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

Skip to comments.

Why Chief Justice Roberts Made the Right Long-Term Decision With ObamaCare
Independent Journal Review ^ | June 28, 2012 | I.M. Citizen

Posted on 06/28/2012 6:27:18 PM PDT by semantic

It’s important that you think carefully about the meaning – the true nature — of his ruling on Obama-care. The Left will shout that they won, that Obama-care was upheld and all the rest. Let them. It will be a short-lived celebration.

Here’s what really occurred — payback. Yes, payback for Obama’s numerous, ill-advised and childish insults directed toward SCOTUS.

Chief Justice Roberts actually ruled the mandate, relative to the commerce clause, was unconstitutional. That’s how the Democrats got Obama-care going in the first place. This is critical. His ruling means Congress can’t compel American citizens to purchase anything. Ever. The notion is now officially and forever, unconstitutional. As it should be.

Next, he stated that, because Congress doesn’t have the ability to mandate, it must, to fund Obama-care, rely on its power to tax. Therefore, the mechanism that funds Obama-care is a tax. This is also critical.

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


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism
KEYWORDS: abortion; deathpanels; obamacare; ruling; zerocare
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-93 next last
Finally some people are beginning to connect the dots.
1 posted on 06/28/2012 6:27:24 PM PDT by semantic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: semantic
His ruling means Congress can’t compel American citizens to purchase anything. Ever.

However, they can "tax" the hell out of you if you drive a combustion engine car instead of an Obama Motors Voltswagen.

2 posted on 06/28/2012 6:31:46 PM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (Dude! Where's my Constitution?!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: semantic

I like it.


3 posted on 06/28/2012 6:32:27 PM PDT by mylife (The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mylife
This is the part I like and it's where the libs are going to be really shocked:

Finally, he struck down as unconstitutional, the Obama-care idea that the federal government can bully states into complying by yanking their existing medicaid funding. Liberals, through Obama-care, basically said to the states — ‘comply with Obama-care or we will stop existing funding.’ Roberts ruled that is a no-no. If a state takes the money, fine, the Feds can tell the state how to run a program, but if the state refuses money, the federal government can’t penalize the state by yanking other funding. Therefore, a state can decline to participate in Obama-care without penalty. This is obviously a serious problem. Are we going to have 10, 12, 25 states not participating in “national” health-care? Suddenly, it’s not national, is it?"


4 posted on 06/28/2012 6:36:07 PM PDT by Signalman ( November, 2012-The End of an Error)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: semantic

Dumbass Roberts could have killed the monster today saying the mandate was unconstitutional because it was not passed by Congress as a tax. He would have made the exact same points as he is “credited” with making today *and* killed ObamaCare at the same time.


5 posted on 06/28/2012 6:37:17 PM PDT by kevao
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: semantic

I dont’ get it.

The whole reason why obamacare existed in the first place was because the CBO could prove obamacare was a deficit reduction program. Right?

so now that we redefine it as a tax and we take away the fed’s ability to force states to comply...it can’t possibly STILL be a deficit reducing program can it? Is it now nullified if it is deficit expanding? Or what?


6 posted on 06/28/2012 6:37:55 PM PDT by mamelukesabre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kevao
He would have made the exact same points as he is “credited” with making today *and* killed ObamaCare at the same time.

*In my best John Belushi voice* But Noooooooooooooooo!

7 posted on 06/28/2012 6:38:15 PM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: kevao

I don’t think so. The democrat lawyers argued before the supreme court that it could be either a tax or a penalty. whichever was more constitutional.


8 posted on 06/28/2012 6:39:35 PM PDT by mamelukesabre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer
Yes, as it turns out, Congress can tax you for whatever they want, whether it's an activity or non-activity.

But, and this is a big but, it has to be passed by Congress AS A TAX. In full daylight, ie no back room deals conducted under the commerce clause, with its -0- accountability and 100% discretion.

And because it's only a tax, it can be terminated by the next Congress with a simple majority. Why are the "Bush Tax Cuts" still called the "Bush Tax Cuts"? Because they were/are a hallmark political ploy that conferred significant advantages to supporters.

