Was Justice John Roberts 'Stupak-ed'?

Can we enter a new word into the Dictionary? "Stupak" is not just the last name of a former Democratic Congressman from Michigan; it should also be a verb that means to intimidate someone until they bend to your will.

To be "Stupak-ed" is to be intimidated to such a degree that you will do whatever the bully wants and then lie to yourself and to others about it being the right thing do do, despite all evidence to the contrary. Few people have the cowardly lion experience of having to admit what they are; far too few. A lot of people have been stupak-ed along the yellow-brick road to Obamacare OZ. Was Supreme Court Justice John Roberts the latest one?

In late 2009, the 'Cornhusker kickback' secured the vote of Democratic Senator Ben Nelson from Nebraska for Obamacare. The 'Louisiana Purchase' did the same with Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu. Despite these deals being nothing short of bald-faced bribery, both Senators stood by them. Nelson became a pariah in his state and announced he would not seek reelection but still expresses no regret for what would be illegal in a sane world. Landrieu isn't up for reelection until 2014 but voters are not likely to forget her betrayal either. Like Nelson, Landrieu has no regrets, despite indications that her "purchase" may have resulted in her - and the country - being sold down the river.

The Democrats thought they had the 60 votes needed to overcome a Republican filibuster on Obamacare.

That was before the unexpected victory of Republican Scott Brown of Massachusetts in early 2010 after Ted Kennedy died the previous August. Brown pledged to be the 41st vote for Republicans and not the 60th vote for the Democrats. It was supposed to block the passage of Obamacare because Brown took away the Democrats' filibuster-proof majority. Democrats didn't care about that. They went around the rules and sought passage through reconciliation, which only requires 51 votes in the Senate.

Initially, Pelosi didn't have the votes she needed in the House to pass the bill. Enter Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI). He led a group of a dozen 'pro-life' Democrats who were preventing the bill's passage because there were strong indicators that the bill would fund abortions. His group was targeted by the liberal media, Pelosi, and other Obama apparatchiks. Unrelenting pressure was applied. Caving would equal cowardice.

Ultimately, Stupak cracked and signed onto the legislation but he needed an out.  His 'out' came in the form of a ludicrous Executive Order signed by Obama that said no part of Obamacare would fund abortions. It was meant to save face for Stupak but the premise was so absurd, his cowardice was obvious. He may as well have been holding a deed to oceanfront property in Arizona. It was proof positive that looking foolish was preferable to looking cowardly. A mere four months after passage of Obamacare, abortion-funding was obvious. That's to say nothing of the HHS mandate that came down the pike two years later that required Catholic insurance providers to pay for contraception and abortifacients.

Though Stupak had no chance of being reelected, he still stands by his decision, supports the law, and expresses no remorse for his betrayal. Perhaps he simply can't face the truth of what he did because of the gravity of it (see Judas Iscariot). The human mind can block that which is too painful to bear. Either way, Stupak is in denial. The facts dictate it.

Two years after Stupak washed his hands in the blood of future Americans, Supreme Court Justice John Roberts seemed to follow a similar path. Credible reports continue to mount that Roberts initially sided with the four Justices who were prepared to throw out the Individual Mandate at the heart of Obamacare, which essentially, would have thrown out Obamacare itself, particularly because there was no severability clause in the law (likely a consequence of using reconciliation to pass it).

Roberts' decision was about as absurd as Stupak's reliance on an Executive Order to trump a law supported by the man who signed the EO. Roberts ruled that while the Individual Mandate is unconstitutional, it IS constitutional as a tax. There is a small problem with that ruling. It's not what the law says. The Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court wrote law from the bench, which is a violation of his oath; it was a betrayal.

CBS Political analyst Jan Crawford claimed two sources told her that Roberts changed his vote. As was the case with Stupak, there were indicators that Roberts succumbed to pressure and threats in both the media and from politicians.

In the case of Stupak, the absurdity of the deal he took necessarily means he caved to pressure and had to lie to himself to believe otherwise.

In the case of Roberts, the absurdity of the ruling he rendered necessarily means he must lie to himself to believe otherwise as well.

One question that remains is...

Was Roberts 'Stupak-ed'?