prev
next
John Roberts quips taking overseas trip after upholding Obama health care law "good idea"
Chief Justice John Roberts is seen during a group portrait at the Supreme Court Building in Washington Oct. 8, 2010. / AP Photo
Updated at 1:03 p.m. ET
(CBS/AP) FARMINGTON, Pa. - U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts joked that he'll be spending some time in "an impregnable fortress" now that the Supreme Court has ended a session that featured him casting the decisive vote to uphold President Barack Obama's health care law.
Responding to a question about his summer break, Roberts said he planned to teach a class for two weeks in Malta, the Mediterranean island nation.
"Malta, as you know, is an impregnable island fortress. It seemed like a good idea," Roberts said, drawing laughter from about 300 judges, attorneys and others attending a four-day conference Friday at a posh southwestern Pennsylvania resort.
Health care "tax" problem for Obama - and Romney
John Roberts' health care vote scrutinized
Read the Supreme Court's full decision (PDF)
Roberts appeared Friday at a conference hosted by the Judicial Conference of the District of Columbia Circuit, one day after the Supreme Court said the federal government can require citizens to buy health insurance. The impromptu 35-minute session featured Roberts answering alternating questions from Chief Judge David B. Sentelle, of the D.C. Circuit Court, and Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth, who heads the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Neither judge asked Roberts directly about the health care decision.
Rather, Roberts responded with the Malta quip after Sentelle asked him whether he was "going to Disneyworld" now that the court has adjourned for the summer.
The only direct question Roberts got about the landmark opinion upholding most key provisions of President Barack Obama's health care package came when those at the conference were invited to ask questions.
That's when Roberts was asked what he thought his court's legacy would be in 50 years and "how one recent opinion might fit into that" — an obvious reference to the health care decision.
"Well, I won't answer anything that has to do with the second part of that," Roberts said. But he said he hopes that the court under him is remembered as one that "did our job according to the Constitution, of protecting equal justice under the law."
Lamberth hinted at the controversial decision when he asked Roberts if it bothered him that he can't respond to his critics.
"No," Roberts said, his brief answer hanging in the air to more laughter.
The conference at Nemacolin Woodlands Resort and Spa, about 50 miles southeast of Pittsburgh, was entitled "Science and the Law." It focused on how social sciences and psychology affect the way the courts are perceived by the public, as well as how judges go about making decisions when such sciences come into play.
Roberts wasn't asked about those subjects. Instead, he answered more than a dozen questions ranging from how he decides to assign cases to his colleagues to whether social media activity is a problem among Supreme Court law clerks.
"The flat rule is 'don't do it,' but we haven't had any situations come up," Roberts said.
Until Thursday morning, Roberts was a reliable conservative vote, especially on social issues that split the court 5-4, CBS News correspondent Wyatt Andrews reported on the "CBS Evening News."(Watch at left)
Roberts wrote the 5-4 opinion to end school integration based solely on race. He was part of the 5-4 majority that upheld the ban on late-term abortions and the 5-4 majority allowing unlimited corporate spending in campaigns.
Almost every conservative scholar in the country is now asking: What happened to the chief justice?
"Oh, I think everybody's surprised," said Georgetown Law professor Randy Barnett, who was among the first to argue the insurance mandate was unconstitutional.
Barnett said he's surprised because the chief justice struck down every administration argument defending the Affordable Care Act but went out of his way to approve the law under Congress' power to tax.
"As to why he decided to uphold the act under the tax power, to rewrite the law as a tax, that's something that only he really knows," Barnett said.
So what happened? Tom Goldstein, founder of SCOTUSblog -- a respected website on the high court -- said Roberts followed the law but knew he was making history.
"This is item No. 1 (of Roberts' legacy.) This is his signature statement that 'I'm not a partisan, I'm here to provide a limited backstop against excesses by the Congress, and I don't see it here,'" Goldstein said.
To conservatives, this was a signature statement, just not the right one.
"If it turns out that Chief Justice Roberts did buckle under the intense political pressure, that will not be good for his legacy as a justice," Barnett said.
There's already no question this changes the chief justice's legacy. On Wednesday, he was widely seen as partisan. In the most dramatic case of his career, he broke the mold.
In his opinion, the chief justice made a point of not endorsing the wisdom of the health care law. He said the decision was based on a general reticence to invalidate the acts of the nation's elected leaders.
