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 37
    More: Interesting, Democrat Party, U.S. Supreme Court, health cares, Rehnquist, Chief Justice John Roberts, Jan Crawford, Scalia, Discussion  
•       •       •

2448 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Jul 2012 at 11:37 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-07-10 09:45:15 PM
3 votes:
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 08:34:38 PM
3 votes:

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 08:28:07 PM
3 votes:
Maybe the law was constitutional. Anyone think of that?
2012-07-11 03:58:35 AM
2 votes:

ImpendingCynic: So SCOTUS leaked information, and the Chief Justice is subject to external influence, but naturally this is Obama's fault.


And the fact that Thomas' wife received money from groups opposed to the law should be just hunky dory. As is the fact Thomas didn't recuse himself from the case.
2012-07-10 11:54:41 PM
2 votes:

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.


I RTFA. Did you? There were no "oddly timed statements" in TFA. There was one statement by Leahy, asking Roberts to not overturn the law, supposedly. I don't know the exact quote, because TFA didn't include it. In fact, TFA didn't say anything of value at all. It just posited yet another dumb theory, this one might even be dumber than the medication theory, as it claims that somehow, some way, a Democratic senator was the ability to "pressure" the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
Justices have no term limits for a reason. They can't be "pressured". A politician making a speech somewhere ain't "pressure".
2012-07-10 09:54:53 PM
2 votes:

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 09:36:09 PM
2 votes:
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 08:25:54 PM
2 votes:

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 08:20:37 PM
2 votes:
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 07:31:50 PM
2 votes:
The butt-hurt never stops, does it.
2012-07-11 05:59:39 PM
1 votes:
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.

Personally, I'm holding out for the Fark "Yeah, about that" followup.
2012-07-11 12:35:27 PM
1 votes:
Subby, your blog sucks and you clearly have no idea what op-ed is.
2012-07-11 10:30:38 AM
1 votes:

Sensei Can You See: [Lots of dumb]


Putting aside the fact that no one has suggested a mechanism for swaying the opinion of the court one of your own sources (SCOTUSBlog) says not that there was a leak but that there "appears to have been" a leak. But not a leak on the liberal side to rally the troops but a leak from the conservative side, to let the writers know they need to start working on a cover story for why the 'obviously right' side lost.
2012-07-11 09:41:45 AM
1 votes:

Lawnchair: MyRandomName: Since it is tied to an act outside if gaining income it is not an income tax...

While there's some logic to the excise tax theory, it's hard to say that this isn't an income tax.

If you don't have income (or your income is below a certain level, defined by the cost of a health insurance plan in your state exchange) you're exempt from the penalty altogether. The penalty has a short range of incomes after that where it slides up to the $695. After that, it's capped at $695.

How is that "outside of gaining income"? It's directly tied to income.


It is a penalty applied through taxation power. A penalty, tax penalty or tax are acceptable terms. It starts getting disingenuous when it is referred to as a tax increase or hike.

In terms of annual tax returns, if the number of late filers doubles this year and the penalties therefore increase, that isn't a tax increase.
2012-07-11 06:50:20 AM
1 votes:

Lionel Mandrake: "He didn't rule the way we wanted so there's obviously some vast left-wing conspiracy!!"

Grow up


I'll posit that conservatives are far quicker to invent/fall for conspiracy theories than the rest of us. The last time I considered a complicated plot was the 2000 elections...because there was a sh*t-ton of evidence supporting the claims.

Even the 2004 Ohio election concerns, etc weren't really b*tched about too much by the left (comparably speaking). The story sort of died on the vine after a small outcry. Yet Obama's birth certificate has been a source of outrage for four farking years, achieving prime-time and sometimes all-day coverage on all major cable networks.

I think I understand why conservatives are quick to accept the most convoluted explanation over Occam's Razor - they're goddamn children. Rather than admit defeat, they must construct an impossible scenario under which the liberals undercut them. At no time can they consider that maybe they just farked up, or that people just aren't that into them. That would entail admitting imperfection.

Another thing worth noting - liberals and moderates tend to eschew their wingnut conspiracy theorists, where the GOP gives them a bullhorn and mainstream play. Whenever I hear a libtard running his mouth about Bush purposely (as opposed to incompetently) allowing 9/11 to happen I want to punch him right in the face. But when a conservative comes up with some ridiculous theory it's praised as gospel by people who have the critical thinking skills of a petulant 8 year-old, and he goes on FOX to broadcast it to millions of people.

I picked up something for you guys while I was at the store -

t2.gstatic.com
2012-07-11 03:47:44 AM
1 votes:
So SCOTUS leaked information, and the Chief Justice is subject to external influence, but naturally this is Obama's fault. Sheesh, you conservatives are the biggest bunch of farking whiners around, not to mention delusional and paranoid. I wouldn't trust you to run the neighborhood rummage sale, let alone the country.
2012-07-11 01:23:27 AM
1 votes:

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.


