More post-SCOTUS Obamacare Obamatax decision post-mortems

A purposeful campaign to influence one of the three independent branches of Government? You decide.

As Breitbart News suggested last week, it appears Chief Justice John Roberts did, in fact, switch his vote on the Obamacare decision under pressure from President Barack Obama, the Democrats, and the mainstream media. John Fund at National Review has more details today–including evidence about a bizarre address by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), chair of the Judiciary Committee, that singled out Roberts himself:

Indeed, Senator Patrick Leahy (Vt., D.) , the chair of the Judiciary Committee, suddenly took to the floor on May 14 and directly addressed Roberts, urging him in harshly partisan tones to uphold Obamacare and maintain “the proper role of the judicial branch.”

Stewart Baker, a partner at the Washington law firm Steptoe & Johnson, writes at the Volokh Conspiracy that he found the whole campaign against Roberts weird and unusual, given that the justices’ conference vote on Obamacare had been held six weeks earlier. Why “would the chair of the Judiciary Committee risk the appearance of trying to harshly strongarm the Court when his remarks wouldn’t make the slightest difference?” he asks. “The Leahy speech reads like it was written for an audience of one. It offers flattery and it offers threats, all of them personalized to appeal to Chief Justice Roberts alone.”

Fund adds that the White House likely benefited from leaks at the Court, and almost certainly knew of Roberts’s switch–just as it almost certainly knew of the initial vote to throw out the individual mandate in March […]

And then this, also from Breitbart, which tells you all you need about the liberal “intelligentsia”:

Don’t be fooled by the false praise being heaped upon Chief Justice John Roberts by the mainstream media and its favorite go-to legal commentators. Jeffrey Toobin, no less, of the New Yorker and CNN, lets the cat out of the bag–they are celebrating Roberts’s opinion in the Obamacare case, even though they know it is a total farce:

In the end, of course, Roberts did uphold the A.C.A. as an exercise of the constitutional power to tax. Frankly, that argument is not a persuasive one. As the conservative Justices wrote in their joint dissenting opinion, taxes are enforced contributions to support a government; penalties are punishments for unlawful acts. The individual mandate is clearly designed to induce the purchase of insurance, and the only people who have to pay the fees are the ones who refuse to go along. That sounds a lot like a penalty. But it was good enough for Roberts, and it led to the correct result. Any port will do in a constitutional storm.

1 thought on “More post-SCOTUS <strike>Obamacare</strike> Obamatax decision post-mortems”

  1. And Roberts is Chief Justice of the SCOTUS, no less. What an appalling fraud. Well, if Obama could become POTUS, why shouldn’t somebody like Roberts make Chief Justice? To paraphrase Tina Turner, what’s having the right stuff got to do with it? Talk about not being ready for his close-up. Tremenda plasta.

Comments are closed.