Supreme Court Springs A Leak; Leaks To Conservative Pundits May Have Started More Than A Month Ago

[Are_grits_groceries]

CBS News’ Jan Crawford confirms widespread rumors that Chief Justice John Roberts initially voted to strike down the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate, but decided midway through the opinion drafting process that he could not support this constitutionally unjustifiable result. In what may be the biggest revelation of her piece, Crawford also reports that pseudo-moderate Justice Anthony Kennedy led the internal lobbying effort to bring Roberts back into the right-wing fold:

Roberts then withstood a month-long, desperate campaign to bring him back to his original position, the sources said. Ironically, Justice Anthony Kennedy – believed by many conservatives to be the justice most likely to defect and vote for the law – led the effort to try to bring Roberts back to the fold.
<snip>
Moreover, as Linda Greenhouse points out, it is possible that the Court started springing leaks more than a month before Roberts handed down his opinion:

Around Memorial Day, a number of conservative columnists and bloggers suddenly began accusing the “liberal media” of putting “the squeeze to Justice Roberts,” as George Will expressed the thought in his Washington Post column. “They are waging an embarrassingly obvious campaign, hoping he will buckle beneath the pressure of their disapproval and declare Obamacare constitutional,” Mr. Will wrote. Although the court has been famously leakproof, Mr. Will and some of the others are well connected at the court, and I wondered at the time whether they had picked up signals that the chief justice, thought reliable after the oral argument two months earlier, was now wavering, and whether their message was really intended for him.

To be clear, at this point only two facts are confirmed: 1) According to Crawford, Roberts flipped his vote midstream; and 2) someone within the Court must have leaked her this information. It is perfectly appropriate for Justice Kennedy, or any other justice, for that matter, to internally lobby Roberts to try to obtain his vote in an important case. If a member of the Court has turned to conservative columnists like Will or reporters like Crawford in order to pressure and then embarrass Roberts, however, that would be a significant and unusual escalation from the justices’ regular tactics.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/07/01/509359/supreme-court-springs-a-leak-leaks-to-conservative-pundits-may-have-started-more-than-a-month-ago/

Snakes and scorpions they are!

[Atman]

1. The GOP had succeeded beyond their wildest dreams

They have made every branch of government so totally discredited that it will be that much easier to bring about a total take over; the American will be easily bullshitted into accepting a New World Order. One spelled F-A-S-C-I-S-M, although I'm sure they'll call it something more pleasant-sounding.

[Cosmocat]

6. There has been shiite going on with these clowns

for a LONG time now, that if Thomas and Scalia did as "liberal" justices, would have ABSOLUTELY set off a fire storm of calls for impeachment from the "liberal media" and conservative bully press.

This is just something else, that they can get away with, that if there was not even anything like this to have it look this way, that they would not ACCUSE the liberal justices of, and generate a narrative across the country that the SC was corrupted.

[Zalatix]

2. Wait...

Is this article saying that conservative columnists may have pressured a Supreme Court justice into changing his mind in favor of the individual mandate?

[SunsetDreams]

7. No

You are misreading the article. Read Paragraphs 2 and 3 again.

[d_r]

8. no i don't think so

it is saying that it was leaked to conservative columnists that Roberts had flipped and would support and they were pressuring to flip him back

[joeybee12]

3. After Bush v Gore you gotta have your head in the sand to think

the SCOTUS is NOT political.

[TrollBuster9090]

4. The fact that the GOP talking heads were pumping out their coordinated talking points about the ACA

being A TAX suggested to me that the ruling had been leaked to conservatives ahead of time. The GOP is good with their coordinated message discipline, but they're not THAT fast when it comes to crafting talking points. They knew ahead of time. Forget staffers, I'm guessing Scalia probably used his HOT LINE to Roger Ailes.

Still, I don't care. This ruling is enough of a win that I don't care so much about the predictable conservative tricks.

[SoCalDem]

10. Ginny Thomas, conduit

[russspeakeasy]

14. ...and that says it all...

[TrollBuster9090]

45. Oh yeah...I guess the HMOs are not paying her just to wear the stupid hat.

Well, that brings up an interesting point. We all know that corporations have perfected the art of lobbying Congress to a science, and it's so easy now that the fun has probably gone out of it.

Maybe the next frontier in corporate corruption will be to develop the fine art of lobbying the Supreme Court by giving all their spouses seven figure a year jobs to do nothing but convey insider information, or withhold sex in exchange for legislation.


