Free Republic
Browse · Search
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 ...

TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government
KEYWORDS: bhohealthcare; commerceclause; robertscourt; slate
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-100 next last
To: steve8714

We will need 61 CONSERVATIVE senators to do anything about this. I don’t know how old you are but that won’t happen in my lifetime.

61 posted on 06/28/2012 1:02:39 PM PDT by Terry Mross ( To all my kin: Do not attempt to contact me as long as you love obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Terry Mross
We will need 61 CONSERVATIVE senators to do anything about this.

I say we need 51. And then destroy the filibuster like they did. Screw it.
62 posted on 06/28/2012 1:04:40 PM PDT by mmichaels1970
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: eddie willers


I’ve never double posted in my life.

Truly an unprecedented day.

63 posted on 06/28/2012 1:04:52 PM PDT by eddie willers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
You're absolutely right, that's the most terrifying part of this whole decision. We can now not only be taxed on what we do, but on what we don't do. Imagine a reverse sales tax. You're being taxed on what products you are not buying (which is what the Individual mandate is). Imagine how the government can control you, if it can punish you for refusing to do something that you do not want to do. Imagine being taxed, not for buying a Big Gulp, but for NOT buying a Big Gulp?

What if the government attempts to use this power to force people to do things against their health or conscience? If you don't behave the way the government wants in every sphere of life, you get taxed. If you don't support, if you don't buy cuban cigars, or don't support abortion, then you get taxed because some lobbyists in Congress have persuaded Congress to put a tax on these behaviors. Already under Obamacare we see a moral difficulty being presented to many Americans, since all Americans are being forced to buy insurance, and insurance companies are being required to provide abortions or Contraceptives to all of their customers by the government, this then forces all Americans to subsidize abortion under the HHS mandate which is a violation of many Americans moral and religious beliefs.

64 posted on 06/28/2012 1:06:28 PM PDT by old republic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: All

I’m not sure Roberts even read the law. He read the newspapers and ruled based on what the NY Times said.

65 posted on 06/28/2012 1:08:16 PM PDT by Terry Mross ( To all my kin: Do not attempt to contact me as long as you love obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
"taxing power is unlimited"

Congressional taxing power has always been unlimited - that's the point Roberts is making. Congress has always had the power to pass taxes - including those on non-activity.

And yet, for 225 years, they never thought to do so, because it would mean certain loss. But now, inadvertently, and over loud protestations to the contrary, Congress has been deemed to have passed on a tax on non-activity.

Even better, it's horribly non-progressive. Rich, middle, poor & homeless are all liable for the same tax. Wait until the 20% who are currently on SNAP and/or receiving EBT cards are on the hook for thousands $ each year. Or the millions of illegals who get away scot free in the cash economy.

But wait, it's gets even better: the DHS cannot unilaterally issue waivers on taxes to favored groups like unions, churches, etc. Nope, this baby is now in the hands of the IRS - the most oppressive TLA besides the TSA.

Roberts just did us a favor by making every person, even the most egregious member of the FSA, now on the hook for an enormous personal tax. How are they gonna react?

66 posted on 06/28/2012 1:08:52 PM PDT by semantic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: eddie willers; 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.

So what you are both saying is the SCOTUS has no purpose.

67 posted on 06/28/2012 1:10:37 PM PDT by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator

Legislators name their own acts. It wasn’t the media that dubbed it the “Affordable Care and Patient Protection Act” that was the name it was passed and signed under.

But I agree with the point your are making. That is why I called “the Patriot Act” the “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel Act”. Who doesn’t like the name? Who is against patriotism?

I imagine some time in the future there might well be a “Defense of Motherhood and Apple Pie for America Act” or some such idiocy.

What is in a name? An Act by any other name would smell just as putrid.

68 posted on 06/28/2012 1:14:11 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

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

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Roberts decided firmly with the Statists against Liberty and against our Constitution.

You need to think about the administrative state. It is vast and growing daily. There are nearly 300,000 people who's sole job is to implement this monstrosity.

They aren't going away. Their power and size will only increase over time. It is the nature of States to grow and consume the wealth of others.

Any rationalization of Robert's position is naive.

The power no longer lies with the people. That is now a fiction. True power lies in a growing sadistic bureaucracy that infest all local, state and federal governments.

The only thing to stop the growing soft tyranny is a total collapse of our civilization. There is no longer a way to "legislate" our way back to Liberty.

69 posted on 06/28/2012 1:17:10 PM PDT by sand88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: old republic

Well said! Thanks for your voice of reason.

70 posted on 06/28/2012 1:18:11 PM PDT by Graewoulf ((Dictator Baby-Doc Barack's obama"care" violates Sherman Anti-Trust Law, AND U.S. Constitution.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Darteaus94025
Romney won't overturn it. He will weasel out of his statements today, or blame it on Congress.

To many power brokers want socialized medicine.

71 posted on 06/28/2012 1:20:14 PM PDT by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

Well, if we are going to live in a “any and all taxes are fair game” system, then I’m going to have to go stealth and defend my personal finances against the thieves. I used to have a moral objection to tax cheating; I now no longer feel that way.

72 posted on 06/28/2012 1:21:17 PM PDT by Arkansas Toothpick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: terycarl
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.

Well said.

From Roberts ruling:

"Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices."

In other words, you (the people) elected the fools who passed this travesty of a tax/notatax/healthcare bill. You fix the mess by voting them out!

In the meantime, he protected the sovereign rights of the people by limiting the expansion of the commerce clause.

73 posted on 06/28/2012 1:23:58 PM PDT by tentmaker (vote for John Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: central_va
So what you are both saying is the SCOTUS has no purpose.

If you really want to be Originalist, you have to go back before Marbury. And before Marbury, SCOTUS had little purpose.

Would you prefer a stronger SCOTUS....or a weaker one?

74 posted on 06/28/2012 1:26:13 PM PDT by eddie willers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: MissMagnolia

“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.”

Well said! I’m so tired of hearing people say I’m going to vote for him because his dad was such a good rep or senator or whatever, they don’t look at what the person really stands for and how they handle the job. I guess I’m po’d and running everything together. I don’t care if it’s my brother, elected office like welfare was not intended to be a profession, just a short term job with no benefits.

75 posted on 06/28/2012 1:30:45 PM PDT by A Strict Constructionist (We're an Oligrachy...Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God. Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: semantic

You and I are in agreement.

Let us suffer the slings and arrows together.

76 posted on 06/28/2012 1:32:35 PM PDT by eddie willers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

Complete utter BS! He could have kille dthe entire thing, but chose not to. Period. We are screwed.

77 posted on 06/28/2012 1:32:48 PM PDT by vpintheak (Occupy your Brain!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

Correct me if I’m wrong, but having defined it as a tax, Roberts ensured conservatives would not need a supermajority to overturn it.

Plus, Just think of all of the useful soundbites of OMinions swearing up and down it is not a tax.

78 posted on 06/28/2012 1:34:04 PM PDT by Katydidnt ("...the greatest of these is love.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arkansas Toothpick
I have long felt that it is the patriotic duty of every American to pay as little in taxes as the law allows.

But I think the Constitutionality of such a tax is still subject to debate - but via the law - one must first PAY the tax to have standing to challenge the tax.

16th Amendment: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Is the 0bamacare tax a tax on income? If a business or individual lost money that year - can they be taxed via a “fine” on income they didn't earn?

79 posted on 06/28/2012 1:34:55 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye Battle Cry
Ha! Ha!...and all those Conservatives thought I would walk the line...
80 posted on 06/28/2012 1:36:25 PM PDT by AngelesCrestHighway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-100 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
Topics · Post Article

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