In his opinion, Roberts wrote, "It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices."
Popular on CBSNews.com
-
Photos: Underground shots of NYC's Second Ave. subway project New York City's Second Ave. subway was first conceived almost a century ago and when it is completed, it will extend all the way down the eastern side of Manhattan with 16 new stations. CBS News' Don Dahler reports on one of the most challenging public works projects in the country.
- Reporter Michael Hastings dies at 33
- Google asks FISA court to lift gag order on NSA requests
- Tornado briefly touches down on Denver airport runways
- Scientists say shipwreck timber in Lake Michigan centuries old
- Girl who lost feet in lawnmower gets prosthetics
- Taliban: We killed 4 U.S. troops at Afghan air base
- Report: U.S. teacher training an "industry of mediocrity"
- FAA approval sought for 650-foot-tall Vegas thrill ride
Most Popular
-
01
-
02
-
03
-
04
-
05
Most Shared
Most Discussed
"Did I miss the alternative proposals introduced by the anti American GOP economic terrorist pimps for Big Insurance over the past 3 years?"
Yes, we all missed their health care reform proposals ever since the 1990s, when the GOP introduced the MANDATE which they hate today!
They screeched about "repeal and replace" since the PPACA was signed into law in 2010, but they have NEVER had a replacement for our health care debacle -- and today they just screech "repeal" with absolutely no replacement health care reform.
It's pretty sad, considering that the majority of Americans like the component parts of the PPACA, but the right-wing propagandists have attacked it with endless LIES since it began its slow march through congress in 2009, and today their fervor has grown rabid in order to keep the status quo of spiraling health care costs each year!
"If the Republicans win the majority in both the House and the Senate you can count on one thing! Obamacare's going down no matter who's the President!"
Hmmmmm......That's absolutely false, and most students learn that in the 5th grade -- what happened to you?
In your delusional scenario with a simple majority in both houses of congress, any legislation would still require a Presidential signature, and President Obama would VETO that partisan ploy.
The legislation would then head back to the congress for a veto override, which would require a 2/3 super-majority of BOTH houses of congress, which is highly unlikely with this polarized country!
Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution:
2: Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law.
Please educate yourself, from the things you missed in the 5th grade!
I know that all politicians make promises when they're candidates that they don't keep when they're elected. They all do, even Democrats. However, with so many Democratic seats up for grabs in both the House and the Senate it's entirely POSSIBLE that the Republicans could indeed win a super-majority!
If that happens, the Republicans would very likely have the two-thirds votes that they would need to overturn a veto.
http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/ratings/senate
Don't forget your Palinista panties, with the NBA logo, JV.
by JV1970 June 29, 2012 3:58 PM EDT
RepubsRFiscallyLiberal Yes, I did support Santorum among others including Bachmann, Cain, and Perry. I'm very proud of that!
Even though he wasn't my choice among the Republican candidates because he has flip-flopped on too many issues, I will now support Romney because he's the lesser of the two evils. He has also promised to get rid of this monster of a healthcare bill on his first in office.
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
_____________________________
Reply to this comment ..by Dancing-in-the-Streets June 29, 2012 6:10 PM EDT
JV - You believe a President can just pull out a magic wand and instantly repeal something all by himself on day one???
LMAO!!!
_______________________________________
...by JV1970 June 30, 2012 11:32 AM EDT
Apparently Nocults is so slow that he doesn't even know that Palin wasn't a candidate although, yes, there are many of us who would have supported her if she had been!
__________________________________
...by JV1970 June 30, 2012 11:48 AM EDT
Dancing-in-the-Streets No, IDIOT! But he can introduce legislation to congress that, if passed, will repeal it and if the Republicans keep their majority in the House and win the majority in the Senate this fall, there's a good chance of that happening.
Also, I remind you, that there's a good chance that it will be repealed even if the Republicans don't win the Presidency if they keep their majority in the House and win the majority in the Senate. That is very much a possibility!
All of the Republican candidates that I've heard so far, both for the House and for the Senate, have said that they'd work to repeal Obamacare if elected.
If the Republicans win the majority in both the House and the Senate you can count on one thing! Obamacare's going down no matter who's the President!
