Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama Wins the Battle, Roberts Wins the War
Slate Scocca ^ | 28 June 2012 | Tom

Posted on 06/28/2012 12:15:09 PM PDT by Lorianne

The chief justice’s canny move to uphold the Affordable Care Act while gutting the Commerce Clause.

The scholars expected to see the court gut existing Commerce Clause ...

Roberts was smarter than that. By ruling that the individual mandate was permissible as a tax, he joined the Democratic appointees to uphold the law—while joining the Republican wing to gut the Commerce Clause (and push back against the necessary-and-proper clause as well). Here's the Chief Justice's opinion (italics in original):

Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Congress already possesses expansive power to regulate what people do. Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clause would give Congress the same license to regulate what people do not do. The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers. The individual mandate thus cannot be sustained under Congress’s power to “regulate Commerce.

The business about "new and potentially vast" authority is a fig leaf. This is a substantial rollback of Congress' regulatory powers, and the chief justice knows it. It is what Roberts has been pursuing ever since he signed up with the Federalist Society. In 2005, Sen. Barack Obama spoke in opposition to Roberts' nomination, saying he did not trust his political philosophy on tough questions such as "whether the Commerce Clause empowers Congress to speak on those issues of broad national concern that may be only tangentially related to what is easily defined as interstate commerce." Today, Roberts did what Obama predicted he would do.

(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government
KEYWORDS: bhohealthcare; commerceclause; robertscourt; slate
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100 next last

1 posted on 06/28/2012 12:15:16 PM PDT by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

The Federalist Society should toss Roberts out on his ass!


2 posted on 06/28/2012 12:19:43 PM PDT by Buckeye Battle Cry (GHWB gave us Souter. W gave us Roberts. Can we risk Jeb in the White House?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

The media won the war. First they call it the Affordable care Act....Who doesn’t love that name? Secondly, people have ZERO clue what Obamacare is....This is what they think it means: I am hearing people say that Obamacare is letting your children stay on your insurance until 27, letting you continuing having insurance if you get a pre-exsisting condition and let’s you stay on the insurance even if you get sick and cannot drop you. People SERIOUSLY believe this is what Obamacare is all about. This is why many people don’t mind Obamacare and the Conservatives are losing the battle pretty much in the eye of the public. We need to change the message and unfortunately we have an extremely liberal candidate in Romney who feels today is the best day in the history of the Republic...He won’t admit it but he is the reason Obamacare is even in existance...He started it with Romneycare. He is playing politics today but deep down he is proud as can be.


3 posted on 06/28/2012 12:19:43 PM PDT by napscoordinator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

Roberts said it. His job is not to protect us from our elected officials. Vote ‘em out. Insist upon repeal. Get a majority, and then Senate rules be damned.


4 posted on 06/28/2012 12:20:41 PM PDT by steve8714 (Who didn't already know Obama was our first gay President?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

This is suppose to make me happy? If they wanted to limit the commerce clause strike down this terrible act AND overturn all the nonsense hung out on it.


5 posted on 06/28/2012 12:21:57 PM PDT by Nateman (If liberals are not screaming you are doing it wrong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

Don’t forget, this monster was “deemed to pass” in the House.


6 posted on 06/28/2012 12:22:52 PM PDT by steve8714 (Who didn't already know Obama was our first gay President?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

Who cares about the commerce clause when you can get socialism in this way?


7 posted on 06/28/2012 12:23:11 PM PDT by ari-freedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

And he inspires the Te Party to turn out for Romney. Obama wins the battle, and the Conservatives win the election and HC overturn.

Brilliant payback to the man who tried to shame him at the State of the Union.


8 posted on 06/28/2012 12:23:38 PM PDT by Darteaus94025
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steve8714

“Roberts said it. His job is not to protect us from our elected officials. Vote ‘em out. Insist upon repeal. Get a majority, and then Senate rules be damned.”

Obama will get his majority from illegals and other freeloaders and they will just tax you.


9 posted on 06/28/2012 12:24:36 PM PDT by ari-freedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: steve8714
Roberts said it. His job is not to protect us from our elected officials. Vote ‘em out. Insist upon repeal. Get a majority, and then Senate rules be damned.

You and I are in agreement.

10 posted on 06/28/2012 12:26:03 PM PDT by eddie willers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: steve8714
Roberts and his friends Kagan, Ginsburg, Sotomayor & Stephens redefined the manner in which the federal government can tax us, greatly expanding their power.

How is that in any way a good thing?

11 posted on 06/28/2012 12:26:30 PM PDT by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye Battle Cry

I spit on Robert’s and he no longer exists to me.I am changing my party today to independent.


12 posted on 06/28/2012 12:26:42 PM PDT by fatima (Free Hugs Today :))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

Sorry I’m not feelin the love.