By the way, I'm not surprised that Thomas didn't recuse himself on the grounds that his wife works for the HMO lobby. But wasn't there some talk about Kagan recusing herself because she was part of the team that crafted the law? I'm hoping that she made it a point of NOT recusing herself, or saying she'd only recuse herself if Thomas did, and when he refused so did she. After all, the SCOTUS has no code of ethical behavior, so if the four conservatives are going to act like assholes, and proudly flout their biases and conflicts of interest, the least the liberals can do is act like assholes, too. And say "we'll knock it off if you do. Until then, we're not recusing ourselves from shit. In fact, next time GREEN PEACE is arguing a case before us, we're going to take the weekend off to go on their latest SAVE THE WHALES protest. And if anybody whines about this, we'll just tell them that Scalia set the precedent by going duck hunting with Dick Cheney while he was adjudicating his case. So, talk to him about it."

[Cosmocat]

5. It has been my opion since the ruling came down

that Roberts provided cover for the other four to be partisan hacks.

HE would have been part of that, had Kennedy not gone that way.

That is what this was.

[66 dmhlt]

9. Jan Crawford is a Right-Wing Hack - Always Shilling Repubican Talking Points

[yardwork]

29. That suggests to me that this may be a fake story, deliberately planted.

[Marzupialis]

11. Say it ain't so, Kennedy

Your legacy is dead.

[Joe Bacon]

15. What Legacy?

That whore has done nothing but leave a path of destruction since Bush v. Gore. Fuck Him, Slappy Thomas, Fat Tony, and Sammy the Fish.

[The Wizard]

12. Roberts is protecting the

legacy of the Roberts Court, known for its political gymnastics provided by Scalia, Thomas and Alito. The Citizens United decision, based on the premise that money doesn't influence politics has tarnished the Court to the point that the vast majority of Americans believe the Court is a tool of the Republican Party as Bush v Gore clearly demonstrated.
Sam Alito may be book smart, but he lacks the common sense to be a Justice. Remember, it was Alito who propounded the concept of "unitary executive" that gave the president (Bush at the time) extraordinary powers beyond the parameters of the law, in essence giving the president the divine powers of a king. Seriously, Alito should be removed from the bench for either gross ineptitude or just making shit up.
Scalia and Thomas have more well documented baggage than can be delineated in the short time I have this morning, but nonetheless they should be relegated to something more suitable with their respective characters, maybe like license plate manufacturing.

[hue]

13. Geat, relevant post. SCOTUS is a paradigm/prime example of the "good ol' boys club".

It remains one of the most important reasons why President Obama must be re-elected!

But there are many other reasons as well.

[Baitball Blogger]

16. This is a mystery that will be easy to solve.

Which of the Supreme Court Justices has a big mouth?

[calimary]

28. Wouldn't surprise me if scalia was the leak. Look what a hissy fit he threw after it

apparently became clear to him that the ruling would NOT go as he dictated. I bet he planted a few seeds in desperation to make SURE there was a thumb on the scale to tip it his way. It HAD to go HIS way, after all. Because I suspect he views himself as THE CONservative conscience of the court (CONscience, in his case), and his fabulous solidly ham-handed knuckle-dragger record was going to be compromised with this HUGE ugly blemish across its own fat face. Did EVERYTHING he could to turn roberts and save the court's sterling reputation with his brother and sister CONs. And it was not to be, and he probably knew there'd be people all over the CONservative landscape who, deep down, would hold him singularly responsible for not "managing" this one successfully. So he just started thrashing around, acting out, and throwing this giant adult-infant temper tantrum because he knew it was going against him and that the entire world would see that, in just another couple of days.

I suspect the bad guys have learned, from previous experience, that you could ALWAYS rely on your pal fat tony to make sure that ruling was securely in the CONs' pocket. And he failed. Failed BIGTIME in the biggest game yet. He failed them when they were counting on him to deliver the third strike that would cement the court's reputation as some sort of Neanderthal lockbox. He performed beautifully for them on Citizens United, and of course he was reliably on the "right" side of bush v Gore and too many other regressive rulings to count by now. And they got spoiled - as CONS usually do, expecting that it's just some Divine Right that they must rule. World's Biggest Entitlement Program - the GOP's presumption that it is supposed to rule by some Heavenly fiat. They sure do get their panties in a bunch when that presumption doesn't hold, don't they? They go apeshit when the ol' CONventions don't hold.

Judicial activism, anyone? Activist judges, CONS? How 'bout it then, 'eh?

[Baitball Blogger]

30. It had to be him. He is so conflicted with inappropriate social contacts,

Who else could it be?

[demgrrrll]

31. I agree. Why do you think the Republicans acted so surprised? Will is not exactly the soul of

discretion. That is what I can' t get my head around, the level of shock that I thought I witnessed, the Fox and CNN error, the scrambling around having the contempt vote on the same day for a supposed one-two punch. Did they not know or was it denial?
I thought Scalia's immigration ruling was a tell. I thought he lost something. Then Boehner said don't spike the ball, RMoney with the sleepless in DC comment. I don't know who knew what when and I am endlessly interested in that angle of this story.

