There is not one thing surprising about C.J. Roberts' vote in King v. Burwell. Nothing.

[hifiguy]

Roberts' jurisprudence turns upon one idea - Big Money always wins when its interests are implicated.

The ACA has allowed Big Pharma and Big Insurance to rob the people blind and make obscene windfall profits and will continue to do so. Ergo, Roberts votes to uphold it.

Citizens United allowed Big Money unlimited ways to propagandize. Ergo, Big Money wins.

But marriage equality is a different thing entirely. First, Chiefs think about their legacies and do not want to be vilified by history. No Chief, with the possible exception of the Grand Rehnquisitor, wants to be mentioned by posterity in the same breath as Roger "Dred Scott" Taney. Marriage equality is historically inevitable, so Roberts can go with the historical flow on this issue and cover his butt.

Second, during argument, Roberts asked counsel for the parties seeking equality if the case could be resolved under settled sex-discrimination law and was truthfully told, "Yes, your honor." This was a VERY revealing question. If Roberts feels that this case can be disposed of narrowly applying settled precedents in the area of sex discrimination, as it very plausibly could be, he will be far more likely to go along with equality. And the woman who made most of that settled sex-discrim law offices just down the hall from him; her name is Ginsburg, IIRC. Doubtless these two have had a few friendly chats on the issue.

Thirdly, there is no Big Money interest in the equality case. To the extent Big Money cares about marriage equality at all, they tend to think it's good business and not a dime will be lost if it is upheld.

So for these reasons plan on seeing Roberts in a 6-3 majority with Fat Tony, Soapy Sam and Uncle Ruckus going off like supernovae of stupidity.

That is this lawyer's take.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

1. There is another explanation.

The worm has turned, although just a tiny bit. Roberts is an uber-catholic, and takes his faith quite seriously. What has happened across the pond in the that tiny country within Rome has to have had an impact. To some extent, even the slightest, itty bitty, teeny, tiny, bit, Francis' ideas may have resonated with Roberts.

[hifiguy]

2. That may be something to watch more for in the future.

These cases were voted on before Pope Frank started talking about the need to preserve the planet.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

12. But he started talking about the poor and the need to take care of all

Immediately after he was elected.

[pnwmom]

18. Yeah, but Scalia is Catholic, too. I think what is more likely is that Scalia's obnoxious,

know-it-all, bullying personality is finally wearing thin . . . . the only part of him that is, of course.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

23. Old pope, new pope. But,

Scalia seems to be close to some emotional breakdown. His speeches (when reported), his opinions, and his demeanor seem to be cracking.

[hifiguy]

25. i do not think he is wearing well with Roberts.

Not well at all.

[pnwmom]

28. And meanwhile, there are the eminently reasonable Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan.

And I'm sure they're emotionally intelligent, too. I bet they are learning how to appeal to the Chief Justice. And their methods work better than all Scalia's huffing and puffing and blowing the Court down.

[hifiguy]

32. Roberts is very smart.

Probably just as smart if not smarter than Scalia was before he went completely nuts. By reputation he is calm and even-tempered. On a personal level, a loudmouthed bully like Scalia probably drives him up the wall. And the three you mention are also very smart, engaging people, as one can readily see from their public appearances. I think you have something here.

I think it would be a blast to have the proverbial drink with Ginsburg, Kagan and/or Sotomayor. Sotomayor especially seems like she would be a wonderful person to just shoot the bull with about life, law and baseball (she's apparently a big baseball fan).

[AndreaCG]

59. My HS classmates and I

Spent an hour and a half or so at the court chatting with Justice Kagan or as she was known to us in the 70s, Elena. I wasn't fond of her back then but she was a stand out in a class of smart girls. Now I couldn't be prouder of her.

I sent her a really nice thank you card and got a handwritten note back.

[randome]

3. There is plenty of money riding on a favorable decision.

In the sale of black market Confederate flags.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[hifiguy]

5. I mean BIG money

Billions. There aren't enough three-toothed Cletuses to buy than many Confederate flags.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

4. I may be in the minority here

but I think that, despite his more rightward leanings and some of his rulings, CJ Roberts is more pragmatic/impartial than his right-wing brethren on the Court. Both him and Kennedy, though more on the conservative side, have become a somewhat unpredictable ("wild card&quot voting bloc on the Court.

