Similar to the Petraeus testimony over Benghazi.

It was a terrible decision. The justices who concurred with him that Obamacare was constitutional, by the way, did not concur with Roberts on that particular point (that it was a tax). I seem to recall he was alone in saying that.

If you do a search here you’ll see a bunch of posts I wrote at the time on the matter.

I’m not trained in law at all, and even *I* know that’s a load of crap.

If memory serves the Supreme Court decision did rule that a mandate would be unconstitutional if it were, in fact, a mandate. The problem was the contorted logic which explained it as not a mandate but a tax (I confess to not having read the actual text).

The sad thing is that this is the judiciary twisting, turning, dodging and prevaricating as much as Congress did to pass the act in the first place.

We’re in the best of hands. As I noted in your Cutler post, the country is being run from Cambridge and New Haven, and not by a thousand people selected at random from the Boston White Pages.

“I wasn’t alone in my opinion, but I was lonely. Not too many people agreed with me prior to the ruling, I have to say. Too bad they were wrong; I would have much preferred to have been wrong. “

I agreed with your expectation, just as I did regarding Romney’s chances.

But I don’t see Robert’s reluctance as much based on principle as fear of what upholding the Constitution would do politically – to the political and social fabric.

There’s already so much verbiage in past decisions about the right and power of the Federal Government to reach down into individual lives, that it probably didn’t seem so egregious an opinion to him. I believe you are the one who has twice posted on the atrocity of the Agricultural Adjustment Act case.

That is, he saw our system’s “working arrangements” as more important that the principle in this case. The same “keep the social peace” and “Whose ox is being gored” kinds of crap which we learned in Const Hist to be the hidden drivers behind so many jurists’ opinions.

Now, would I rate some fear of an attack on the court as highly? No. Just slightly higher than I would rate his fear of having to live under an incessant and sustained barrage of questions and attacks about how he got two little blond children to adopt. Both, qualifying as just possibly contributing emotional motivators.

M J R Says:
November 4th, 2013 at 1:41 pm

DNW, 12:44 pm – “Obamacare and the individual mandate is outright fascism plain and simple; brought to us by the modern liberal kind, and certain cowardly Republicans. Chief Justice John Roberts for instance.”

This was such an unexpected opinion by Roberts, that I got to thinking, did somebody get certain goods on Roberts and make him an offer he couldn’t refuse? (Not that I’m the only one who has taken to considering that.)

I’m reasonably wary of conspiracy-nut-ism, but when other, more rational (mainstream) explanations stop making sufficient sense, other explanations gain plausibility.

See you at the fringes?”

Not all that much on the fringe I think. Whether it was a ‘switch in time that saved nine’ type of politically motivated fear, or something personal, or perhaps even social, it seems apparent from the change of stance and the strained reasoning with its non sequitur fig leaf that something got to him.

Could be that he did the mainstream Republican shuffle without any overt threats being implied regarding his adopted kids or even the status of the court.

That would be a decision taken on the basis that the maintenance of “social peace” and the reputation of cohesive government is considered more important than that particular liberty or the upholding of constitutional government on clear principles. Method: Calculate who is less inhibited and will go violent first, and decide against the group that is less likely to react that way. “More important that we have functioning government, than constitutional government” goes the reasoning. There is after all, so much need! (Wring hands appropriately)

And Republicans also often back off a fight and let the left have its way, if they think a large number of bovine and rather stupid bystanders will be hurt; ‘rending the social fabric even more’.

Even Republicans, some of them, seem to have a pretty powerful, and contemptible, herd instinct.

The details of how Roberts would get to the ruling to uphold Obamacare were indeed unexpected, because his reasoning was so bad. But the decision was not unexpected.

I expected it, for example, and I can’t imagine that I was alone (see this, for example). In a piece I wrote just a few days before the ruling, I said:

For what it’s worth, I’m made uneasy by all the assumptions that SCOTUS will declare the individual mandate unconstitutional when it issues its ruling.

Maybe it’s just my tendency towards brooding, but even though I don’t usually make predictions I’ll go on record here as saying my gut feeling is that the Court will not strike down the mandate. Why? Because the Court is exceedingly reluctant to invalidate a major act of Congress, even one passed with such shenanigans and unsupported by the American people, and so it would require a very high burden of certainty that it’s unconstitutional before declaring it so.

And that, IMHO, is why Roberts ruled as he did, rather than any threat of blackmail by Obama. Not that Obama wouldn’t try, but I don’t really think Roberts has any skeletons in his closet or they would have come out during his confirmation. The law of parsimony dictates that what I wrote above would have been enough to explain his ruling without such threats.

I wasn’t alone in my opinion, but I was lonely. Not too many people agreed with me prior to the ruling, I have to say. Too bad they were wrong; I would have much preferred to have been wrong.

That’s an assumption on your part. Just because they haven’t voiced their concerns doesn’t mean they wholeheartedly approve of this.

Polls may tell you that a majority of Americans don’t want full repeal. Polls would also tell you that a majority of Americans want free stuff.
It’s very easy for people to say they want all sorts of things if they never consider the consequences. Of course, that is unrealistic.
Well, reality is coming home to roost now. IMO, the clearest indicators of the public’s TRUE (i.e. fully-considered) opinions are the quotes we’ve seen to the effect of “I wanted universal coverage before I saw that *I* would be paying for it.”

As more people become “reacquainted” with reality through policy cancellations and sticker shock, this feeling will grow.
That is the natural result of “letting it burn.”

This was such an unexpected opinion by Roberts, that I got to thinking, did somebody get certain goods on Roberts and make him an offer he couldn’t refuse? (Not that I’m the only one who has taken to considering that.)

I’m reasonably wary of conspiracy-nut-ism, but when other, more rational (mainstream) explanations stop making sufficient sense, other explanations gain plausibility.

See you at the fringes?