha: Walter Olson, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, writes often on legal issues and edits Overlawyered.com.


You'd have more of a point if only he and/or other right-wingers were speculating about this, IMHO.

There are three questions here:

1. Did info leak out of SCOTUS?
2. If so, did Obama, Leahy and others try to pressure Roberts with it?
3. If so, did it work?

IMHO, the answers are yes, it sure looks like it, and I have no idea.

1. Did SCOTUS leak on this:

Slate.com article examining the history of SCOTUS leaks and saying while it's unusual it's hardly unprecedented.

CBS claiming it heard info about the ruling ahead of time from sources inside of SCOTUS.

Salon.com also claims it got inside information from SCOTUS leaks.

Bloomberg's SCOTUSblog also confirms that there was a leak.

John Fund at NRO claims he has a source in SCOTUS.

Did the Supreme Court leak? Yes, unless you can believe National Review, Slate, Salon and Bloomberg are all lying about it independently.

Did Obama, Leahy, et al try to pressure Roberts with leaked info?

In the article this thread links to, Olsen points out that Patrick Leahy publicly urged Roberts not to overturn the bill on May 14, provoking a number of other players to make similar pleas.

But May 14 was long after SCOTUS' deliberation conference had concluded. He notes that quite a few Washington insiders wondered why he would bother addressing the issue unless he knew Roberts was still wavering on the issue at a time when it was generally assumed they were finished.

Obama also addressed SCOTUS in April and said he was confident they wouldn't take the "unprecedented step" of overturning the law. The Wall Street Journal reports that at the time, they received e-mail from a number of readers speculating Obama knew there had been an initial vote of 5-4 against the bill and that he was trying to pressure the court.

WSJ says they dismissed the idea at the time because they trusted the confidentiality of SCOTUS proceedings -- which have obviously been breached in this case.

Did Democrats try to pressure the court, specifically Roberts? It sure looks as if some of them knew Roberts was wavering on the vote long after the opinion should have been finished -- but it's not definitive.

And did the pressure work? I don't know. It does look as if Roberts had a finger in the wind at the expense of principle, but until and unless he releases his papers or confesses or something else comes to light, I don't think there's any way to know.
 
2012-07-10 10:20:14 PM

Sensei Can You See: WSJ says they dismissed the idea at the time because they trusted the confidentiality of SCOTUS proceedings -- which have obviously been breached in this case.


Oops -- apparently you can't link to WSJ from here. Sorry; you'll have to cut and paste:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230334340457751899273325 5 510.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion
 
2012-07-10 10:30:50 PM

St_Francis_P: badhatharry: Of course it was leaked. Roberts was pressured. Roberts caved. Democrats have no class and Roberts is a big pussy. We'll get over it.

Erm...exactly how could Democrats pressure a conservative judge?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937

Same way FDR did? Ever heard of "the switch in time that saved nine?"

/also, ironically, involving a Justice named Roberts
//yes, yes, I realize Obama couldn't pass such a bill with the current Congress
///also realizes the SC realizes that someone COULD
 
2012-07-10 10:44:17 PM

Sensei Can You See: If I'd had my druthers he would have ruled on constitutionality of the individual mandate instead of deciding it was really a tax after all.


He tried. The other four conservatives refused to discuss severability, supposedly.

Sensei Can You See: and I still don't think Obamacare is a good idea.


So in other words, you're your own worst enemy and you are intentionally trying to keep yourself down for an ideology that doesn't want to help you. Good job.
 
2012-07-10 11:01:44 PM
Would you expect anything less from the democrats?
 
2012-07-10 11:04:48 PM

GAT_00: So in other words, you're your own worst enemy and you are intentionally trying to keep yourself down for an ideology that doesn't want to help you. Good job.


No; there are no other words other than the ones I actually used, thank you very much. MS is not "keeping me down," and I readily acknowledged some of the bureaucratic issues I have to deal with -- but I also said that while I think we need health-care reform, the way Obama is trying to tackle it is not the answer.
 
2012-07-10 11:08:28 PM

Sensei Can You See: GAT_00: So in other words, you're your own worst enemy and you are intentionally trying to keep yourself down for an ideology that doesn't want to help you. Good job.

No; there are no other words other than the ones I actually used, thank you very much. MS is not "keeping me down," and I readily acknowledged some of the bureaucratic issues I have to deal with -- but I also said that while I think we need health-care reform, the way Obama is trying to tackle it is not the answer.


Let me guess: tort reform?
 
2012-07-10 11:09:59 PM
Sensei Can You See: I guess your point is that Bush nominated someone unfit for office, who was then approved by GOP senators? Is that your point? Even if it was leaked that Roberts was undecided, and even if Leahy and Obama learned this, who cares? Roberts made his own decision. If a public plea from Patrick farking Leahy is enough to sway his decision, he's useless. And Rush Limbaugh assured me he was an ideological conservative, so I know that can't be the case.
 
2012-07-10 11:11:04 PM
It's amazing how many people can't grasp that Roberts actually went the way he did, and that his opinion is actually sound and fairly solidly on the conservative side.
 
2012-07-10 11:12:17 PM

Sensei Can You See: No; there are no other words other than the ones I actually used, thank you very much. MS is not "keeping me down," and I readily acknowledged some of the bureaucratic issues I have to deal with -- but I also said that while I think we need health-care reform, the way Obama is trying to tackle it is not the answer.


Single-payer?
 