[hifiguy]

6. He's the Chief. Chiefs have a somewhat different set of institutional priorities

than bomb-throwers like Fat Tony. Make that VERY different.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

7. Good point

Like I said, more pragmatic and less ideological

[hifiguy]

8. With the exception of Rehnquist, generally yes.

Their work and opinions will be discussed in law schools for decades. No Chief wants the next Dred Scott or Plessy hanging around their neck throughout history.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

9. Roberts surely didn't want to be seen as leading the Supreme Court

that stripped subsidies from 6-7 million Americans. Aside from that, it was a seriously dumb (and IMHO frivolous) lawsuit to begin with. This in mind, I hope that he is equally mindful of throwing the same-sex marriages of a lot of people into legal jeopardy in the ME case.

[hifiguy]

10. Roberts is no fool. Quite to the contrary

say what you will about him, he is extremely bright. And I suspect that, like many Justices, he reads the tea leaves of general public opinion, as you suggest.

I honestly think marriage equality will turn out just like this case: 6-3 with Kennedy and Roberts in the majority. One of those two may concur separately, but it will be 6-3 for equality.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

11. I am feeling better about that case as well

though the ME case has always seemed like the "safer" and more predictable case.

[1StrongBlackMan]

48. So true ...

I recall, even, my most conservative law profs swallowing deeply before admitting that Rehnquist was a purely results-oriented, (partisan) philosophically driven jurist.

BTW, I work with one of Rehnquist's (former) chief clerks. She is a blast to chop it up with ... she is actually, quite liberal; but/and, a hell of a writer ... though {patting myself on the back} I have bested her in a couple policy fights.

[hifiguy]

49. When I was fresh out of law school I wound up working rather closely

with a guy who just a year or two before had clerked for Scalia at the DC Circuit and at the SCOTUS for Fat Tony and O'Connor. Definitely a conservative but a man of unquestionable personal and intellectual integrity. It was fun to kick it around with him. He's a federal district court judge now. I'd never worry for a second about getting a fair shake from him in any kind of case.

[Cali_Democrat]

13. Bernie supported the ACA...he voted for it...

So you're saying Bernie's vote for the ACA allowed Big Pharma and Big Insurance to rob the people blind.

[hifiguy]

14. He didn't have anything else to vote for and it has done a lot of good for some people.

Including me, right now. The ones who are now getting triple-digit premium increases not so much.

He was also a strong advocate for single payer or a public option.

Shoo.

[Cali_Democrat]

15. It's fun to watch alleged Bernie supporters twist themselves into pretzels

trying to justify his vote for the ACA while slamming Obama for signing the same bill he voted for and helped send to Obama's desk.

Still searching for the single payer unicorn?

Keep searching.

[cascadiance]

29. So, having NO coverage for people in need is better?

ACA was the choice we had to give some people health care that didn't get it before. It solves HALF the problem, but doesn't ignore it completely the way Republicans want to have happen.

Single Payer would be the ultimate goal of taking money out of the system so that it is sustainable and still provides decent health care for everyone.

I'm one of those victims when I have to switch jobs frequently recently and have new health insurance plans frequently as well, each now with a higher deductible than before this time period of job instability, making it so I have to pay out of pocket some tests for sleep apnea that killed a DUer here a few weeks ago that I probably wouldn't have to pay if I'd already earlier paid my deductible on a longer term insurance plan.

Yes, we still need to solve the money problem that still screws many of us too, but it is better than nothing being done.

[pnwmom]

19. The only people getting triple digit premium increases are the ones

who had junk policies before.

[hifiguy]

20. I will take the word of the DUers who have discussed

their massive premium increases at face value.

[pnwmom]

22. Yup, they were happy with their junk policies.

But they wouldn't have if they'd ever been hit by a car or gotten cancer -- and then gotten promptly dropped by their cheapo insurer.

[hifiguy]

21. BTW, nice thread hijack.

The gist of my post was about marriage equality.

[Cali_Democrat]

24. The subject of your OP was the recent supreme court decision upholding ACA

Did you forget to read your own thread title?

[hifiguy]

26. Of course not.

But 2/3 of the actual CONTENT was about marriage equality. And I never mentioned Bernie Sanders once.

[Sheepshank]

36. your second sentence was quite spectacular

The ACA has allowed Big Pharma and Big Insurance to rob the people blind and make obscene windfall profits and will continue to do so. Ergo, Roberts votes to uphold it.

I thought it deserved a response.....but you clearly didn't like it.