13 posted on 06/28/2012 12:28:04 PM PDT by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steve8714

Yep, the young people who will be paying the obamacaretax are the ones who voted him in.

They, being young people- and our media being dishonest- are celebrating this ruling... for now.

I guess us old people should be glad that Medicare will get new funding from this tax on young and healthy people for us, but it is so cruel to treat the young this way.


14 posted on 06/28/2012 12:28:23 PM PDT by mrsmith (Dumb sluts: Lifeblood of the Media, Backbone of the Democrat Party!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

Roberts, simply put, did not do his damn job! It is bad enough the other 4 on the court did not do theirs but that was expected. Roberts was supposed to be better than what we got today.

This ruling was not some kind of game like chess as so many have been asserting. It was a black-white issue. Yes or no. Up or down. And Roberts and the other 4 justices failed to do what they have been hired to do.

We no longer have people working for us in Washington in any branch of government. We are now their slaves.


15 posted on 06/28/2012 12:28:45 PM PDT by isthisnickcool (Sharia? No thanks!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ari-freedom
“Roberts said it. His job is not to protect us from our elected officials.

No, his job is to uphold the Constitution....AND HE FAILED!

16 posted on 06/28/2012 12:30:08 PM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith

By young people you mean people 26 years old & up. Because under this LAW parents are supposed to cover their ‘children’ up to 26.


17 posted on 06/28/2012 12:30:38 PM PDT by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
All these pundits telling us was a genius Roberts is for his calculated decision. Why, it's almost Rovian in grandeur.

It's pissing me off reading it over and over.

If we have a Chief Justice making a fool's gamble that impacts 300+ million people, and uncounted millions more in the future, he's needs his filthy arse impeached.

18 posted on 06/28/2012 12:31:20 PM PDT by Lovely-Day-For-A-Guinness (Eenie meanie, chili beanie, the spirits are about to speak....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
Yamamoto was correct....and will be again

"I AM AFRAID WE HAVE ONLY AWOKEN A SLEEPING GIANT, AND FILLED HIM WITH A TERRIBLE RESOLVE"


19 posted on 06/28/2012 12:31:51 PM PDT by The Wizard (Madam President is my President now and in the future)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: skeeter
How is that in any way a good thing?

Because he took the court out of it and gave it back to the people.

Now it is up to us to vote in the right people.

20 posted on 06/28/2012 12:34:24 PM PDT by eddie willers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Lovely-Day-For-A-Guinness
Obfuscation - because keeping us confused benefits so many - its obviously not in the State's interests to have such a large segment of the country polarized against them.

People need to stop with the rationalizations and look at reality. It is what it is.

21 posted on 06/28/2012 12:34:34 PM PDT by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
The chief justice’s canny move to uphold the Affordable Care Act while gutting the Commerce Clause.

BFD, he legitimized this monstrosity and invited future governmental incurstions by upholding it under the Necessary and Proper Clause. Remember, he discussed the importance of precedence in his confirmation hearings. He's just set it.....and badly.

Attempting to explain this away by suggesting Roberts is giving us a wink and a nod, allowing us to save ourselves in November is being too clever by way more than half.

22 posted on 06/28/2012 12:35:05 PM PDT by edpc (Wilby 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

Roberts ruled differently than Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy. That’s all I need to know. He did nothing but further hurt our country today.

It took an hour or two for the “spin” to start flying to try to quell the dissent, but it’s in full force now.


23 posted on 06/28/2012 12:35:34 PM PDT by mmichaels1970
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

bflr


24 posted on 06/28/2012 12:36:10 PM PDT by rockinqsranch (Dems, Libs, Socialists, call 'em what you will, they ALL have fairies livin' in their trees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eddie willers
How is that better than Roberts joining the originalists on the court, throwing the whole abomination out and making a statement about governmental overreach in the majority opinion?
25 posted on 06/28/2012 12:36:25 PM PDT by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: skeeter

On the contrary, he reaffirmed the manner in which Congress can tax us. He removed the veil of fraud that allowed the Commerce Clause to be used to tax us to death. The GOP had a strong majority in the House for 12 years. They squandered it by being over the top liberal in their spending and eventually collapsed into the hands of Pelosi and the wild left.

Roberts basically put it back on We the People to kill this monstrosity. He took away the Left’s use of Commerce to do it. The monster was born of politics and will live or die from politics. Do We the People have the will to kill it?

By the way, old man Stephens is long gone. Alas, not so old man Breyer lives to destroy us yet again.


26 posted on 06/28/2012 12:36:31 PM PDT by untwist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
interesting read.......Roberts may have done three things for us.....1. Now we are after bambi big time.....2. IT IS A TAX....I would run ads with him saying it isn't and the supreme court saying it is.....3. and the commerce clause has been limited.....4. states can opt out of the medicare portion

And Roberts is right...if you don't like the asshole in congress vote them out....

