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 ...
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.
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.
Hmmm
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.
(Miers)
Occam’s Razor.
Absolutely. A Harriet Miers decision would have been more erudite and logical than Traitor Roberts’ bizarre rant. Bob
And for those who voted for the bill when they thought the cost was going to be a "penalty", not a tax. Vote out of office all of those who voted for this massive tax increase.
I’d be remiss if I also didn’t mention that I now consider Roberts an *enemy* of America, not a “friend”. He’s like the friend who screws your wife. Bob
>> the monster lives.
And so does SCOTUS’ ruling on abortion, but that doesn’t mean we stop fighting.
In the meantime the bottom-feeders will now join ranks with the union hacks and put pressure on Republican Gov's(who have said they'll refuse OC Federal dollars)to "let them have their free stuff...or else", those protests will make the Wisconsin state house protests and grandma being rolled off a cliff look like a Sunday social.
Hope you're right with your analysis, but I still think it was a betrayal, one that will lead to disasters(hidden within the legislation)down the road.
Should have killed it...now it will more than likely spread into yet another(unaffordable)dependency cancer.
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. Recall back during the initial Obama-care battles, the Democrats called it a penalty, Republicans called it a tax. Democrats consistently soft sold it as a penalty. It went to vote as a penalty. Obama declared endlessly, that it was not a tax, it was a penalty. But when the Democrats argued in front of the Supreme Court, they said ‘hey, a penalty or a tax, either way’. So, Roberts gave them a tax. It is now the official law of the land — beyond word-play and silly shenanigans. Obama-care is funded by tax dollars. Democrats now must defend a tax increase to justify the Obama-care law.
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?
Ultimately, Roberts supported states rights by limiting the federal government’s coercive abilities. He ruled that the government can not force the people to purchase products or services under the commerce clause and he forced liberals to have to come clean and admit that Obama-care is funded by tax increases.
Best analysis I’ve seen today. They are finally looking at the facts without the screen of their emotions.
Look again — think chicago style politics. We don’t know what Obama did here, but Roberts has proved himself smarter than the Obortion O.
Try looking at it factually.
A lot of people are speaking emotionally here.
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.