[Bake]

50. Scalia's been in tantrum modem ever since he was passed over for Chief Justice.

He needs to just go away. What little judicial temperament he ever had has given way to temper tantrums. It was rumored a while back that he would retire -- take his little red wagon and go home -- after being passed over, but alas, that has not proven to be the case.

Bake

[calimary]

51. World's Biggest Entitlement Program: the GOP's belief that it alone has the Divine Right to rule.

They view the White House as just another one of their personal properties to which they're entitled by some "Holy Fiat." And the House of Reps and the Senate and the Supreme Court. And MAN do they act up when they don't get their way.

The GOP: the Party of Spoiled Brats and Other Assorted Adult-Sized Infants.

[pmorlan1]

17. Politicized Court

We expect these kind of leaks coming from the political branches of government but not from the Supreme Court. I think this leak is yet another sign of just how political the Court has become.

[harun]

18. It is what the RW's on the court were put there to do. Be activist RWr's.

[hue]

20. exactly!! They are well placed puppets for the RW 1% n/t

[DFW]

19. I'd say the fiction that Anthony Kennedy is a "moderate" is over

And if it isn't, it should be.

[SWTORFanatic]

21. He's a fiscal con, social moderate.

[DFW]

22. I'd say anyone who voted twice for Citizend United has abdicated any claim to social moderation.

He voted for Bush in Bush v. Gore as well. He knows what he's doing, and it's nothing good. I'd hate for a challenge to Roe V. Wade to come down to him.

[SWTORFanatic]

23. Don't get wrong, Citizens United was one of the worst decisions in history

but I would view it as a fiscal issue rather than a social issue.

[Skittles]

35. there is NO such thing as a FISCAL CONSERVATIVE

[lonestarnot]

40. Egggfuckingzactly!

[1StrongBlackMan]

24. Here's to holding out hope ...

that there were, in fact, leaks on the SCOTUS for the intent and purpose of pushing Roberts to declare the law unconstitutional.

And further hoping that, the media are able to trace these leaks to a junior-level staffer of one, A. Scalia.

And finally, here's to hoping that these leaks were at the directive of A. Scalia, in the form of an e-mail/text message to the staffer, who when the light gets turned on ... attempts to save his own butt by releasing the communication.

If this were to occur, I suspect there will be a couple personnel changes to the Court ... the staffer would be fired; but Scalia would quietly retire ... for health reasons.

[SunSeeker]

25. As Barney Frank once said, I have not lived a good enough life for that to happen.

But thanks for the momentary euphoria at contemplating such a scenario!

[lobodons]

26. GOP went too far

If the other 4 conservative justices would have just struck down the mandate and left everything else intact they would have kept Roberts with them and won at least that partial victory.

[1StrongBlackMan]

27. But that ...

would not have satisfied scalia's intended purpose ... To hand President Obama a loss on his signature legislation.

I think the egotistic scalia just could not resist the opportunity of putting that uppity constitutional scholar (i.e., President Obama) in his place on constitutional grounds. Roberts robbed scalia of that opportunity.

[Jessy169]

32. Orchestrated Supreme Court ruling?

Based on no evidence at all, I strongly suspect that what happened is this: The Supreme Court justices determined earlier than we'll ever know that the legislation IS constitutional and desparately needed. What ensued was a discussion on how best to orchestrate the presentation of their ruling without further inciting the right-wing maniacs. Imagine if Kennedy had voted "for" and Roberts "against" -- we would have a huge portion of the right-wing firmly convinced that the SC is a liberal-dominated institution, with dire results. Some of the crazier right-wingers still believe that, of course, but with Roberts being the one to vote "for", the result is quite different than if the Kennedy and Roberts votes had been reversed. In short, given the right-wing lunacy (calls for revolution, assasination, violence, etc..) and deep divide between the right and left in this country, I am guessing the Supreme Court did the best they could to not make that divide wider, while still making the decision that HAD to be made.

[Skittles]

36. interesting theory

welcome to DU, Jessy169

[Jessy169]

38. Glad to be here!

Thanks for the welcome, Skittles. I've been here reading the articles for the last few years. I haven't had much to say during that time, as all the other posters seem to be promoting my point of view just fine. But with things really heating up, I thought I'd like to chime in for a change. Thank God for places like DU where sanity rules -- unlike the posting boards over on Yahoo, if you know what I mean.

