Skip to comments.The politics of the ObamaCare decision (repeatedly updated with dissents)
Posted on 06/28/2012 11:20:23 AM PDT by Nachum
It looks to me that there are some sweet lemons for conservatives in the ObamaCare decision. Before we burn the chief justice in effigy, let's read the decision and think about the implications.
First of all, upholding ObamaCare is going to energize opposition to Obama, and the determination to elect a Congress that can repeal and replace it. Just a day ago, the MSM was telling us it would be a plus for Obama if the act were held unconstitutional because it would take the issue off the table and weaken his opposition.
On the other hand, as Rick Moran points out, "it gives Obama a big boost; everyone likes a winner.
I have no doubt that the same media will now proclaim it is a big victory, a change in momentum, a blow to the right. I also expect Sudden New Respect for Chief Justice Roberts. I am not going to hold that against him.
For one thing, the Court went nowhere near claiming the Commerce Clause means the feds can force us to do anything. The CJ and the majority (remember, by joining the majority he got to write the opinion) relied on the taxation power, by defining the mandate penalty as a tax. In other words, they seem to have in effect said, Yeah, the Democrats lied when they claimed they weren't raising taxes. Big deal! What do you expect?
Lyle at SCOTUS Blog agrees with me:
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
I don`t get WTF so called conservatives are seeing.
The PRECEDENT has been set. The Govt. can force you to do ANYTHING under the ruse of “ it`s only a tax “ even if you do nothing. Thin kabout it, doing nothing, wanting to be left alone can be criminalized now. If you refuse to participate you`ll be fined. Fail to pay the fine, garnished wages. Got o wages, got to jail.
There is no silver lining.
I don`t get WTF so called conservatives are seeing.
The PRECEDENT has been set. The Govt. can force you to do ANYTHING under the ruse of “ it`s only a tax “ even if you do nothing. Think about it, doing nothing, wanting to be left alone can be criminalized now. If you refuse to participate you`ll be fined. Fail to pay the fine, garnished wages. Got o wages, got to jail.
There is no silver lining.
I have a slightly different take. I believe that Roberts has cleverly boxed obama into a corner. There are so many interviews with dims and Obama indignantly proclaiming obamcare was not a tax. And now obama’s four supreme court lackeys call it a TAX to try to save the monster. By Roberts agreeing with their decision to call it a tax, obama has effectively enacted the largest tax increase in American history. Heck maybe the largest tax increase in the world.
You can just imagine the campaign commercials. And how does obama now criticize the supreme court? They saved his baby...but at what cost.
Every minute that goes by I see this more and more as an albatross for obama. heh heh Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it.
Leftists look long term. They don’t care about Obama. They want socialized healthcare entrenched so that it will never be repealed, like Social Security and Medicare.
"As solicitor general of the United States, Justice Elena Kagan served as the head of an office responsible for formulating the Obama administrations legal defense of its domestic agenda priority Obamacare. "
"According to Section 455(b)(3) of Title 28 of the U.S. Code, justices must disqualify themselves in cases where they have served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser, or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case or controversy. In United States v. Gipson, the Tenth Circuit held that judges must recuse themselves if they have previously taken a part, albeit small, in the investigation, preparation, or prosecution of a case. Other courts have suggested that, merely by virtue of a lawyers position as the head of an office during the preparation of a case, he or she is disqualified to sit as a judge on that case."
"Previously undisclosed e-mails that the Justice Department has released pursuant to court order demonstrate Kagans direct involvement in the administrations defense of the presidents health law from the very beginning. "
Next up? Whatever owebama wants to impose.
Gun tax anyone? Bank on it!
Your take, like Roberts' decision is nonsensical and wrong, and by ruling as he has Roberts has just handed the Left a blank check; to the complete undoing of Constitutional government and even basic logic.
Congress' authority to tax presupposes the existence of a preexisting Constitutional authority for the purpose for which the tax is raised. That authority cannot be the taxing power itself, else there would need be no reason for the Constitution at all.
That is why people who actually understand the Constitution (for example: not John Roberts) realized a Constitutional rationale would have to exist for the imposition of this penalty or tax to begin with.
There is no silver lining.
I'm far from happy but isn't it true that by removing this from the commerce clause and defining it as a tax that allows Congress to take it apart several ways and much easier too? and as a tax, the first time I am forced to pay this tax, I will challenge it in court. Can't do that until someone has the tax applied to them.
From the political side - it's a TAX, loud and clear and they can't escape it. And now that it is a tax, how can Zero exempt his buddies? good luck with that, that union loot should be on the endangered list soon enough
‘Gun tax anyone? Bank on it!’
Gun confiscation is more like it :(
For the ruling says that even in the absence of a Constitutional authority (and indeed, even when some part of the Constitution itself forbids it) the power to tax is a justification in and of itself for any legislative action.
This decision is WORSE than the 1936 New Deal decisions which abused the Commerce Clause. It is effectively the end of the Republic.
>> The CJ and the majority (remember, by joining the majority he got to write the opinion)
YEAH! That’s a BIG DEAL!
Wait... what? The decision was 5 to 4.
WHICHEVER side the CJ joined, he’d be joining the majority!
It’s baffling why he didn’t choose to join the RIGHTEOUS majority and write THEIR opinion.
Exactly! And maybe Roberts saw that too. His ruling has thrown ObamaCare under the tax bus and it will be flattened. Remember that they passed it by swearing that it was not a tax, then argued before the Supreme Court that it is a tax.
Now, they have an increasingly unpopular tax/healthcare law that will not survive politically, financially or (if it ever gets that far) constitutionally. SCOTUS can not rule on the issue of taxation until somebody actually pays the tax in 2014 and files a suit. (Anti-Injunction-Act) That issue is still up in the air.
Every Democrat who voted for ObamaCare because it was NOT a tax, now has to defend their vote for it when it IS a tax. Vote them all out!
I'm not so sure about that. I have only ready through the syllabus and haven't delved into the decision itself yet but it seems that what Roberts did is set up a situation where Article 1, §8, Clause 1 supersedes the "proportion" requirements Article 9. I don't see how such a determination could possibly stand scrutiny but, unfortunately, someone will have to actually be subjected to this new "tax" before they have standing.
It certainly was a TAX and probably the largest tax in history! And Congress does have the Constitutional ability and right to “TAX”. The only RECOURSE to that is to throw out the legislators who want to “tax you to death” and put in those who don’t want to tax you to death.
It’s good to have the issue “clearly defined” as a tax and so that people know that “taxes” are the real issue here.
“Gun confiscation”? Yes, for those who can’t afford the $50,000 gun tax. It’s perfectly within the power of the feds now.
For those who didn't read the decsions, or who were not independent enough to resist the "Birther" propaganda, the writing was on the wall when it took Roberts three attempts to administer the oath of office to a candidate who clearly told us he is a naturalized citizen. That told us the Constitution is now the historical artifact Obama told us it was. That told us who Roberts is. The Supreme Court is a rubber stamp for the far left. If he has time, he will have his desire for a new bill of positive rights, edicts to redistribute wealth, enshrined. Kagan, whose involvment with many of the decisions, and refusal to recuse herself, along with cipher, Roberts, means the court is now an enforcer for progressives.
Start stocking up on popcorn for the July 9 House vote on Obamacare repeal. Remember that EVERY SINGLE RAT is up for re-election and the most optimistic poll on this turkey has 54% against.
Watching the Rats RUN RUN RUN is gonna be all kinda fun.
None of ‘em wants to become Bart Stupak. Gonna drop a real
hot potato in Harry Reid’s lap. I bet repeal gets 350 votes in the House.
I can’t help but think that something is afoot. This week’s rulings on the surface are disastrous. When you get into the weeds, though, you see subtle legalities that only work in favor of a) getting rid of obama, and b) paving the way for future liberal political and legal defeats.
Still, I cannot see how you can argue that a) you can tax someone for commercial non-activity and b) a tax, that originated in the Senate is constitutional.
Popcorn and beer :)
Second, the Court has already held in its ruling that there will be no such reconsideration. The decision specifically addresses the question of why the Court ruled on a tax matter when no one with standing to sue had brought a case.
Again, the majority's logic is thoroughly twisted, amateurish and opportunist. Had the Court seriously regarded your argument (and they should have, in light of the ruling which holds the mandate to be a tax) they would have refused to grant cert in the first place. They did not, and now they have said they are not going to accept arguments for standing.
There is nothing good in this decision.
Thinking that there is is what got us Obamacare!
I do believe you have hit the nail on the head.
How about a conservative gun tax? The next conservative majority can enact or deem passed a penalty of $100 per year for anyone legally permitted to own firearms who does not possess a firearm of at least .38 cal, with compatible ammunition in the home. We can call it the Citizen Protection and Affordable Policing Act. Since unarmed citizens are a factor in increasing crime, this tax on a failure to participate in the firearms marketplace simply encourages them not to shift the costs of defending their lives and property onto other taxpayers. Since the fine is not so large as to be coercive, it's constitutional - Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan just said so! Ginsburg even wrote that the commerce clause would permit this regardless of the size of the fine if it's in what Congress decides is a good cause. [Note: I find this idea repulsive as serious legislation, but I'd love to see liberal heads explode when it's introduced in Congress.]