until the aca vote, EVERY 5-4 vote in which roberts was in the majority was against the usual left.

[unblock]

i did a quick check on the supreme court database (http://scdb.wustl.edu/).
interesting stuff.

assuming i'm understanding the database properly, it looks like EVERY SINGLE DOCKET ITEM in which there was a 5-4 vote with roberts in the majorty also had every single member of the "liberal wing" dissenting.

this means that he's been an 100% perfectly reliable right-wing vote when it mattered.
now he's down to merely 99% reliable.


these right-wing nutjobs who want to pour beer on him or worse are absolutely nuts.
voting for a right-wing plan proposed by a right-wing think tank and first put into action by a right-wing governor hardly makes him a traitor to the right-wing.

roberts sure ain't on our side, folks.

[Dr Fate]

1. I for one am glad that Roberts has turned into a liberal and or centrist on this issue.

And none of this "please dont throw me in the briar patch" non sense as to the other conservatives on the court- they have always been and will continue to be consistent in their opposition to schemes that funnel money to conservative owned corporatio...errr, I mean persons.

And dont go saying that these corporatio...err, I mean persons will use their mandated profits to fund Citizen's United ads against liberals who want a PO either. My guess is they will use any leftover funds to create jobs.

[emulatorloo]

2. If it was as right wing as you claim, Scalia would have voted for it

And Koch Bros would have spent millions promoting it.

But Scalia is pissed as hell, and the Kochs and insurance cos spent millions to destroy it.

[unblock]

3. because obama proposed it at the national level, shifted the political dynamic quite a bit.

it was and remained a right-wing, conservative, solution that relies on and enriches private industry to only partially address the problem, without providing reasonable guarantees for those who fall through the cracks.

but because obama proposed it at the national level, it put partisan politics on the opposite side of the usual philosophical divide. republican party and the 4 dissenters went with partisan politics over right-wing philosophy; roberts, for whatever reason, didn't come reach the same decision.

the kochs fought it because it was a way of fighting obama. i seriously doubt they would have fought it had a republican president proposed it.

insurance companies fought it because it affects THEM. their self-interest greatly trumps whatever political philosophy or partisanship they have. moreover, they're fighting a war, not just a battle. they want to make sure everyone knows that further regulation on the health insurance industry will be fought vigorously. it has nothing to do with whether or not it's a right-wing plan.

[Dr Fate]

4. And Romney (R), and Roberts (R), also right wingers, would be against it too.

Or at least say they were.

But they are not fooling me- I KNOW that only right wingers oppose it, and only non-right wingers are for it.

Conclusion: Romney and Roberts are not really right wingers. If they were, they would have opposed it like Scalia and the Kochs.

On Edit: I meant that Romney opposes it NOW- which only proves that partisan manuevering had NOTHING to do with how liberal the Rightwingers who support this plan are.

[emulatorloo]

5. Romney claims he will repeal Obamacare on day 1

You missed his speech yesterday.

As to Koch Brothers, they are up to it again:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002879153

[Dr Fate]

10. Which only proves how liberal and or centrist Romney's own idea was.

If a Rightwinger like Romney is for something, then says he is against it, you can bet that action is based on his hard core conservative principles, and NOT just a hypocritical attack on Obama's victory in an election year.

Kochs? I have no doubt they are spreading around even more of their Bush-Tax extension dollars. These tax cut extensions were obviously based on Liberal principles, or Obama would have vetoed them, and Scalia and the Kochs would not have been against them.

[emulatorloo]

11. Are you auditioning for a role in a play?

[Dr Fate]

12. Clever response!

Well, not really.

I just like saying that, with no context what-so-ever.

Here I go again- "Clever Response!"

[emulatorloo]

13. You're clearly playing some kind of "role"

Have read enough of your posts to know your style.

Well have fun with it then! Go try it out on somebody else, I'm gonna get off the computer and enjoy the outside for a while.

[Dr Fate]

14. Do it. Exercise promotes good health.

Dr Fate sez:

"Get out and play- 20 minutes a day!!!!"

[DJ13]

6. Roberts is still 100%

When it comes to voting in support of corporate interests.

The ACA is a corporate giveaway to the insurance industry, so he voted accordingly.

[unblock]

8. of course -- i'm just talking about the justices on the court, not the philosophy at play

[xchrom]

7. He didn't support the 'left'.

He supported an institutional (heritage foundation) conservative approach.

That's very Roberts like - the surprise is Kennedy didn't join him.

I would say the 'left' co-opted the right in this case.

[unblock]

9. see above; i agree as to philosophy, i'm just talking about the justices he sides with.

[onenote]

15. If you look at the database, you'll see that the breakdown of votes is all over the place

Is Roberts a reliable conservative vote? Of course. But he also votes with a member of the court's liberal wing more often than either Scalia or Thomas. If you consider the conservative wing to be Roberts, Alito, Scalia and THomas and treat Kennedy as a "swing" vote, then you still end up with a few cases in which the majority was the liberal block, plus Kennedy, plus Roberts, with the Alito, Scalia, and Thomas together in dissent.

Does that mean that Roberts is "less" conservative than the other three? Maybe. Maybe not. Again, if you look through the cases you find not only are there a lot of unanimous decisions, there also are decisions in which Ginsburg and Scalia are together in dissent, ases in which Breyer is on the other side from Sotomayor, and vice versa. Just about every possible combination.

Was Roberts a "traitor" to the RW on the ACA case? The RW thinks so, and that's good enough for me. If he wasn't, does that mean that Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Breyer, and Kagan were traitors to the left for voting with Roberts?

[unblock]

16. my point was this was the first time he was the "swing" vote.

it's always a challenge to determine left/right leanings from votes, and yes, roberts votes with the "left" side more often than some on the right. but before, when he did vote with the left, he didn't do it alone -- it was never a 5-4 decision with only him from the right.

i think a lot of the media attention and political hysteresis around this court case has been a function of looking at the constitutionality and the supreme court process through highly partisan and political lenses.