FWIW: I usually post satire on the site...but the Opinion section is a little more on the serious side now. KAOS
The Chief Justice, along with four liberal
hacks members of the Court upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (BamaCare) by essentially re-writing the statute to make it constitutional. The Majority asserted, in effect: that the Federal Government can make you buy a private service as a consequence of breathing air and having a pulse as long as they call the penalty for not doing so a "tax." Now, while this is something you would expect from Sotomayor & Co, it's not something you'd hope to see a "conservative" Chief Justice signing onto. Finally, something Obama can blame on "W".
However disappointed and disgusting this fact is - what's even worse is the spin coming from some people on the "Right." In particular, an article that seems to be breeding like flies in sh&t and making the round from one unthinking blogger to the next that contends the Chief Justice was "brilliant" in an ever so judicially Machiavellian way by setting this up as a political fight against Obama in the Fall.
Not really his job there Amigo. Their ancillary point seems to be, that since it's a "tax" it will now be easier to undo legislatively. Well, I'm not sure where to begin with that.
First thought: each 'writer' seems to be swiping the story from one source and re-posting it as their own with little or no research on it's actual merits. Second, the original author needs new glasses...the ones he has on apparently don't aid his vision at all. And lastly, he's part of the problem and needs to be ridden out of town on a donkey.<Sorry, this has left me in a foul mood. That mood isn't helped when partisans try stupid spin so for whatever reason in defiance of logic and fact.>
Status messages, tweets and reposts of that article are being shared ad nauseam across the Net- as if saying it over and over somehow makes the assertions true. I'm not sure if this is being done just an elixir to make them [the poster] not feel as bad as they should, a means to give some leeway to Mittens for coming up with the blueprint or a way to give W a pass for appointing the "conservative" Justice (that happened to side with a liberal minority to add an expansive new Federal right to an already vast power. All at the expense of the People, the States and the concept of freedom itself. Regardless, it is asinine spin ("Roberts was brilliant") to say the least and if that is the prism they see the decision in - they need to invest in a new pair of glasses.
Anyone that thinks that Roberts' selling out conservatives today was a "brilliant" move vs. writing a decision for a conservative Majority... needs to read some history. Take a moment to see how expanding the reach and scope of Govt power (esp the power to tax) ever worked out to scale back Big Brother. Whether the ACA gets tinkered with or eventually repealed, the power the SCOTUS just created will survive it. And that power is dangerous to its core. And no amount of "spinning" will ever change that.Factually, Roberts could have just sided with the minority (which would have then been the MAJORITY) that said the Govt didn't have the power under the commerce clause or taxation powers. Actually, they went one further and said the entire act was unconstitutional. But hey, why let facts get in the way of a good spin?
The dissenters were Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
In a joint statement, they said, "The act before us here exceeds federal power both in mandating the purchase of health insurance and in denying non-consenting states all Medicaid funding."
Kennedy, speaking in court, summarized the dissent by saying, "In our view, the act before us is invalid in its entirety."
“What is absolutely clear, affirmed by the text of the 1789 Constitution, by the Tenth Amendment ratified in 1791, and by innumerable cases of ours in the 220 years since, is that there are structural limits upon federal power – upon what it can prescribe with respect to private conduct, and upon what it can impose upon the sovereign States. Whatever may be the conceptual limits upon the Commerce Clause and upon the power to tax and spend, they cannot be such as will enable the Federal Government to regulate all private conduct and to compel the States to function as administrators of federal programs.”
So, I'm not really sure how any sane, logical, rational, reasoning person could come to the conclusion that not joining a conservative Minority in that view - thereby making it the Majority view, was a "brilliant" move. Well, unless your world is basely political, devoid of any idea of the meaning of limited government and you believe that the Constitution says whatever you want it to say at the time you want it said that way. For everyone else, that's supreme nonsense.
As for the argument that it makes it easier to defeat legislatively... well, there again I would beg to differ. Supposing though we get the "royal flush" in the Fall: the GOP captures the Senate with a sizable Majority, Romney wins the White House
with Obama going to the Big House, and Republicans hold the House in the Fall - even then, the precedent for the power to coercively tax you has already been created. Throughout history one thing is as constant as the Northern Star: Governments very rarely roll back new found powers.We have, as a nation crossed a threshold. Like Caesar crossing the Rubicon, there's no turning back.
“If people let the government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as a sorry state as the souls who live under tyranny.”
― Thomas Jefferson