Was John Roberts intimidated into ruling in favor of Obamacare?

June 18, 2013

Writer

Glenn has always been a fan of Senator Mike Lee (R-UT), and this morning, Sen. Lee joined the radio program to talk about his new book Why John Roberts Was Wrong About Healthcare. In the book, Lee examined how several Democrats targeted Roberts and claimed his legacy would be tarnished if he didn't uphold Obamacare and that by looking at the dissenting opinion it appears Roberts may have switched his vote.

“Mike Lee is a friend of mine and one of the really good guys in Congress,” Glenn said. “Senator Mike Lee is a guy who knows the Constitution inside and out and is a fierce, fierce opponent of anybody who stands against it.”

In his new book, Sen. Lee explains how the Supreme Court ruled on the Affordable Care Act last June and why he thinks Chief Justice John Roberts may have been intimidated into changing his vote.

“So in my book, I explain what the Supreme Court did when it upheld this law. Even after finding this it exceeded Congress' authority under the Constitution, the Supreme Court rewrote it in order to save it. Rewrote it not just once, but twice,” he said. “As I pointed out in the book, there are a lot of indication that Chief Justice Roberts may well have taken a different approach right after oral argument, but then changed his position. And it just so happens that it was during that same period of time, between the oral argument and the time the court issued the opinion on June 28 of last year, that there was a real campaign of intimidation by a lot of Democrats in the Senate, and also by the White House.”

During that period of time, Sen. Lee points to the statements made by many Democrats regarding how history will remember Roberts and how his credibility and legacy will be irreparably tarnished if he did not uphold Obamacare.

Furthermore, Sen. Lee, a former Supreme Court clerk for Justice Samuel Alito, describes the unusual tone of the dissenting opinion that led him to believe it may once have been written as the majority opinion.

“First of all, the mere fact that the dissenting opinion was written in many respects in the language of a majority opinion – it self-suggests to me that originally, Chief Justice Roberts was going to be part of what would have been a majority opinion,” Sen. Lee explained. “It doesn't sound like a dissent. It refutes the arguments put forward by the government more than it does direct itself primarily toward refuting the arguments of the opinion of the court.”

“There are a lot of people that said, ‘Oh, look how great this is. He's coming across the aisle,’” Glenn said of Roberts’ vote.

“Yes, and I specifically address that point,” Sen. Lee responded. “What I explain is there is no aisle in the Supreme Court. There is no aisle on that bench. Either literally or figuratively.”

The culture of the Supreme Court, according to Sen. Lee, is such that once a justice is confirmed by the Senate, the significance of whether one is appointed by a Republican or Democrat becomes “completely irrelevant.”

“So what I do is try to debunk systematically these argument that is suggest that this may have just been a brilliant move by John Roberts to try to preserve his reputation as Chief Justice,” Sen. Lee said. “It is not about reputation. It is about the right answer under the law. The right answer was not to rewrite the thing in order to save it.”

One of the primary problems with the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the law was the reasoning behind it. Obamacare was unable to pass the Democratically controlled House and Senate as a ‘tax’ because it was so politically toxic, and yet the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the law based on the fact that it is, in fact, a tax.

“It required a difficult act of legal gymnastics,” Sen. Lee said of Obamacare’s upholding. “As I explained, what [Roberts] did was to say you know, I know this appears to be a penalty. And, in fact, he found that it was a penalty and not a tax for purposes of the anti-injunction action, which had he reached the opposite conclusion would have said the court couldn't even address this case right now, probably for another two years after that.”

Basically, the Supreme Court ruled the ACA is a penalty for some purposes and a tax for others. When it came to the Constitutional analysis, the law ultimately had to be ruled a tax or else it would have been unconstitutional.

One of the primary reasons Sen. Lee chose to write this book is because the issue is much larger than any single law or Supreme Court decision. Stu pointed out his personal frustration with the fact that it always seems people on right are compromising, while those on the left rarely do. “It’s never Justice Ginsberg,” Stu said.

“The quickest explanation, the natural gravitational pull in Washington is towards bigger government and toward the erosion of the separation of powers along the vertical and horizontal axes,” Sen. Lee said. “That is the natural gravitational pull in this city. The reason we have hope is that the national gravitational pull the American people feel is not in that direction. Momentum is starting to move and it is moving in our favor. I explained in the book, we can move it, but we have to motivate people to expect more.”

“It's always a pleasure and I'm glad that you are in Congress,” Glenn said. “Senator Mike Lee, thank you so much for everything that you do. God bless.”

'Rage against the dying of the light': Charlie Kirk lived that mandate

PHILL MAGAKOE / Contributor | Getty Images

Kirk’s tragic death challenges us to rise above fear and anger, to rebuild bridges where others build walls, and to fight for the America he believed in.

I’ve only felt this weight once before. It was 2001, just as my radio show was about to begin. The World Trade Center fell, and I was called to speak immediately. I spent the day and night by my bedside, praying for words that could meet the moment.

Yesterday, I found myself in the same position. September 11, 2025. The assassination of Charlie Kirk. A friend. A warrior for truth.

Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins.

Moments like this make words feel inadequate. Yet sometimes, words from another time speak directly to our own. In 1947, Dylan Thomas, watching his father slip toward death, penned lines that now resonate far beyond his own grief:

Do not go gentle into that good night. / Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Thomas was pleading for his father to resist the impending darkness of death. But those words have become a mandate for all of us: Do not surrender. Do not bow to shadows. Even when the battle feels unwinnable.

Charlie Kirk lived that mandate. He knew the cost of speaking unpopular truths. He knew the fury of those who sought to silence him. And yet he pressed on. In his life, he embodied a defiance rooted not in anger, but in principle.

Picking up his torch

Washington, Jefferson, Adams — our history was started by men who raged against an empire, knowing the gallows might await. Lincoln raged against slavery. Martin Luther King Jr. raged against segregation. Every generation faces a call to resist surrender.

It is our turn. Charlie’s violent death feels like a knockout punch. Yet if his life meant anything, it means this: Silence in the face of darkness is not an option.

He did not go gently. He spoke. He challenged. He stood. And now, the mantle falls to us. To me. To you. To every American.

We cannot drift into the shadows. We cannot sit quietly while freedom fades. This is our moment to rage — not with hatred, not with vengeance, but with courage. Rage against lies, against apathy, against the despair that tells us to do nothing. Because there is always something you can do.

Even small acts — defiance, faith, kindness — are light in the darkness. Reaching out to those who mourn. Speaking truth in a world drowning in deceit. These are the flames that hold back the night. Charlie carried that torch. He laid it down yesterday. It is ours to pick up.

The light may dim, but it always does before dawn. Commit today: I will not sleep as freedom fades. I will not retreat as darkness encroaches. I will not be silent as evil forces claim dominion. I have no king but Christ. And I know whom I serve, as did Charlie.

Two turning points, decades apart

On Wednesday, the world changed again. Two tragedies, separated by decades, bound by the same question: Who are we? Is this worth saving? What kind of people will we choose to be?

Imagine a world where more of us choose to be peacemakers. Not passive, not silent, but builders of bridges where others erect walls. Respect and listening transform even the bitterest of foes. Charlie Kirk embodied this principle.

He did not strike the weak; he challenged the powerful. He reached across divides of politics, culture, and faith. He changed hearts. He sparked healing. And healing is what our nation needs.

At the center of all this is one truth: Every person is a child of God, deserving of dignity. Change will not happen in Washington or on social media. It begins at home, where loneliness and isolation threaten our souls. Family is the antidote. Imperfect, yes — but still the strongest source of stability and meaning.

Mark Wilson / Staff | Getty Images

Forgiveness, fidelity, faithfulness, and honor are not dusty words. They are the foundation of civilization. Strong families produce strong citizens. And today, Charlie’s family mourns. They must become our family too. We must stand as guardians of his legacy, shining examples of the courage he lived by.

A time for courage

I knew Charlie. I know how he would want us to respond: Multiply his courage. Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins. Out of darkness, great and glorious things will sprout — but we must be worthy of them.

Charlie Kirk lived defiantly. He stood in truth. He changed the world. And now, his torch is in our hands. Rage, not in violence, but in unwavering pursuit of truth and goodness. Rage against the dying of the light.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck resurrects the 9-12 Project to support Charlie Kirk's family

Glenn Beck is once again calling on his loyal listeners and viewers to come together and channel the same unity and purpose that defined the historic 9-12 Project. That movement, born in the wake of national challenges, brought millions together to revive core values of faith, hope, and charity.

Glenn created the original 9-12 Project in early 2009 to bring Americans back to where they were in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. In those moments, we weren't Democrats and Republicans, conservative or liberal, Red States or Blue States, we were united as one, as America. The original 9-12 Project aimed to root America back in the founding principles of this country that united us during those darkest of days.

This new initiative draws directly from that legacy, focusing on supporting the family of Charlie Kirk in these dark days following his tragic murder.

The revival of the 9-12 Project aims to secure the long-term well-being of Charlie Kirk's wife and children. All donations will go straight to meeting their immediate and future needs. If the family deems the funds surplus to their requirements, Charlie's wife has the option to redirect them toward the vital work of Turning Point USA.

This campaign is more than just financial support—it's a profound gesture of appreciation for Kirk's tireless dedication to the cause of liberty. It embodies the unbreakable bond of our community, proving that when we stand united, we can make a real difference.
Glenn Beck invites you to join this effort. Show your solidarity by donating today and honoring Charlie Kirk and his family in this meaningful way.