Now, any politician, D or R, can run on a tax cut platform as a means of gutting the O-Tax.

9 posted on 06/28/2012 6:40:01 PM PDT by semantic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mamelukesabre
I dont’ get it.

Hmmm...

10 posted on 06/28/2012 6:42:19 PM PDT by dragnet2 (Diversion and evasion are tools of deceit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

bump


11 posted on 06/28/2012 6:43:02 PM PDT by foreverfree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Signalman

I am sure Greg Abbott is working this even now, down here in Texas.


12 posted on 06/28/2012 6:44:01 PM PDT by mylife (The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: semantic

I trust Scalia’s judgement on this. Roberts isn’t worthy to shine Scalia’s shoes.


13 posted on 06/28/2012 6:45:07 PM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kevao
"He would have made the exact same points as he is “credited” with making today *and* killed ObamaCare at the same time."

He? Who's "he", the big he? Look, Roberts is a constitutionalist; he's no dictator.

All he reaffirmed was, yes, Congress basically has unlimited power to tax. But they have to wield that power themselves, not delegate, nor hide behind the commerce clause.

So, suckas, everyone is now on the hook. Any exceptions, etc have to be passed by Congress. Good luck with that. This is going to turn out to be an epic 3rd rail - for those who vote to maintain the tax.

14 posted on 06/28/2012 6:45:40 PM PDT by semantic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: semantic

“This is critical. His ruling means Congress can’t compel American citizens to purchase anything. Ever.”

Wait.... What?
I guess I’m pretty dense - I thought we lost?


15 posted on 06/28/2012 6:48:54 PM PDT by BO Stinkss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dragnet2

You got a point there puke breath?


16 posted on 06/28/2012 6:49:06 PM PDT by mamelukesabre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: semantic

Thanks for the link.

As somebody who’s been trying to sort through “what was Roberts thinking?” all day, and who has always had respect for him, even if I didn’t agree with every ruling...this is the kind of outcome I’d love to see.

While I’m still shell shocked and not sure what his exact intention was, all that really matters is the result and its impact on the ability to get rid of both Obamacare and Obama.


17 posted on 06/28/2012 6:49:06 PM PDT by nerdgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer

However, they can “tax” the hell out of you if you drive a combustion engine car instead of an Obama Motors Voltswagen

/

Yea well, what’s new.


18 posted on 06/28/2012 6:50:31 PM PDT by snarkytart (http://www.freerepubli224%2C1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: semantic

At best we have two years until the collapse. If Romney is in when it happens, he will become the next Hoover. Huge gains by the Dems in the subsequent election, then armed with today’s precedent, they will compel the evil rich people to invest their 401k money into union businesses or corrupt big city bonds or suffer an immediate 70% tax (taxing inactivity). That’s how it ends - and it requires today’s decision to make it work.


19 posted on 06/28/2012 6:52:17 PM PDT by FirstFlaBn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: semantic
But, and this is a big but

Oh yeah!

Some like big butts....Clever tune...Thanks for that advise BTW.

20 posted on 06/28/2012 6:53:15 PM PDT by dragnet2 (Diversion and evasion are tools of deceit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: semantic

Wow! It will be interesting what the states that fought to stay out of the mandate do now. That just may have been a genius move for Roberts. If all the states that fought it stay out of it the bill may be dead any way.


21 posted on 06/28/2012 6:54:20 PM PDT by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: semantic
Chief Justice Roberts actually ruled the mandate, relative to the commerce clause, was unconstitutional.

Oh BFD!! Who CARES? - Roberts could have ruled that as any part of his ruling, and STILL ruled that the mandate was unconstitutional!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, that discretion is virtually unlimited!

22 posted on 06/28/2012 6:55:57 PM PDT by bill1952 (Choice is an illusion created between those with power - and those without)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Signalman
Without the Medicaid expansion those residents who would have been covered by it are moved into that state's exchange program where they cannot afford the rates without a heavy subsidy. This throws off the whole ObamaCare funding formula.

There are very few states, if any, whose Medicaid systems are not already stretched to the breaking point. ObamaCare works only by forcing the states to pay for most of the Medicaid expansion.