Since DU is wont to find a word or a phrase to clarify, maybe leaving out the words you don't intend to have people read would be helpful?

[hifiguy]

38. I must admit, a comment

made by 1StrongBlackMan in this thread was highly informative. I had not known the facts he set forth about the forthcoming crunch between Big Pharma and Big Insurance and I thank him for enlightening me about that. Had I known that beforehand I would have moderated my tone in the OP, so consider that retroactively done here.

But there are people out there who are getting mightily reamed by big premium increases. The system needs more work, and I continue to hope it is a bridge to Medicare for all or whatever single-payer may be called at some future point.

[Sheepshank]

41. very nice...thanks

[hifiguy]

43. And thank you!

Show me the facts and I will revise my opinion. He did.

[1StrongBlackMan]

52. I have to admit ...

My Big Pharma vs Big Insurance crunch statement is purely informed speculation ... it is the only way I see this working out. Big insurance is getting killed by Big Pharma on drug prices ... and Big insurance can't disentangle itself by excluding prescription drugs, nor can they keep raising premiums to stop the bleeding ... Their only out is to get Big Pharma to agree to cut prices or press Big Pharma through the formularies.

But I am highly distrustful of those, including DUers, claiming triple digit premium increases ... they either bought junk or, in their support of single-payer, are being less than honest.

Consider this ... the number of DUers making the claim (relative to the DU universe) is far out of line with the numbers of people that would be even effected by the ACA. In order for those numbers to make sense, DU would have to be the center of the Self-employed, early retired universe.

[hifiguy]

53. It is always a pleasure to kick ideas around with you, sir.

I always have food for thought afterwards!

[1StrongBlackMan]

55. Though we may disagree on matters ...

it usually boils down to degrees and/or tactics ... and it never gets out of hand. For that

[cascadiance]

27. So if Bernie becomes president, the time to turn on single payer is when a right wing justice

... is to be replaced.

That way, some degree of health care will remain for everyone. If we put in place single payer too soon, or something else that takes profiteering by the pharma, insurance, and other health industry companies, that is when Roberts will decide to try and overturn it. If he doesn't have a majority then though, tough beans jerk! We spend less money and the wealthy jerks get taken down a notch in their quest to steal all of our money!

[Prism]

30. 100% agreed

People think Roberts went along with ACA because of posterity. Not so. The man is pro-business through and through. The ACA does not harm any business interest. In fact, it enhances them via billions of mandated dollars. His corporate friendly ideology is very secure under the ACA system.

Equality is a trickier issue. He knows where the winds are blowing, he knows gay marriage is coming no matter what. Why go down in history, as you said, as a Taney? He knows. He won't suffer that. And so we'll get his vote. In addition, corporations have signaled via internal policy and official boycotts that being anti-gay is bad business. It's a bit of a no-brainer.

My one question is actually Alito. I think we're certain to see at least a 6-3 decision in favor of gay marriage. But could it be 7-2? Alito isn't a super-villain on gay rights. He actually has a record of defending gay students from discrimination in public schools.

So, I'm curious to see 1) where he falls and 2) if he articulates why. I hope the decision is tomorrow. I'm 95% optimistic, but I want the details, man.

Also, I'm looking forward to barely remembering this weekend. Pride in S.F. is going to be drunken stupidity to the extreme if marriage is nationalized.

[hifiguy]

50. I live near downtown Minneapolis.

The Pride events are going to be going full blast all weekend. It's fun to just walk around town when it's all going on.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

31. Roberts is not a knee-jerk right-winger in the same way as Fat Tony

and his mini-me, Clarence Thomas. He doesn't hate Obama and Democrats with white-hot, unreasoning hate like they do, and will not twist the law beyond recognition to avoid a decision that might be agreeable to liberals. As you note, he's a corporate guy. He'll generally rule in ways that favor corporations (and the ACA does that), but I'm sure he also wants to protect his legacy. I doubt he wants to be remembered as the head of a court that took health insurance away from millions of poor people. And one reason why he is likely to come down in favor of same-sex marriage is the fact that dozens of major corporations joined in an amicus brief arguing for same. Big multi-state corporations (unless owned by right-wing "Christians&quot don't want the bad publicity, boycotts and loss of business. They also want to be governed by consistent laws (e.g., tax withholding) regarding employees and their dependents in all states where they do business. Fat Tony doesn't care about any of this - he's against anything that Obama and liberals are for - but I'm pretty sure Roberts does.

