What Did SCOTUS Just Do?

weeklystandard.com ^ | 11:31 AM, Jun 28, 2012 | Jay Cost

[Resettozero]

Was today's Supreme Court Obamacare decision a win for conservatives or a loss? It depends on what you were rooting for.

If you were above all interested in the bill being struck down, it was mostly a loss. On the other hand, if you were more concerned about the qualitative expansion in the power of the government that the bill represented, it was definitely a win.

First, the Roberts Court put real limits on what the government can and cannot do. For starters, it restricted the limits of the Commerce Clause, which does not give the government the power to create activity for the purpose of regulating it. This is a huge victory for those of us who believe that the Constitution is a document which offers a limited grant of power.

[Big Horn]

I would include the WH.

[ansel12]

It is impossible to effectively tax the drug pot, if it is legalized.

[Erik Latranyi]

I suggest we enact legislation that if you do not purchase products from Koch Industries, you will be taxed.

[Sioux-san]

Boehner needs to be the first to go

[HiTech RedNeck]

Well yes and no. The secession that led into the Civil War wasn’t precipitated by high dudgeon about whether or not keeping slaves was okay. However the curse of practicing slavery did hang over the south, with typical confederate state laws affirming slaves to be as much property as horses and houses were. That can’t have pleased God at all, and on the human level it beckoned on a certain level of moral blindness in other areas.

[Verginius Rufus]

Let's hope it turns out to be a Pyrrhic victory for Obama. Bill Clinton and Janet Reno had a victory when they snatched Elian Gonzalez by force to send him to Castro, but that may have made the difference in Gore losing Florida in the 2000 election, thus sparing the country a Gore presidency.

The ruling is a loss for our side or anyone who believes in a limited government, but it may prevent Obama having another 4 years to damage the country.

[Liberty Tree Surgeon]

Don’t expect the SCOTUS to pull our political chestnuts out of the fire

So basically, you're in favor of a pure majority rules democracy, not a constitutional republic? Because that's what you are saying if we can't count on SCOTUS to defend the constitution. Given demographics, I can almost guarantee you won't like the results.

[kevkrom]

At the end of the day, O-care will stand or fall, based on the actions of the political branches of gov’t.

Obamacare itself is no longer the issue. A Supreme Court who rules that we are serfs/slaves who can be ordered about at will by our federal "massa" is now the most critical issue facing this country.

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

Question: What did SCOTUS just do?"

Answer: Join in inflicting great damage upon the American people.

Comment: "In declining states the leadership intuitively choses the most harmful course of action."- A Great Historian 1888

[deener]

Amen to that sentiment. We need to stand up and fight to clean out the Liberals in the upcoming election! Count me in. I refuse to give in to these people by hiding in my parents basement with my guns and a years supply of dried beans. That’s NOT the way America was built.

[Adder]

I am so pissed I can hardly type. I do not consider any action performed in DC to be legal lawful or bindingn ot after this.

They have proven that we do not count: that they will make you kneel to them by holding you hostage and beholden to them.

I will NOT do that.

[Adder]

I am so pissed I can hardly type. I do not consider any action performed in DC to be legal lawful or binding not after this.

They have proven that we do not count: that they will make you kneel to them by holding you hostage and beholden to them.

I will NOT do that.

[HiTech RedNeck]

I tend to agree. This clever biz of calling Obamacare a tax rather than a bridge too far of the commerce clause, at the very least just opened up a huge pandora’s box about what can be taxed and why.

[tentmaker]

Jay Cost is correct.

Roberts has given us the strongest definition of limits to the commerce clause ever. This affirms the concept of constitutionally limited government.

Roberts opinion on the "tax" thing is that congress is granted the power to levy taxes under the Constitution. He also said, it is "not our job to save the people from the consequences of their political choices."

In other words, Roberts is saying, NO, you cannot use the commerce clause to do whatever you want. And he also says, YES, Congress has the power to set taxes. You, the sovereign people elect your representatives who go to Congress and set the taxes and if you sent fools who make bad taxes, it is not the place of the Supreme Court to overturn elections. That is YOUR job.

So, Roberts has done his job in protecting the Constitution and now it is up to us to do our job.

[what's up]

Yes, like many other issues, this ruling is “Bush’s Fault!”

(eye roll)

Yet just about 100% on this forum thought Roberts was the best decision Bush made since sliced bread.

Bush was supposed to see into the future and know how Roberts would vote on a socialized medicine bill?

Bring back Harriet Miers? LOL.

[rockinqsranch]

“Conservatives have a shot at getting the best of both worlds: having the Supreme Court use Obamacare as a way to limit federal power while also using the democratic process to overturn the law. I didn’t think we could have one without the other, but now maybe we can.

If Obama loses in November, that is...”

Bears repeating. It’s up to us now. Let’s roll.

[dfwgator]

What Did SCOTUS Just Do?

Skull F----d the country.

[Resettozero]

So basically, you're in favor of a pure majority rules democracy, not a constitutional republic?

That is not what the poster intended to say, and not at all something that I have agreed with. Your assessment went beyond the scope of what I believe was meant.