NO ONE who HAS health insurance will pay what Justice Roberts has labeled a "tax." NO ONE who GETS health insurance -- through broader Medicaid eligibility or a subsidized purchase on the state exchanges or a non-subsidized purchase on the state exchanges or an employer plan -- will pay what Justice Roberts has labeled a "tax." NO ONE who earns too little to have to file a 1040 will pay this "tax." NO ONE who can't find an insurance plan -- through an employer or on a state exchange -- that costs no more than 8% of his/her income will pay what Justice Roberts has labeled a "tax."
The ONLY people who WILL pay what Justice Roberts has labeled a "tax" are those who earn enough to afford health insurance but REFUSE to purchase it. And THEIR tax maxes out in 2016 at 2.5% of income.
Do folks like Smokey who keep whining that "Obama promised he wasn't going to raise taxes on people who earn less than $200/$250K" REALLY want us to shed tears for a twenty-something who makes $60,000 a year, CHOOSES not to buy health insurance, and has to pay a "tax" of $1,800 a year? Sorry, but I don't see any reason to play sad songs on a tiny violin for this very fortunate American....
"It is from the millions of working class who make less then 250,000 that Obama promised he would not raise a single penny in taxes on."
Absolutely incorrect as usual, smokey!
Summary of tax increases:
- Broaden Medicare tax base for high-income taxpayers: $210.2 billion
- Annual fee on health insurance providers: $60 billion
- 40% excise tax on health coverage in excess of $10,200/$27,500: $32 billion
- Impose annual fee on manufacturers and importers of branded drugs: $27 billion
- Impose 2.3% excise tax on manufacturers and importers of certain medical devices: $20 billion
- Raise 7.5% Adjusted Gross Income floor on medical expenses deduction to 10%: $15.2 billion
- Limit contributions to flexible spending arrangements in cafeteria plans to $2,500: $13 billion
- All other revenue sources: $14.9 billion
"Do you really think it is a good plan for Obama to deffend passing 420,000,000,000 billion in new taxes and requiring the hiring of 4000 new IRS agents"
You right-wing propagandists get worse by the day!
IRS Expansion
This wildly inaccurate claim started as an inflated, partisan assertion that 16,500 new IRS employees might be required to administer the new law. That devolved quickly into a claim, made by some Republican lawmakers, that 16,500 IRS "agents" would be required. Republican Rep. Ron Paul of Texas even claimed in a televised interview that all 16,500 would be carrying guns. None of those claims is true.
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/03/irs-expansion/
What Does the IRS Know About Obamacare That We Don't?
Everybody gets soaked here, and that's why there are 4,000 new IRS agents
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/04/10/what_does_the_irs_know_about_obamacare_that_we_don_t
-------------------------
Report: IRS hiring approximately 4,000 agents
http://video.foxnews.com/v/1539759941001/report-irs-hiring-approximately-4000-agents/
"I find it very amusing the liberals think it is a good deffense for Obama to say yes Obama passed a bill that will raise 420 billion in new taxes"
Smokey_75 June 29, 2012 7:59 PM EDT
"The mandate is projected to raise 150-200 billion for the bill"
Sorry, but you can't even stick with the same silly story.....first it's $420 Billion, and then you state it's $150-200 Billion.....you can't even get your simple figures correct, and jump around like a Mexican jumping bean!! LOL!
Come back when you can give me DETAILS and SPECIFICS instead of the usual republican talking points from the usual fox/rush suspects!
"Where do you think the money comes from to pay for 30 million to get free or subsidized insurance?"
I'm a stickler for DETAILS, of which RoMONEY has absolutely NONE, and apparently you have NO DETAILS either, just a blanket statement without PROOF of: "150 billion will come from the middle class".
I know there are built-in methods to pay for the PPACA, which is why it reduces our deficits an debt -- something you republicans have been unable to admit for the past 2 years -- but it certainly is not from the average American making 49K per household!
Again.......PROVE it!........Or I will just have to understand that rush limbaugh whispered that in your partisan ear today!
This article tells where it is coming from, but not specifically, and it was YOU trying to tell us it was $150 Billion directly from the middle class:
Patient Protection And Affordable Care Act - How it Will Be Funded
http://www.larkinhoffman.com/news/article_detail.cfm?ARTICLE_ID=636
Just admit it was one of the usual republican talking heads that gave you that ridiculous figure of $150 billion from the middle class.......or is that UPPER middle class.....or........lower UPPER class......I'm still waiting!