2012-07-10 11:24:33 PM

Sensei Can You See: but I also said that while I think we need health-care reform, the way Obama is trying to tackle it is not the answer.


He produced the only legitimate right-wing solution - the one stolen from the 1994 Republican counter-proposal to Clinton, and of course Romneycare. The only actual solutions are a public option - which let's not forget Nancy Pelosi actually passed in the House, or single-payer. I am willing to grant that I'm not a fan of Britain's system, though it doesn't seem to be working all that bad. Canada's single payer is perfectly fine though, and private companies can still easily exist.

The only other Republican ideas are tort reform and 'go elsewhere and die.' They have no proposals other than tort reform, which is a great idea if you never consider that really botched surgeries become life destroyers since you can't live on a million for the rest of your life if the doctor completely farks up and you lose an arm. Plus it would only reduce costs by 0.5% according to any independent study.

So you could either accept an old Republican idea, or move to "radical" ideas embraced by the entire developed world. There are no other legitimate ideas.
 
2012-07-10 11:30:09 PM
Op-ed from the Cato institute, my they've fallen.

scienceblogs.com
 
2012-07-10 11:38:06 PM

Sensei Can You See: ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha: Walter Olson, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, writes often on legal issues and edits Overlawyered.com.

You'd have more of a point if only he and/or other right-wingers were speculating about this, IMHO.

There are three questions here:

1. Did info leak out of SCOTUS?
2. If so, did Obama, Leahy and others try to pressure Roberts with it?
3. If so, did it work?

IMHO, the answers are yes, it sure looks like it, and I have no idea.

1. Did SCOTUS leak on this:

Slate.com article examining the history of SCOTUS leaks and saying while it's unusual it's hardly unprecedented.

CBS claiming it heard info about the ruling ahead of time from sources inside of SCOTUS.

Salon.com also claims it got inside information from SCOTUS leaks.

Bloomberg's SCOTUSblog also confirms that there was a leak.

John Fund at NRO claims he has a source in SCOTUS.

Did the Supreme Court leak? Yes, unless you can believe National Review, Slate, Salon and Bloomberg are all lying about it independently.

Did Obama, Leahy, et al try to pressure Roberts with leaked info?

In the article this thread links to, Olsen points out that Patrick Leahy publicly urged Roberts not to overturn the bill on May 14, provoking a number of other players to make similar pleas.

But May 14 was long after SCOTUS' deliberation conference had concluded. He notes that quite a few Washington insiders wondered why he would bother addressing the issue unless he knew Roberts was still wavering on the issue at a time when it was generally assumed they were finished.

Obama also addressed SCOTUS in April and said he was confident they wouldn't take the "unprecedented step" of overturning the law. The Wall Street Journal reports that at the time, they received e-mail from a number of readers speculating Obama knew there had been an initial vote of 5-4 against the bill and that he was trying to pressure the court.

WSJ says they dismissed the idea at the time because they trusted the confidentiality of ...


Right and which side do you think leaked this smart guy?
 
2012-07-10 11:39:43 PM
That reminds me, I need to go to the store and buy some foil.
 
2012-07-10 11:42:41 PM

ib_thinkin: St_Francis_P: Erm...exactly how could Democrats pressure a conservative judge?

Compromising photographs involving him, Thomas, and Alito.


and

whatscookingamerica.net
 
2012-07-10 11:44:06 PM

Sensei Can You See: St_Francis_P: badhatharry: Of course it was leaked. Roberts was pressured. Roberts caved. Democrats have no class and Roberts is a big pussy. We'll get over it.

Erm...exactly how could Democrats pressure a conservative judge?

If you RTFA you see Obama and Leahy making some rather oddly timed and phrased statements that don't make much sense unless they knew what was going on in SCOTUS and wanted to try to bring public pressure to bear on Roberts.

These guys are supposed to interpret the law without regard to popular opinion or consequences or anything else like that, but they're human too, I guess.


Because there was no public pressure on the court otherwise?
 
2012-07-10 11:44:09 PM
So when congress passes the ACA its Obama's fault. When a vast number of people support it, its Obama's fault. When someone makes up blatant lies about the ACA, its Obama's fault. And now, when the Supreme Court rules it is constitutional and even gets the support of a renown conservative justice...its STILL Obama's fault? So everything from here on out is Obama's fault, even the legal opinion of conservative judges? Really?
 
2012-07-10 11:45:39 PM

Quasar: Wow, we've already gone from the ridiculous story that memos were leaked simply to discredit Roberts to the ridiculous story that they were leaked and used by Obama to somehow sway him. Christ, you conservatives are pants on head retarded. He wanted to restrict the federal government's commerce clause power while keeping the rest of the act from being overturned.


Actually, I see this as an improvement. I mean, usually their conspiracies are complete delusions that could only have originated from the auditory hallucinations of a schizo teabagger with a theblaze.com commenter account.

This, OTOH, has a tiny basis in reality. For example, John Roberts and Barack Obama and Patrick Leahy are all actual people.
 
2012-07-10 11:48:35 PM
What? How would the left pressure Roberts? Threaten him with not being invited to all the best parties?
 
2012-07-10 11:49:39 PM

Nadie_AZ: Did he use his Kenyan mind control trick to get Roberts to side with him? Why Roberts? He's pretty smart. Why not use it on Thomas. He's not very bright.


Mind control? Don't be silly. He used his time machine.
 
Displayed 50 of 145 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report