Our former governor, Bill Bredesen—a Democrat, Obama supporter, and a businessman who made millions in the managed health care industry—said ObamaCare would be a “disaster for Tennessee.” He said the law was deeply flawed because it was written by people “who don't know how health care works in the real world.”

23 posted on 06/28/2012 6:55:57 PM PDT by Brad from Tennessee (A politician can't give you anything he hasn't first stolen from you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: kevao
..was unconstitutional because it was not passed by Congress as a tax.

That's how I see it, too. And he also said that (in essence) elections have consequences. Wow, what a brilliant man...NOT! Don't show me a pile of crap and tell me it's a rose garden.

24 posted on 06/28/2012 6:59:00 PM PDT by azishot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: kevao
Dumbass Roberts could have killed the monster today saying the mandate was unconstitutional because it was not passed by Congress as a tax. He would have made the exact same points as he is “credited” with making today *and* killed ObamaCare at the same time.

This. Roberts is an idiot who voted communism over freedom because he didn't want the court to appear as a party-line voting institution. He's a POS, and he fucked us all.
25 posted on 06/28/2012 7:02:32 PM PDT by snowrip (Liberal? You are a socialist idiot with no rational argument.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: semantic

too much wishful thinking.. He took the cowards way out and it will go down in history as one of the worst decisions in the history of the court.
This could have been ended but he punted and in effect, legislated from the bench making law out of thin air to make it work.


26 posted on 06/28/2012 7:02:39 PM PDT by newnhdad (Where will you be during the Election Riots of 2012/2013?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer
However, they can "tax" the hell out of you if you drive a combustion engine car instead of an Obama Motors Voltswagen.

That's 100% true. And it was 100% true yesterday as well. And it was in 1789 too.

27 posted on 06/28/2012 7:02:39 PM PDT by Cyber Liberty (Obama considers the Third World morally superior to the United States.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: semantic
I'm not buying this BS.
In his confirmation hearing Roberts talked about the SCOTUS being umpires in a baseball, football, whatever type game. They were there to officiate but not to be part of the game. Well ... what has happened here, the officiating in the last moments of a Super Bowl, blew the call and gave the win to an undeserving team. Thank you Roberts ... you f***ed up this call big time. No parsing changes the outcome.
28 posted on 06/28/2012 7:03:39 PM PDT by BluH2o
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: semantic
No, Roberts believes in a negative tax. If Congress votes to COMPELL an individual to purchase something, all they need to do is punish them with a tax if the individual is non-compliant.

Quit drinking this statist Flavor-aid. Roberts could have chosen to side with Alito, Thomas, Kennedy, and Scalia to destroy the power grab, but chose Ginsburg, Kagan, Sotomayer, and Breyer side in rearranging the “penalty” plus keeping all the regulations intact. The "Mediscare" provision was a given but Roberts expanded Congress' power by calling the fine/penalty a tax and foolishly running with it.

I can't believe people on this website are buying the spoiled milk Roberts is trying to sell. In the words of Scalia in regards to the tax explanation from Solicitor General Verrilli, "Extraordinary".

29 posted on 06/28/2012 7:04:13 PM PDT by rollo tomasi (Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mamelukesabre
You got a point there puke breath?

I'd stepped out... n' just found your post....

Hey, thanks for the kind words BTW!

Upbeat....I like it!

30 posted on 06/28/2012 7:07:49 PM PDT by dragnet2 (Diversion and evasion are tools of deceit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: rollo tomasi
After a quiet century or so, the scope of Congress’s power “[t]o lay and collect taxes” is once again in the news. The taxing power was at issue when the Supreme Court issued a decision that President (and Chief Justice) Taft would later call the worst injury to the Court’s reputation ever, Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust, striking down the Income Tax Act of 1894. That decision was largely reversed by the 1913 enactment of the Sixteenth Amendment. Today the taxing power is one of three grounds on which the federal government defends the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, particularly the individual responsibility requirement (IRR)—the portion of the Act requiring each individual to purchase insurance or pay a penalty tax.

Roberts is right on taxation but this was not a Tax case.

31 posted on 06/28/2012 7:09:57 PM PDT by scooby321 (h tones)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: semantic
All he reaffirmed was, yes, Congress basically has unlimited power to tax.

