I read the article, jtgain. It does not say Roberts changed his opinion because of the media. It says he pays attention to press coverage and that the four justices who voted against the ACA became aware he might change his views in May. I have a couple of problems with that theory. The biggest is that we have no idea who is saying it or why, and like I said, I think it’s probably someone close to one of the angry anti-ACA justices because they are angry with Roberts for changing his mind. You have to be careful of taking the word of people who have axes to grind, particularly when they do it anonymously. I also didn’t see any uptick in that kind of press coverage in May. People were saying those kinds of things about the Court throughout this controversy, so I am skeptical that that kind of thing could have made Roberts change his mind.
Of course it’s unsourced and speculative and weasel-worded. It’s a story about how someone else was thinking that doesn’t include any information whatsoever from that person.
The one statement that has consistantly held true for the SCOTUS over the years is - Those who know don’t talk and those who talk don’t know.
*The inner-workings of the Supreme Court are almost impossible to penetrate. The court’s private conferences, when the justices discuss cases and cast their initial votes, include only the nine members - no law clerks or secretaries are permitted. The justices are notoriously close-lipped, and their law clerks must agree to keep matters completely confidential. *
CBS employee and writer Jan Crawford speaks as if she were getting her information directly from one of the Supreme Court Justices. She doesn’t cite anyone but talks about what is going on in CLOSED chambers.
Are we to believe that one of the Justices is leaking information to Crawford or that Crawford is making this story up, knowing that the Justices won’t bother to contradict her?
Those are not the only options, and the second option you’ve presented is preposterous.
No, those aren’t the only options. As far as the second option being preposterous, what do you base that on? Are you vouching for Jan Crawford’s honesty? Do you know her, personally? Are you suggesting that someone in Crawford’s position would never make up something like that?
I don’t know anything about Crawford but I am aware that the Supreme Court Justices do not leak information. If any of their clerks were to leak information, they will no longer be clerking for the Supreme Court.
Just how do you suppose Crawford accomplished the impossible?
Rare does not equal impossible. Obviously someone - whether it’s a justice, a clerk, or someone who knows the thoughts of some justices or clerks - talked to the press. I’m aware how vanishingly uncommon that is, but it makes more sense than the reporter making up the story (and editors signing off on it) and assuming no one will cry foul. That would involve several people deliberately throwing away their jobs and reputations just because they hope nobody will call them on a lie.
I’m not necessarily arguing that this reporter made the story up from whole cloth, and I definitely believe that Roberts changed his mind in the 11th hour, but honestly, she had to make up MOST of it, if not all of it.
I don’t think she could ever be found out by her editors either, if she had just made it all up out of nothing. And if she did get found out, I doubt it would be the first time a journalist got fired for inventing the truth.
I find it much easier to believe that she made most or all of it up, than that she has a credible source for most of the story.
Fascinating article, and I would bet in many ways it is spot on. It’s a great narrative to a gripping turn of events, but I’d be willing to bet that a lot of it is just educated guessing.
Oh for crying out loud. Whoever her sources are, she had to divulge their identities to her editors. You can’t run a story like this based on anonymous sources and not tell anyone who they are and then get news outlets to agree to print it. Here’s a hint who talked to her:
No, it wouldn’t. I can’t vouch for her honesty because I don’t know her and have no way of knowing what anyone said to her. I was responding to the claim that she migh’tve just the whole thing up and hoped nobody would ever contradict her. She may or may not be telling the truth, but the idea that she’s just bluffing on the assumption nobody would call her on it (and that everyone involved with the story at CBS is either going along with it or has been duped) is stupid.
Scalia has so slipped his moorings lately, more than ever before in fact, that I wouldn’t be a bit surprised. The man is motivated by mere bile nowadays. Thomas is quite the public figure as well. Somebody who could be fired for it, like a clerk? Not hardly.
It is weird. It is like you are unable to read the actual words that were written by Roberts even after I bolded them for you. Which part of “The question is not whether that is the most natural interpretation of the mandate, but only whether it is a ‘fairly possible’ one,” do you not understand?
He is not saying it IS a tax. He is saying that it is possible to interpret it as a tax and, although that might not be the most natural interpretation, it is not necessary for it to be in order to find the mandate constitutional…It is merely necessary for it to be a “fairly possible” interpretation.
I don’t know of anyone who objects to Citizens United because of some simplistic logic that it defines a corporation as a person. If you can find such a person, then I would say that such a person is objecting to it for the wrong reasons. It is being objected to because people don’t think it should be considered as a person for these particular matters of law, i.e., that corporations as entities should not have the exact same freedom of expression rights as individual people.
By contrast, there are people who are making a lot of hay out of the supposed fact that the Supreme Court has said that the individual mandate is a tax even though Roberts’ opinion in fact did not say that. And, regardless of whether or not one thinks the distinction between that and what he did say is all that important, the fact that they are unable to even comprehend that this distinction exists shows how their logical facilities are subordinated to their ideological convictions (or maybe their logical facilities were just never developed to begin with).
If it helps, a rumor is that this is Kennedy leaking… and it’s not the first time he’s done so.
http://prospect.org/article/roberts-switch-time
Robert said, “It may also be read as imposing a tax on those who go without insurance.”
I see the money-grabbing portion of Obamacare as a “tax penalty” and it is collected by the IRS.
Interesting point. What falls under Congress taxation powers AND is collected by the IRS?
And not Customs or a federal police agency or a park service, etc.
The presidential election campaign fund checkoff?
Along with what most have posted here, there’s another point from the article that I found interesting:
IMO the whole article makes sense if you assume the SCOTUS is just another political branch of government. That doesn’t really bother me in and of itself, I just wish more SC observers would simply admit it.
Wouldn’t you normally find that to be a bad thing?
Well, we have a 193 page long opinion to divine some sort of meaning from, but reading tea leaves is more fun.
Whoa.
They’re EVERYWHERE. Even on this board!
Well, no, it would be because the decision had nothing whatsoever to do with corporate personhood. The concept is never mentioned in the decision. It is completely irrelevant.
But that wasn’t my point. I didn’t bring up Citizens United because of that very reason.
My point was that, as you note, legal concepts are often way oversimplified to the point of creating straw men.
Well, not quite - I don’t think anyone is saying the mandate is a tax, just the penalty. I think that’s what you meant though.
Yes, I think it’s fair to simplify the decision as saying Roberts declared the penalty to be a tax, as long as we know it’s a simplification. Your insults against your opponents were inappropriate and will be ignored.
Yes, as I do now.
Hope I understood your post correctly, and that you understood mine.