[Prism]

33. Everything you said (n/t)

[still_one]

42. No he isn't. That doesn't mean he isn't conservative, but he tries base his decisions what he

believes are the law.

That does not mean that most of us here will agree with his decisions, but as you said it is not as ideological as Scalia, Alito, and Thomas

[hifiguy]

45. +1

Bingo. A definite conservative but not a right wing ideologue.

[1StrongBlackMan]

34. I have to agree with most of what you have written ...

Big Pharma IS making a killing on the ACA; but Big Insurance is not. Big Insurance is generating huge revenue, but the ACA constrains profits through the Med-Loss Ratios.

Interestingly, the ACA pits Big Insurance against Big Pharma ... I expect Big Insurance to either: collude with Big Pharma to lower drug costs, to prevent Big Insurance from seeking cost savings through formularies; or, if Big Pharma won't bring down the prices on their own, Big Insurance will GET its cost savings through formularies ... either way, the consumer wins, as prices come down.

[hifiguy]

35. That would be an excellent outcome for the average person.

"Pit the contending forces directly against each other" is a well-established strategy.

[1StrongBlackMan]

39. Yes , it is. Oh yeah ...

I hit "Post my reply" before I wrote that I completely agree with your assessment of how and why Roberts rules the way he does. And the wise attorney, makes a similar assessment and tailors their arguments with that knowledge.

[hifiguy]

44. I wish I had known what you wrote about before I wrote my OP early this afternoon.

it would have saved me some embarrassment, as I note upthread. I thank you for a valuable insight!

[still_one]

37. you sound disappointed that it was upheld. The reason was very specific. You cannot take 4 words

out of context, and base it on the whole law or intent.

His argument for justifying the ACA, was because he viewed it as a tax.

The public option or Medicare for all would NOT have passed at the time. The blue dogs would never let it happen. The ACA while not the most ideal, is far better than what was before, and a lot of folks who were not covered are now covered.

Also, hospitals are saving a lot of money on this. That is a good thing. Primary doctors both under Medicare and the ACA have just received increased payments for service. That also is a good thing. Primary Care physicians were being under compensated.

[hifiguy]

40. Not at all. It has a lot of problems,

but I have benefited from ACA personally. I am just trying a bit of amateur legal psychology on Roberts and why he is likely to be an affirmative vote for marriage equality.

[still_one]

46. I agree it has quite a lot of problems, but I just don't agree that Robert's vote was because it

benefits the corporations. I am not saying he does not view corporations as people, obviously citizens united showed us his view of that, along with Kennedy, I just think on the ACA it is different.

If we are talking psychology, I would think it has more to due with Robert's medical issues he has gone through with epilepsy. I believe that may have made him more empathetic toward those who are unable to get Medical care because of insurance.

[hifiguy]

47. Another interesting point, which I did not know.

Roberts is no friend of the left, but on a number of issues he is light years better than (as Krugman called them today) The Three Stooges. And he is very, very smart, that much I have to give him.

I hope my prediction about the marriage equality cases holds up.

[still_one]

58. He has had a couple of seizures. So does that mean he has epilepsy? It depends who you talk to I

guess. Obviously, I am just speculating.

http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1648384,00.html

Roberts also has a cousin who is gay, and was involved in the prop 8 controversy before the SC. Even though personal afairs are not supposed to affect a judges decisions, I do believe they influence it.

I forgot the name of the republican politician from Colorado who took the typical republican position on gay rights, until he found out his son was gay, and changed overnight.

11 republican Senators voted for embryonic stem cell research under bush, and I would bet a sizable portion of those republicans that voted for it have been personally affected by someone who potentially could benefit from such research.

[randys1]

51. Obama hate, alive and well on DU

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

54. How do you figure?

I'm not seeing it....

[randys1]

56. Then nothing I could EVER say could possibly matter, if you truly mean that

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

57. No, seriously. The OP criticized aspects of the ACA. So?

Those are legitimate criticisms. It does benefit insurance companies. However, the OP also regards the Supreme Court decision upholding the ACA as a win because it's far better than what existed before. If you were to read the entire thread before popping off that it's all OMG DU HATES OBAMA!!1!1! maybe you'd see that it's nothing of the kind. The ACA is flawed and needs to be improved, but I still consider its passage a win for Obama (and us) overall, as is today's court decision. Most of us are happy that the ACA was upheld. So please, relax.

[hifiguy]

60. Eeyup!

And thank you.