27 posted on 06/28/2012 12:37:32 PM PDT by The Wizard (Madam President is my President now and in the future)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: untwist

He could’ve thrown the entire POS out AND gutted the commerce clause. With Roberts the votes were there.


28 posted on 06/28/2012 12:39:05 PM PDT by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: The Wizard

The average “American Idol” watching American isn’t going to care about whether it’s a tax or not, all they know today is that the SCOTUS ruled ObamaCare constitutional, then they will go back to watching American Idol or whatever dreck they watch on TV these days.


29 posted on 06/28/2012 12:39:23 PM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: untwist

“Roberts basically put it back on We the People to kill this monstrosity. “

You mean ‘We the People of Mexico’ after that Arizona ruling.


30 posted on 06/28/2012 12:39:46 PM PDT by ari-freedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

So many idiots trying to crawl through their own bunghole to contort this expansion of federal tax power into something more palatable.

If (in)justice roberts were half the genius they are pretending him to be, he would not have handed that room temperature IQ bunch of moral degenerates in congress unlimited power under any circumstances.


31 posted on 06/28/2012 12:41:20 PM PDT by Dr.Zoidberg (With (R)epublicans like these, who needs (D)emocrats?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: edpc
Attempting to explain this away by suggesting Roberts is giving us a wink and a nod, allowing us to save ourselves in November is being too clever by way more than half.

It happens every time one of our representatives stabs conservatives in the back.

Their motives are obvious and my heart goes out to the optimists who buy the line.

32 posted on 06/28/2012 12:41:37 PM PDT by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: skeeter

Some few rich parents may choose to pay extra to cover children up to 26.

Most 18 to 26’s will pay the tax (granted, they may get the money to do so from their parents, but that’s less money their parents can give them for partying, rent, drugs, or whatever).

Thanks kids! (No, seriously, I do feel bad for them.)


33 posted on 06/28/2012 12:41:50 PM PDT by mrsmith (Dumb sluts: Lifeblood of the Media, Backbone of the Democrat Party!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: eddie willers
Because he took the court out of it and gave it back to the people.

The people who elected the idiots in the first place.

The court was supposed to be a check against a runaway government violating the Constitution, regardless of how many people voted for them. Not a body that simply states "elections have consequences".

If the majority of the American people decide to elect people that support something unconstitutional, the court is supposed to be the last line of defense against mob/majority rule.

At least as I understand it.

The message I get from the court today is: Command and punish your subjects as you see fit. Simply call it a "tax" and it's all good.
34 posted on 06/28/2012 12:41:50 PM PDT by mmichaels1970
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

Sounds like a Faustian bargain to me. Clobber the Commerce Clause on the nose and tell it to go no further, but at the same time open up the door for any cockamamie tax Uncle Sam can think of? A tax for not having insulated windows? A tax for drinking Big Gulps?

It could be hoped that when THIS is pushed back before the USSC, Roberts will then agree, this is a bad tax. Like it took more than one trip before campaign finance reform died.


35 posted on 06/28/2012 12:43:28 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (let me ABOs run loose, lew)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

Time will tell if the longterm goal of Robert’s decision will hold up. I can understand a little more of where he’s coming from...but will we actually live long enough to see it?

Repealing this POS legislation will take forever..I don’t trust the next adminstration to do it.

Cripes, look how long it takes for a damn vote on contempt charges..


36 posted on 06/28/2012 12:43:56 PM PDT by SueRae (The Tower of Sauron falls on 11.06.2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nateman
The logic of this article seems to be somewhat in denial of what actually happened in this SCOTUS decision today. As I have mentioned on another thread, Roberts has just said that there are essentially no serious limits on federal power, and that the individual mandate--which is clearly a penalty and not a tax--is a tax. Roberts also said that the government could tax things which don't even relate to federal enumerated powers. The Congress no longer needs the Commerce Clause but can now "regulate" (and in this case that means penalize) activity over which it has no authority to directly regulate. Roberts argued this is allowed under the Taxation clause in Art I Sec 8. Congress and the President can penalize any behavior and have the Court construe it as a tax.

Besides, from a pragmatic point of view, does it matter whether the court uses the Commerce Clause or the taxation clause to justify its expansion of power beyond the Constitution's enumerated powers? The result is the same either way, increasingly unrestricted authority is centralized in the federal government, and ultimately in the president. At this rate, the Taxation Clause will be the new Commerce Clause, and using that clause the government won't even need to prove that their legislation substantially affects interstate commerce...only that the government's power to penalize--I mean tax--is legal. (This will probably not be too hard to do with the SCOTUS redefinition of a penalty into a tax.)

37 posted on 06/28/2012 12:43:56 PM PDT by old republic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: steve8714
Roberts said it. His job is not to protect us from our elected officials. Vote ‘em out. Insist upon repeal.

