Skip to comments.Why Chief Justice Roberts Made the Right Long-Term Decision With ObamaCare
Posted on 06/28/2012 6:27:18 PM PDT by semantic
Its 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.
Heres what really occurred payback. Yes, payback for Obamas numerous, ill-advised and childish insults directed toward SCOTUS.
Chief Justice Roberts actually ruled the mandate, relative to the commerce clause, was unconstitutional. Thats how the Democrats got Obama-care going in the first place. This is critical. His ruling means Congress cant 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 doesnt 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 ...
However, they can "tax" the hell out of you if you drive a combustion engine car instead of an Obama Motors Voltswagen.
I like it.
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.
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?
*In my best John Belushi voice* But Noooooooooooooooo!
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.
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.
I am sure Greg Abbott is working this even now, down here in Texas.
I trust Scalia’s judgement on this. Roberts isn’t worthy to shine Scalia’s shoes.
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.
“This is critical. His ruling means Congress cant compel American citizens to purchase anything. Ever.”
I guess I’m pretty dense - I thought we lost?
You got a point there puke breath?
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.
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.
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.
Some like big butts....Clever tune...Thanks for that advise BTW.
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.
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!
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.”
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.
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.
That's 100% true. And it was 100% true yesterday as well. And it was in 1789 too.
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".
I'd stepped out... n' just found your post....
Hey, thanks for the kind words BTW!
Upbeat....I like it!
Roberts is right on taxation but this was not a Tax case.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
I don't like it either, but we've just been handed lemons. Time to make lemonade, I guess...
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.
Listen to Mark Levin’s take on the ruling.
Best analysis I have heard or read all day.
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.......
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.
Interesting take.But the 4 Constitutionalists agreed that the whole shebang was unconstitutional on it’s face.
Don’t blame me. I voted for Harriet Myers.
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
Spin it all you want but the monster lives.