You can learn more about the 9-12 Project and donate HERE

The critical difference: Rights from the Creator, not the state

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

When politicians claim that rights flow from the state, they pave the way for tyranny.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) recently delivered a lecture that should alarm every American. During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, he argued that believing rights come from a Creator rather than government is the same belief held by Iran’s theocratic regime.

Kaine claimed that the principles underpinning Iran’s dictatorship — the same regime that persecutes Sunnis, Jews, Christians, and other minorities — are also the principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence.

In America, rights belong to the individual. In Iran, rights serve the state.

That claim exposes either a profound misunderstanding or a reckless indifference to America’s founding. Rights do not come from government. They never did. They come from the Creator, as the Declaration of Independence proclaims without qualification. Jefferson didn’t hedge. Rights are unalienable — built into every human being.

This foundation stands worlds apart from Iran. Its leaders invoke God but grant rights only through clerical interpretation. Freedom of speech, property, religion, and even life itself depend on obedience to the ruling clerics. Step outside their dictates, and those so-called rights vanish.

This is not a trivial difference. It is the essence of liberty versus tyranny. In America, rights belong to the individual. The government’s role is to secure them, not define them. In Iran, rights serve the state. They empower rulers, not the people.

From Muhammad to Marx

The same confusion applies to Marxist regimes. The Soviet Union’s constitutions promised citizens rights — work, health care, education, freedom of speech — but always with fine print. If you spoke out against the party, those rights evaporated. If you practiced religion openly, you were charged with treason. Property and voting were allowed as long as they were filtered and controlled by the state — and could be revoked at any moment. Rights were conditional, granted through obedience.

Kaine seems to be advocating a similar approach — whether consciously or not. By claiming that natural rights are somehow comparable to sharia law, he ignores the critical distinction between inherent rights and conditional privileges. He dismisses the very principle that made America a beacon of freedom.

Jefferson and the founders understood this clearly. “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights,” they wrote. No government, no cleric, no king can revoke them. They exist by virtue of humanity itself. The government exists to protect them, not ration them.

This is not a theological quibble. It is the entire basis of our government. Confuse the source of rights, and tyranny hides behind piety or ideology. The people are disempowered. Clerics, bureaucrats, or politicians become arbiters of what rights citizens may enjoy.

John Greim / Contributor | Getty Images

Gifts from God, not the state

Kaine’s statement reflects either a profound ignorance of this principle or an ideological bias that favors state power over individual liberty. Either way, Americans must recognize the danger. Understanding the origin of rights is not academic — it is the difference between freedom and submission, between the American experiment and theocratic or totalitarian rule.

Rights are not gifts from the state. They are gifts from God, secured by reason, protected by law, and defended by the people. Every American must understand this. Because when rights come from government instead of the Creator, freedom disappears.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

POLL: Is Gen Z’s anger over housing driving them toward socialism?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

A recent poll conducted by Justin Haskins, a long-time friend of the show, has uncovered alarming trends among young Americans aged 18-39, revealing a generation grappling with deep frustrations over economic hardships, housing affordability, and a perceived rigged system that favors the wealthy, corporations, and older generations. While nearly half of these likely voters approve of President Trump, seeing him as an anti-establishment figure, over 70% support nationalizing major industries, such as healthcare, energy, and big tech, to promote "equity." Shockingly, 53% want a democratic socialist to win the 2028 presidential election, including a third of Trump voters and conservatives in this age group. Many cite skyrocketing housing costs, unfair taxation on the middle class, and a sense of being "stuck" or in crisis as driving forces, with 62% believing the economy is tilted against them and 55% backing laws to confiscate "excess wealth" like second homes or luxury items to help first-time buyers.

This blend of Trump support and socialist leanings suggests a volatile mix: admiration for disruptors who challenge the status quo, coupled with a desire for radical redistribution to address personal struggles. Yet, it raises profound questions about the roots of this discontent—Is it a failure of education on history's lessons about socialism's failures? Media indoctrination? Or genuine systemic barriers? And what does it portend for the nation’s trajectory—greater division, a shift toward authoritarian policies, or an opportunity for renewal through timeless values like hard work and individual responsibility?

Glenn wants to know what YOU think: Where do Gen Z's socialist sympathies come from? What does it mean for the future of America? Make your voice heard in the poll below:

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism comes from perceived economic frustrations like unaffordable housing and a rigged system favoring the wealthy and corporations?

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism, including many Trump supporters, is due to a lack of education about the historical failures of socialist systems?

Do you think that these poll results indicate a growing generational divide that could lead to more political instability and authoritarian tendencies in America's future?

Do you think that this poll implies that America's long-term stability relies on older generations teaching Gen Z and younger to prioritize self-reliance, free-market ideals, and personal accountability?

Glenn's Show Prep