Is Congress' power to tax really unlimited? For example, if Congress passed a $10,000 per-gun, per-year tax on firearm ownership (effectively making gun ownership impossible for a majority of the citizenry) would that be a legitimate tax function of the Congress, a violation of the Second Amendment, or both?

32 posted on 06/28/2012 7:10:24 PM PDT by kevao
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: semantic

If we were not dealing with Chicago mafia I might bite. But the silly argument that the state can opt out of the medicare provisions is plain nuts. The Won will simply issue an EO telling the dept of transportation to suspend all federal hwy dollars to that state. As to the argument that Roberts gutted the Commerce Clause “go to” route of congress, why in the world did it have to be done in this round robin way? There was a direct plain and simple way that was clearly not taken.


33 posted on 06/28/2012 7:10:30 PM PDT by lovesdogs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hildy
You might like to read this. very interesting.
and thanks again for keeping a positive outlook
34 posted on 06/28/2012 7:13:07 PM PDT by Steve Van Doorn (*in my best Eric Cartman voice* 'I love you, guys')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: semantic

I’ve been saying this all day. The Roberts decision is probably a blessing in disguise, because now it forces Obozo to run for re-election defending a HUGELY unpopular tax increase for all.

It may end up being more of a gift to the GOP and Romney than an outright tossing out would have. Now all we have to hope is Romney and the party don’t manage to screw it up.


35 posted on 06/28/2012 7:13:16 PM PDT by JRios1968 (I'm guttery and trashy, with a hint of lemon. - Laz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: newnhdad
Give a man a fish, or teach him how to fish?

Why rely on a single person's decision, when it's actually We The People who have to make the hard choices?

Roberts simply reaffirmed the constitutional powers with regard to taxation bestowed upon Congress. I don't see why everyone is so wigged out about that.

Sure, technically, they can impose a tax to force you to eat broccoli, but because it can't be punted to a cabinet (like the DHHS), they have to do it themselves, line by line. In broad daylight, raw state power laid bare.

Well, that's straight up in-your-face tyranny, no? Look, this baby was over before most of us were born. This ruling is simply bringing matters to a head.

Politicians will either run on a platform of tax cuts, or the economy/social situation will continue to degrade until the thing literally blows.

Roberts will be credited with forcing the issue by simply applying a strict constitutional standard to the matter of taxation.

36 posted on 06/28/2012 7:13:37 PM PDT by semantic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: semantic
Anyway you cut this decision, basing Obamacare as Constitutional via the Congress's ability to tax is creating language which (I don't believe) doesn't even exist in the original legislation. In other words, what we've witnessed is the Supreme’s version of legislating from the bench.

Further, what this Court has done is to put their stamp of approval on Congress lying to the citizenship (as Obamacare was never sold to the citizens as being a tax).

While I understand your point, it should be pointed out that the House controls the purse strings. Yet, here we are almost two years later with no serious effort ever made to defund this monstrosity.

Bottom line, I'd say odds are good that Obamacare isn't going away anytime soon. God help us.

37 posted on 06/28/2012 7:15:31 PM PDT by Rational Thought
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: rollo tomasi
I can't believe people on this website are buying the spoiled milk Roberts is trying to sell. In the words of Scalia in regards to the tax explanation from Solicitor General Verrilli, "Extraordinary".

I don't like it either, but we've just been handed lemons. Time to make lemonade, I guess...

38 posted on 06/28/2012 7:15:42 PM PDT by Cyber Liberty (Obama considers the Third World morally superior to the United States.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: semantic

Why do they even need the commerce clause to screw us over when they can just screw us over this way? It’s just a legal fiction. Bottom line is they get to screw us over with Obamacare.


39 posted on 06/28/2012 7:18:19 PM PDT by ari-freedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scooby321
Congress can't force you buy jack squat, but now can thanks to Roberts sanctioning Congressional coercion, the Congreescritters have the backdoor open. You can choose to not pay an income tax through several means, homemaker/retiree/don't make enough, etc... Jeeze, this is not complex people.
40 posted on 06/28/2012 7:21:28 PM PDT by rollo tomasi (Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: semantic

Listen to Mark Levin’s take on the ruling.

http://marklevinshow.com/Article.asp?id=2484259&spid=32364

Best analysis I have heard or read all day.


