Roberts wanted to uphold the democrat’s effort so the voters could compare and contrast the opposing parties solutions to the Health Care issue?
What was the Republican plan again?
Umm .. never mind.
I forgot the whole Specter thing. I admit my ignorance has been fought. Now I shall simply have to find something else to rant about.
Although I will take solace in the fact that the window was indeed pretty short, which is NOT what most of the folks braying about “Obama had control of Congress and didn’t fix everything!” actually mean.
/slinks away sheepishly/
My friend votes for the national health, Justice Roberts.
He does everything he can!
Okay, but why do you think this? What is the evidence?
As I said, I can’t imagine any situation where Obama would have been better off running saddled with an unpopular and unconstitutional law as opposed to a merely an unpopular law.
I think there’s plenty of evidence that he switched his vote. Someday a book like The Brethren may come out to fully illuminate this particular case but the leaks that have surfaced to date are quite convincing.
As to motivation, I think as Chief Justice, Roberts feels particular responsibility for his Court’s reputation, and knew that it would be sullied by a 5-4 Republican victory without clear precedent as guidance.
I know, but oddsmakers gotta post odds, 24hr news outlets gotta fill airtime, the Pubs have to field a candidate. So odds will be posted, (something you can up and down a bit to manufacture news), talking heads will fill the airways manufacturing controversy, making molehills into mountains and creating tempests in teapots.
When really, it’s all a sham on it’s face, since anyone with eyes can kind of see he’s more like a cardboard stand in puppet, you can make say anything, than a real human. It feels like we’ve crossed over a line in political theatre. No matter that it’s being played very savy and professional, spun and polished, bright lights, makeup and scripts. I feel like maybe they’ve underestimated Joe voter. He may not be terribly savy all the time, but I think he can smell the truth in the air, and he’s not being as convinced, of any of this crap they talk endlessly about, as the news hawkers would like everyone to believe.
I’m just not seeing how this cardboard puppet, no matter how much money he raises, has traction in any serious way. And it kind of feels like they all know it, like us, and no one wants to admit it.
Of course, this is just my opinion, and I could be proven terribly wrong!
Oddsmakers aren’t interested in manufacturing news–they’re taking bets. If their odds don’t reflect reality, they’re betting their own money that they’re smarter than their clients, which they usually hate.
Now, admittedly, the reality the odds reflect is the opinions of the people making bets, rather than necessarily the facts of what their making bets on. But since the people making the bets are mostly the same people that will be voting in the election, a case can be made that the odds must be at least related to the real odds in the election.
I won’t argue with you on your assessment of Romney–there are many other candidates that showed up in the Republican race early on that I thought would have been much better choices. But I think you may be over-estimating the voting public, rather than those who think Romney has a chance under-estimating them. Just sayin’.
Point taken!
Heavens to Betsy! Who?
Speaking as a conservative who’s never liked or trusted Romney…
Oh, I think he has a DAMN good shot of winning. As I’ve said many times before, we’re now back to where we were in 2000 and 2004. All the traditionally red states will be red and all the traditionally blue states will be blue.
And ALL the normally Republican states that Obama won last time will be Republican again.
Obama was lucky enough to run for President at a time when a LOT of things were going straight to Hell. And like it or not, the widespread perception now is that, while Obama isn’t responsible for all America’s current problems, he’s failed to solve any of them and has made many of them worse.
NOBODY is excited about Mitt Romney, but he projects competence, and that may yet be appealing. This election is likely to be another nailbiter, but he definitely CAN grab a narrow victory.
[QUOTE=BobLibDem]
The notion that justices decide cases on their merits without regard to politics is a quaint one. I think that Roberts knew that striking it down on party lines would destroy the credibility of the Court, so he took one for the team and switched his vote.
[/QUOTE]
So, what you are saying here is that the conservatives (or at least Roberts) were willing to go against the politics to maintain the credibility of the Court, while the liberals were perfectly willing to toss out that credibility and simply vote the party line? Correct? 
Of course, Roberts COULD have just voted the way he voted because that’s the way he saw it…
…
…
Naw…it was definitely either a Machiavellian scheme that Moriarty would be proud of, or it was Roberts desperately trying to uphold the integrity of the courts in the public’s eye, valiantly sacrificing himself and his vote on this for the greater good because he knew that none of the liberals or other conservatives would do it, being shoulder to shoulder party hacks and all. Well, 'cept the moderate who was obviously bought off by the conservatives (they offered all the hookers and blow one could want, plus cookies)
-XT
I think Robert’s argued as he did because he thought it was the correct argument.
Robert’s had conservative pressure to find differently yet still found the way he did. I feel part of his mindset in maintaining his position was going back to one of his early argument that 5-4 decisions along liberal conservative lines is damaging to the Court because it gives the perception that ideology is what drives decisions rather then legal opinion. Roberts thinks legal opinion matters(or at least claims he does).
With this decision it allowed him to go with what he believed was the correct legal opinion. Him going against the conservative/liberal line strengthens perception of the courts impartiality and he got to include a bit of his personal views into the decision by pointing out the Democratic majority bill was a tax increase. Lots of birds one stone IMHO.
I definitely agree with this thinking. Do you have a cite of him saying this?
In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I too believe he acted based upon what he felt was a legitimate legal argument. I’ve asked in various threads on the SDMB what evidence there is that there was some ulterior motive involved. No one has presented any proof that this was the case in answer to my questions, only conjecture.
You know better than that. The liberals judged the case on its merits, there being no constitutional grounds to overturn. The conservatives voted as a bloc to undermine Obama. Roberts would normally love to toe the right wing line, but after the atrocity of Citizens United, he knew that it would rank right up there with Dred Scott in the Hall Of Shame, so he did the right thing for once.
Romney has to have votes like yours to win. Out of curiosity, does he have your vote?
[QUOTE=BobLibDem]
You know better than that. The liberals judged the case on its merits, there being no constitutional grounds to overturn. The conservatives voted as a bloc to undermine Obama. Roberts would normally love to toe the right wing line, but after the atrocity of Citizens United, he knew that it would rank right up there with Dred Scott in the Hall Of Shame, so he did the right thing for once.
[/QUOTE]
-XT
Meh, I think this thread has been hijacked enough with this discussion. ‘Candidates who had no chance of actually getting nominated in the current political climate’–that will have to do for now.