You aren't very smart.
2012-07-11 01:22:11 AM
1 votes:

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.


Citation please, you lowly motherfarking worm.
2012-07-11 01:05:59 AM
1 votes:

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.


lol, if you read Scalia's opinion, it is nothing but pop-culture idiocy... in one part he asserts that states should still be permitted to bar black people from entering.

As for the odd statements... I think it's weird that many conservatives can't even begin to fathom that the President and many democrats actually believed, from the beginning, that this bill was within the confines of the constitution.
2012-07-11 01:01:33 AM
1 votes:

MyRandomName: In his fuming Roberts argued that the tax was not a direct tax, using very twisted pretzels logic, but never said which constitutional tax it actually fell under... Since it is tied to an act outside if gaining income it is not an income tax... So which constitutional tax did it take in form? Expect another lawsuit on this basis in 2014. There is already another lawsuit already in the works due to the IRS declaring by fiat that federally created exchanges can provide subsidies, in direct opposition to what ACA states. So this isn't the last chipping away at the law.


That's stupid, even for you. That's almost a few kilos of fromage stupid.

So good for you, I guess.
2012-07-11 12:58:50 AM
1 votes:

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.


If there's anyone who is going to be swayed by liberal posturing, it's a conservative with a lifetime appointment and massive street cred.
2012-07-11 12:20:23 AM
1 votes:

Sensei Can You See: 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.


they are also supposed to be impartial in regards to ideology. when you have Scalia and Thomas speaking at Koch brothers meetings one has to wonder. then there is Thomas' wife and her very active tea party role.

which isn't to say that the other 4 don't have an axe to grind but my god the blatant partisanism of the right is amazing.

what bothers me is this: In this case, it looks as if conservative members of the court felt the need to explain publicly why the decision went against them, defend their efforts to prevent the outcome and vent a little spleen.

http://swampland.time.com/2012/07/02/john-roberts-conservative-outcast -and-the-supreme-courts-unprecedented-leak/#ixzz20HfdhmbG

so once again the right has demonstrated that the rule of law really doesn't matter if you have it go against you. and in this case not only the rule of law but the very traditions of the supreme court.

stay classy conservatives.
2012-07-11 12:07:42 AM
1 votes:

quatchi: In a May 14 speech, to quote one report at the time, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., "directly addressed Chief Justice John Roberts, urging him in a sharply partisan tone" not to overturn the law.

Uh-huh, aaaaand?

Washington lawyer Stewart Baker has pointed out how strange that timing was: 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. What did Leahy - and other Washington actors who jumped into the same debate in May - know, and when did they know it?

Oh, FFS.

Article assumes too much without presenting any credible evidence.


But don't you see? A democratic politician stating publicly that they hope the Supreme Court rules in their favor is "pressure"! And it's just plain wrong!
(I sure hope no one checks to see if any conservative politicians also publicly stated that SCOTUS would rule their way. That would be embarrassing)
2012-07-11 12:03:27 AM
1 votes:
Walter Olson, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute

That's all you had to say. Really, you could have saved yourself a whooole bunch of typing.
2012-07-11 12:01:17 AM
1 votes:
In a May 14 speech, to quote one report at the time, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., "directly addressed Chief Justice John Roberts, urging him in a sharply partisan tone" not to overturn the law.

Uh-huh, aaaaand?

Washington lawyer Stewart Baker has pointed out how strange that timing was: 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. What did Leahy - and other Washington actors who jumped into the same debate in May - know, and when did they know it?

Oh, FFS.

Article assumes too much without presenting any credible evidence.
2012-07-10 11:57:22 PM
1 votes:
Funny how with all these leaks and everyone and their brother knowing the outcome ahead of time, CNN, Fox, and even President Obama first thought it was overturned.

Wait, are they are all in on it too!? That farking Obama! He's weaving conspiracies so intricate even he's duped by them.

We need a Guild Navigator to sort this out. Plans within plans I tells ya.
2012-07-10 11:48:35 PM
1 votes:
What? How would the left pressure Roberts? Threaten him with not being invited to all the best parties?
2012-07-10 11:44:09 PM
1 votes:
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 11:24:33 PM
1 votes:

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 10:19:00 PM
1 votes:

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 09:58:36 PM
1 votes:
"He didn't rule the way we wanted so there's obviously some vast left-wing conspiracy!!"

Grow up
2012-07-10 09:37:30 PM
1 votes:
Walter Olson, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, writes often on legal issues and edits Overlawyered.com.
2012-07-10 09:06:36 PM
1 votes:

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 08:15:26 PM
1 votes:

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 08:00:48 PM
1 votes:

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 07:54:18 PM
1 votes:
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 07:48:50 PM
1 votes:
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.
 
Displayed 37 of 37 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report