41 posted on 06/28/2012 7:21:37 PM PDT by A. Patriot (Re-electing Obama is like the Titanic backing up to hit the iceberg again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kevao

Indeed he could of.

Why has no one suggested that Roberts may have been “leaned on” in some way? I’m not a conspiracy bug, but I wouldn’t put it past this admin to find a way that would be undetectable/untraceable.......


42 posted on 06/28/2012 7:31:36 PM PDT by Arlis (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: scooby321
Also, I want to know where this:

"Today the taxing power is one of three grounds on which the federal government defends the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, particularly the individual responsibility requirement (IRR)—the portion of the Act requiring each individual to purchase insurance or pay a penalty tax."

is enumerated at. Roberts explanation was like a blind man at an orgy trying to feel his way around for the right hole. "Extraordinary"
43 posted on 06/28/2012 7:37:42 PM PDT by rollo tomasi (Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: semantic

If one actually reads the decision, one will see Roberts twisting himself into pretzels trying to rationalize his rewriting of PPACA from a penalty into a tax. The bill says at least eight times the mandate is a penalty as opposed to a tax.

He obviously decided he wasn’t game for the heat he would take for a 5-4 decision and stretched for some way to uphold the statue. The tax pretzel was what he came up with.

There are no dots to connect. The supreme court abdicated its judicial review role in this case. Starts at that dot and ends there too.

All this “deep strategy” stuff reminds me of when conservatives interpreted every dumb thing Karl Rove did as some deep game that would, but did not, turn out for the good. It’s too clever by far. All it does is rationalize a big defeat delivered by a friend.


44 posted on 06/28/2012 7:44:57 PM PDT by ModelBreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: semantic

Interesting take.But the 4 Constitutionalists agreed that the whole shebang was unconstitutional on it’s face.
Hmmm


45 posted on 06/28/2012 7:45:15 PM PDT by Eagles6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: semantic

Don’t blame me. I voted for Harriet Myers.


46 posted on 06/28/2012 7:45:15 PM PDT by bramps (Newt was the one, but Romney will do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: semantic

Whoever wrote this is a freaking moron. Today’s decision is an utter defeat, and Roberts proved himself to be an American traitor. There is no damn rational nuancing of a catastrophe. Bob


47 posted on 06/28/2012 7:46:39 PM PDT by alstewartfan ("Bedroom eyes and boardroom faces---Oh where will it lead?" from Red Toupee by Al Stewart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: semantic

Spin it all you want but the monster lives.


48 posted on 06/28/2012 7:46:39 PM PDT by bgill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bramps

(Miers)


49 posted on 06/28/2012 7:47:00 PM PDT by bramps (Newt was the one, but Romney will do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: semantic
Chief Justice Roberts actually ruled the mandate, relative to the commerce clause, was unconstitutional. That’s how the Democrats got Obama-care going in the first place. This is critical. His ruling means Congress can’t compel American citizens to purchase anything. Ever. The notion is now officially and forever, unconstitutional. As it should be.

Well, that's simply not true. All that's needed is for one or more of the Conservative Justices to leave the Court under a smart Democrat President (or a really dumb Republican one) and be replaced by a Liberal Justice ... and Roberts' ruling will become moot at the very next opportunity to make it so.

The only things that hold the Supreme Court Justices back from changing previous rulings are an available case that allows them to do so and the principle of Stare Decisis. Cases are a dime a dozen, and the Liberal Wing of the Court has proven again and again and again that they could give a flying rat's a&& about Stare Decisis.

If Roberts really did this thinking that he was setting a precedent on the Commerce Clause that would stand for "ever" then he did so betting that the aging Scalia and Kennedy will stay healthy and none of the GOP-appointed Justices will ever get hit by a bus. That's one heck of a risk to take, given the chances that the theory of "the road to Hell being paved with good intentions" will come into play.
50 posted on 06/28/2012 7:49:07 PM PDT by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-93 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