And then impeach the Roberts. Make him prove that he did not SELL his changed vote.
38 posted on 06/28/2012 12:44:44 PM PDT by Tzfat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: steve8714

BS, his job is to rule on the constitionality of laws. To me that statement sounded like whiner who did not have the courage to do what was right. To me that is a frightening argument, if we elect leaders that do unconstitutional things, too bad.


39 posted on 06/28/2012 12:44:44 PM PDT by BLOC77 (i was pro-life before pro-life was cool)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Darteaus94025

Yes.


40 posted on 06/28/2012 12:47:29 PM PDT by rockinqsranch (Dems, Libs, Socialists, call 'em what you will, they ALL have fairies livin' in their trees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: skeeter

“How is that in any way a good thing?”

Small consolation but I guess all the Democrats who campaigned
on a no-tax increase for the ‘working class’ but voted for Obumble-
care lied to their constituents. May just be too early to tell just
how this all shakes out. Maybe Roberts helped us in the long run.


41 posted on 06/28/2012 12:48:22 PM PDT by Sivad (NorCal Red Turf)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Dr.Zoidberg

Indeed!

It’s incredible seeing the mental gymnastics being performed. This was a full frontal assault in the daylight.

“He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.”

- United States Declaration of Independence


42 posted on 06/28/2012 12:48:51 PM PDT by Kaosinla (The More the Plans Fail. The More the Planners Plan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: fatima
I spit on Robert’s and he no longer exists to me.I am changing my party today to independent

a rash decision based on your misunderstanding of what tcook place here. In my (never to be humble) opinion, Roberts did not rule in favor of the law, only that it was not unconstitutional. Laws can be overturned, constitutional or not and this one should be. He did, however, restrict the authority of the legislature under the commerce clause. Obamacare has an unknown future. It is a bad law and should be repealed and this congress and future ones will see their powers somewhat restricted under commerce.

43 posted on 06/28/2012 12:48:51 PM PDT by terycarl (lurking, but well informed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: old republic
Congress and the President can penalize any behavior and have the Court construe it as a tax.

You bring up an interesting point. Congess would be within its rights to levy a $10,000 tax on any abortion. It wouldn't be a fine, it would be a tax.

44 posted on 06/28/2012 12:49:56 PM PDT by Publius (Leadershiup starts with getting off the couch.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Sivad
Maybe Roberts helped us in the long run.

Maybe, but I won't be thanking him. He's in the same league with Ginsburg now.

45 posted on 06/28/2012 12:50:49 PM PDT by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

What’s the difference? If the federal government can force you to spend every penny you have on, say, green energy products or face a $1M fine, what limits are there now on Congress?


46 posted on 06/28/2012 12:50:53 PM PDT by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr.Zoidberg
... room temperature IQ bunch of moral degenerates in congress

WHO put them in Congress? .... it wasn't Roberts. If folks who respected the Constitution & truly had America's best interests (not their own i.e. re-election for power & goodies) were elected to Congress, Obamacare would not have seen the light of day & we never would have gotten to this point. It isn't Bush's fault or Robert's fault, it is OUR fault for continuing to elect this trash and then putting up with it when we don't like what they are doing.

47 posted on 06/28/2012 12:51:18 PM PDT by MissMagnolia (Being powerful is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren't. (M.Thatcher))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
Irrespective of the basis for declaring "Obamacare" constitutional IT IS NOW THE LAW!

Everywhere Liberalism is marching towards total victory. Sodomy is becoming the law of the land, the murder of babies is the law of the land, aliens are flooding into our country and increasing their demands, corruption runs riot among politicians with those exposed flatly refusing to resign; electorial fraud is becoming the norm, the transfer of wealth is now acceptable "from each according to his ability to each according to his need!"

The real question is rapidly becoming "Will ordinary political procedures save the Republic?

48 posted on 06/28/2012 12:51:58 PM PDT by AEMILIUS PAULUS (It is a shame that when these people give a riot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

This is the rationalization of losers. I remember when every stupid thing Karl Rove did was rationalized as deep strategy.

So Roberts upholding the worst and most unconstitutional law since the New Deal is engaged in some deep long-term war.

What the author does not understand is that Roberts extended Congress taxing powers so far that the commerce clause NO LONGER MATTERS. Congress can do whatever it wants under the taxing power now.


49 posted on 06/28/2012 12:52:54 PM PDT by ModelBreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: skeeter
He could’ve thrown the entire POS out AND gutted the commerce clause. With Roberts the votes were there.

Of course!

I'm weary of the spin as well.

His choice was made with an eye on his personal "legacy", not as a result of brilliant jurisprudence.

50 posted on 06/28/2012 12:53:22 PM PDT by BlatherNaut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson