Posted on 06/28/2012 9:09:26 PM PDT by little jeremiah
....But while Roberts may have saved Obama's signature domestic legislation — and perhaps his reelection campaign — by siding with the court's liberal wing, he actually did it in spite of Obama, not because of him.
Roberts' opened his opinion today by declaring, unequivocally, that the individual mandate — which requires people to buy insurance or pay a penalty — is not constitutional under the Commerce Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clause. It's a direct shot at the Obama administration's defense of the law's constitutionality, which largely relied on those two clauses, which give Congress the power to regulate commerce and to enact provisions that are necessary to carry out its laws, respectively.
snip
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open anew 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 andenumerated powers. The individual mandate thus cannot be sustained under Congress’s power to “regulate Commerce."
...Nor can the individual mandate be sustained under the Necessary and Proper Clause as an integral part of the Affordable Care Act’s other reforms. Each of this Court’s prior cases upholding lawsunder that Clause involved exercises of authority derivative of, and in service to, a granted power. The individual mandate, by contrast, vests Congress withthe extraordinary ability to create the necessary predicate to the exercise of an enumerated power and draw within its regulatory scopethose who would otherwise be outside of it. Even if the individualmandate is “necessary” to the Affordable Care Act’s other reforms,such an expansion of federal power is not a “proper” means for making those reforms effective.
Sorry.. Not buying it..
Roberts sure stuck it to Obama by upholding his bill.. What next? He’s going to side with in on AZ? Opps.
Can’t he (Roberts) just come up with a straight, non-nuanced decision based upon the principles of the US Constitution? All this triangulation is a headache. Wouldn’t we rather just have Scalia, Thomas or Alito write up the correct decision?
The only thing that matters is what they DO.
Just say NO to drugs!
EPIC FAIL!
THEN WHY THE HELL DID HE VOTE WITH THE LIBS?
Rationale of this article has a little merit but is of little comfort. Yes, the ruling did in fact make it clear that the Commerce Clause cannot be used to justify anything and everything that the government does - there is in fact a limit on it - that was a very good thing we have been waiting for...but that doesn’t do much good if you turn around and declare that Congress’ taxing powers can now be used as a replacement excuse to do anything and everything it wants.
The court majority also gave conservatives a major victory by giving states more rights to not participate in parts of the law as well.
That restricts federal power, as does the overwhelming victory on the Commerce Clause that will resonate for decades to come.
The overall outcome IS BAD....IT’S AWFUL THE BILL REMAINS.
But, in the long run, this very well could end up being good for us and the country so long as we can get the law repealed.
I can’t seem to find inthe Constitution where the chief unJustice of the subPreme court is licit in defining what is a tax when the Congress has passed a bill and it is signed into law wihtout being defined as a tax. Can you help me out here? If it is a tax, then little barry bastard commie (Roberts’ boss, obviously) cannot unilaterally exclude whole groups and industries from the lawfully passed tax, so little barry should ne impeached and removed for violating his oath to the Constitution. If it is not a tax then the fool pirate Roberts should have rejected the entire freakin’ monstrosity based upon what he opened with. The man is about as sound as gummy bears.
Roberts is a nuancing fool and tool. Only in spite of his ruling and if concerned citizens act to right this wrong will this be OK. Maybe.
Who cares? By opening the TAX clause he made it worse.
Even Pandora’s box isn’t this bad.
I don’t buy it either. John Roberts called fire in on his own position to save us.
Last ditch and legitimate strategy in some desperate circumstances... not this one, however.
Any court watcher would have said all the courts would have upheld the law if Congress had simply called it a tax.
The government’s huge taxing power has not exactly been at issue here....it’s not like the ruling expands it any more.
I think you are correct about that. I can't wait for the liberals to find out what happens to them when they try to wield it.
What if congress passes a bill that said if is a man you do not marry another man then you must pay a tax?
What if congress passes a bill that says if as a woman you do not marry another woman then you must pay a tax?
What if congress passes a bill that states that if you do not abort your second child you must pay a tax?
What if congress passes a bill that says if a white person does not abort their first child then they must pay a tax?
WHat John Roberts did was give the us federal government unlimited power.
They can make us do whatever the hell they want, and they are sick, twisted, evil people.
Me neither. In fact, the title of the article is actually laughable.
Because of Roberts, will ObamaCare stand? YES
Because of Roberts, will ObamaCare be the law for years to come? YES (good luck repealing it, dem's will forever filibuster any repeal attempt)
The very best anyone can say is that Roberts threw an soft-boiled egg at the ObamaCare train as it roared past him.
I feel like throwing up........again.
I’m not knowledgeable enough to know whether the points made in the article have any weight. But, this interesting comment by rdcbn may explain something, hopefully he will tell where he found this out.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2900647/posts?page=111#111
John Robert’s changed his vote at the last minute under duress.
The reason he changed his vote at the 11th hour was a form of soft extortion.
Ruth Bader Ginsberg threatened to announce her retirement at the end of this term and give Obama the chance to appoint a new Justice in her place if Obama Care was overturned.
If Roberts changed his vote and not strike down ObamaCare she agreed not to retire until the next Presidential term.
Under the circumstances he did his best to come up with the best possible compromise with Ginsberg - one that put the future of ObamaCare directly in the hands of voters in this next election. The fate of Obama Care is now firmly in the hands of the electorate and 2012 will be a referendum on Obama Care.
111 posted on Thursday, June 28, 2012 7:42:47 PM by rdcbn
This guy’s spin is as contorted as Roberts’ thinking.
Obama sure looked demolished today!
See my comment above.
If that’s so, I bet she back-stabs him and retires anyway.
Let's extend upholding Arizona... How long before Berkeley or San Francisco decides that smokers violate the clean air act, and therefore are subject to arrest and indefinite detainment until the EPA picks them up?
Or decides to arrest the CEO of a power plant for failing to use a particular biofuel derived from switch grass?
I've yet to see a Roberts ruling that doesn't take into account the long term viewpoint of protecting the constitution. Does Congress have the power to tax 100% of your earnings? Yes. It does. It might not like your reaction to it, but it sure has that power right now. And I say right now, as I don't expect that absolute power of taxation to be as long lived as liberals in Congress imagine it will live.
But most significant, we've finally got a ruling limiting the commerce clause, and a ruling explicitly stating that Congress can not compel participation in commerce. It can regulate commerce, but it can't make you party to it.
That's a departure from really bad rulings of the past, and I sincerely believe that many a filing will be quoting this ruling as a limitation to the Commerce Clause. Expect a lot of revisits of past opinions after this, and a few liberals on the court having egg on their face for having voted to limit federal powers in their all consuming lust to expand them.
I see the Arizona ruling as being perfectly consistent with this unwinding of infinite federal powers. And, no, I'm not trying to turn bat urine into a golden ray of light where all around is dark. These are rulings that will last for generations and are consistent with a constitutionalist viewpoint. Alito, Thomas and Scalia probably overreached in their dissents, but I very much appreciate Robert's viewpoint that the SCOTUS is not the third house of Congress and a restoration of the balance of powers.
Congress ALREADY has unlimited power to tax us. They can easily move the top tax rate back to 90% like it once was.
So long as we have elections, the people are the 4th power besides congress, scotus & WH. If the void elections, then watch out.
Just like the Oklahoma City Thunder demolished the Miami Heat.
Can we all play this game?
Actually, the Cubs won the '69 World Series.
Actually, investors with Madoff did quite well.
Actually, Joe Biden is a decisive thinker.
Actually, the Titanic was an engineerg masterpiece.....
Justice Roberts is a traitor to the Constitution he swore to defend.
He gave leftists enormous new powers today by legislating from the bench.
Hope he enjoys being cheered on the DC cocktail circuit. That is apparently his 30 pieces of silver.
You don't write a 90 page opinion "at the last minute."
The reason he changed his vote at the 11th hour was a form of soft extortion.
IF true then Roberts has no business being a judge, much less the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS.
If true, then Roberts should be impeached.
Are you carrying water for him? If so, I think he just drowned in it.
My argument to many of my friends. We dont just need 4 new Senators. We need 13.
The term “Occam’s Razor” definitely comes to mind here.
Disagree with you, but nice Python reference.
What Roberts did here was to find 'emanations of a penumbra' to allow a mandate, just not using that term.
What we have now is an absolute path to whatever mandates the government wants. They just aren't allowed to involve the state governments. This is a path to more centralized tyranny, not less.
Actually, everyone should get to pick and choose which laws of the land they obey and which they ignore. After all, Obama only obeys laws he likes. So, why should anyone else think they have to obey laws they don’t like?
Best analysis so far is by Peter Schiff:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNCyEC9r_mk&feature=relmfu
Just what is being taxed here then? It’s not based on income, and it is not based on the use of anything, so it can’t be a use tax? So just what kind of tax is it? I’ll tell you what kind of tax it is, a head tax, which is very illegal.
I think I know little jeremiah well enough to know that it's not a case of carrying water, it's a case of trying to make some sense out of something that makes no sense.
Either Roberts was a closet anti-Constitutional socialist or someone has pictures of him with a dead woman or a live boy.
I would suspect that the answer is behind door number 3.
BS, there is no defending it. It could have been and should have been killed in its entirety. Period. Anything else is a lie. America has been betrayed again.
“Who cares? By opening the TAX clause he made it worse.
Even Pandora’s box isn’t this bad.”
And it was declared that all the world be taxed....
Preparing for the Lion, and the next Advent.
“He whom the Son sets free is free indeed.”
Interesting.
Re repeal, don’t we need to also take the Senate with the WH?
My very first thought after I read that comment. How could anyone trust a leftist POS?
I would think so.
The thing is, American people understand a tax. They understand it very well. It's the reason why liberals were so desperately clear in making sure everyone knew this wasn't a tax. And now it comes back at them as a tax. A tax on breathing, on being a person. To the most liberal, eh, who cares. To the rest of America; you just taxed the heck out of me? Here's the door!
Oh, I’m not defending Roberts at all. I’ve wanted to puke all day. I just happened to see this and thought it might make sense; I can’t understand any legalese or governmentese or SCOTUSese. If Roberts is smart and all that good stuff and not a leftist, I see no reason why he couldn’t have voted with Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Kennedy.
Roberts has stabbed America in the back . Revolution time is here ..I REFUSE TO PLAY ALONG
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.