[Skittles]

44. I live in Texas so I am well aware of what you mean!

yup - DU has been an oasis of, well, MOSTLY sanity (LOL) since 2001 - I too lurked just a bit and was drawn in by my utter DISGUST at the SCOTUS ruling to install Dubya as prez and my utter dismay to find very few people in my real world who understood my outrage

[lonestarnot]

41. May be interesting, but since they have been blatantly flagrant in partisan rulings

politicing and a breathing conflict of interest gone wild, I don't think they care about their image much. I think more a case of Robe itis, unitary courtisan, decider ruling than anything else. Tiff between Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Al EATyouo. IMO Trans-Pacific Partnership Free Trade Agreement (TPP FTA) is a more important issue. Has me worried.

[Skittles]

43. I hear you

absolutely

[sofa king]

33. I have an alternative view.

I've been saying here for years now that sooner or later a case would be built against all Bush-appointed Supreme Court justices, that they all had a finger in that coup and were all rewarded for it.

I think someone leaked something to Roberts, is what I think. A complaint against him, listing crimes that will earn them all decades in pound-me-in-the-ass prison if it ever goes down.

And now he's our bitch.

[McCamy Taylor]

34. Scalia and Rove are joined at the hip (witness the speed with which Karl started the 1st Super

Pac---less then 24 hours after the Citizens United decision) so I'll bet that Scalia told Rove, and Karl decided to send His Personal Pundits after Roberts---and the failure of this effort was the real reason for Rove's public temper tantrum last week.

From this, I assume that Justice Roberts is so clean he squeaks, because if Rove had any blackmail info on him (say, from the Bush era warrantless wiretaps), he would have used it to force him into line.

I am going to do a little tea leaf reading now and predict that Roberts has had it up to here with the kind of thug tactics that Rove and his right wing hench-buddies use, and that future attempts to bully him will rebound on the ones doing the bullying.

Remember, Roberts can not get any higher in this lifetime professionally than he is now. From here on out it is all about polishing up his own legacy.

[madrchsod]

39. knowing roberts background i`d say you maybe correct

i find it interesting that he rejected the mandate and gave a tax ruling to save "obama care"

[lonestarnot]

42. No fucking doubt, robe itis.

[malaise]

37. K & R

Imagine if the Liberals on the court were leaking stuff

[rocktivity]

46. The CBS story was a hit piece, not an expose

Last edited Tue Apr 16, 2013, 02:29 PM - Edit history (1)

Chief Justice John Roberts initially sided with the Supreme Court's four conservative justices to strike down the heart of President Obama's health care reform law, the Affordable Care Act, but later changed his position and formed an alliance with liberals to uphold the bulk of the law, according to two sources with specific knowledge of the deliberations.

Roberts then withstood a month-long, desperate campaign to bring him back to his original position, the sources said. Ironically, Justice Anthony Kennedy - believed by many conservatives to be the justice most likely to defect and vote for the law - led the effort to try to bring Roberts back to the fold... link

The story contradicts itself before it's out of the gate. While Roberts did feel that the ACA was unconstitutional as a mandate, he NEVER saw a legal reason to strike down the rest of it -- THAT was his "original position." In an effort to get him to change his mind (you can't be "brought back" to a "fold" that you were never in), the media leak campaign -- which is article is part of -- was born.

And I'm willing to bet that the campaign's main leakers were Scalia and Kennedy themselves.


rocktivity

[Leopolds Ghost]

47. So let me get this straight -- are there any liberals left on this website?

It is utterly anti-progressive and contemptible to preach the notion that the government should, under whatever reading of the Constitution you prefer, have the right to compel people to engage in specific acts of private commerce with private, for profit vendors. I have no respect for anyone who thinks that it is not just OK but consitutionally unjustifiable to oppose a law mandating a new requirement of citizenship in the form of a non-participation-in-commerce tax, equivalent to a poll tax or a $5 vagrancy statute.

All in the interests of protecting the privatized health insurance system that the Blue Dogs you vote for in primaries over and over and over and over insist must be protected.

[lonestarnot]

48. Funny you leave out the 80% expenditure for healthcare reimbursement toward cost containment. Why?

[Leopolds Ghost]

49. Are you referring to early retiree insurance or medicaid? n/t

[lonestarnot]

52. Neither.

[Leopolds Ghost]

53. I read an article about the provision you are referring to

I'm sorry to say but it sounds unenforceable. For one thing it basically encourages cost expenditure, basically incentivizes them to spend as much of the premiums as possible, and with managed care being one of the source of the real problem which is skyrocketing health care costs... and as we all know, just as with the Wall St bailout the conservatives will blame indigent for getting care they're not entitled to, somehow causing the crash, as with the low interest loans...