« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

I’m Not Down on John Roberts

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  June 28th, 2012 at 11:35 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Having gone through the opinion, I am not going to beat up on John Roberts. I am disappointed, but I want to make a few points.

First, I get the strong sense from a few anecdotal stories about Roberts over the past few months and the way he has written this opinion that he very, very much was concerned about keeping the Supreme Court above the partisan fray and damaging the reputation of the Court long term. It seems to me the left was smart to make a full frontal assault on the Court as it persuaded Roberts.

Second, in writing his case, Roberts forces everyone to deal with the issue as a political, not a legal issue. In the past twenty years, Republicans have punted a number of issues to the Supreme Court asking the Court to save us from ourselves. They can’t do that with Roberts. They tried with McCain-Feingold, which was originally upheld. This case is a timely reminder to the GOP that five votes are not a sure thing.

Third, while Roberts has expanded the taxation power, which I don’t really think is a massive expansion from what it was, Roberts has curtailed the commerce clause as an avenue for Congressional overreach. In so doing, he has affirmed the Democrats are massive taxers. In fact, I would argue that this may prevent future mandates in that no one is going to go around campaigning on new massive tax increases. On the upside, I guess we can tax the hell out of abortion now. Likewise, in a 7 to 2 decision, the Court shows a strong majority still recognize the concept of federalism and the restrains of Congress in forcing states to adhere to the whims of the federal government.

Fourth, in forcing us to deal with this politically, the Democrats are going to have a hard time running to November claiming the American people need to vote for them to preserve Obamacare. It remains deeply, deeply unpopular with the American people. If they want to make a vote for them a vote for keeping a massive tax increase, let them try.

Fifth, the decision totally removes a growing left-wing talking point that suddenly they must vote for Obama because of judges. The Supreme Court as a November issue is gone.

Finally, while I am not down on John Roberts like many of you are today, i will be very down on Congressional Republicans if they do not now try to shut down the individual mandate. Force the Democrats on the record about the mandate. Defund Obamacare. This now, by necessity, is a political fight and the GOP sure as hell should fight.

60% of Americans agree with them on the issue. And guess what? The Democrats have been saying for a while that individual pieces of Obamacare are quite popular. With John Roberts’ opinion, the repeal fight takes place on GOP turf, not Democrat turf. The all or nothing repeal has always been better ground for the GOP and now John Roberts has forced everyone onto that ground. Oh, and as I mentioned earlier, because John Roberts concluded it was a tax, the Democrats cannot filibuster its repeal because of the same reconciliation procedure the Democrats used to pass it.

It seems very, very clear to me in reviewing John Roberts’ decision that he is playing a much longer game than us and can afford to with a life tenure. And he probably just handed Mitt Romney the White House.

*A friend points out one other thing — go back to 2009. Olympia Snowe was the deciding vote to get Obamacare out of the Senate Committee. Had she voted no, we’d not be here now. Snowe gave it bipartisan cover coming out of committee, but she actually wasn’t the deciding vote.

Tags: ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • johnnyd

    Maybe for the left. But not for Conservatives. If Obama gets to appoint more progressive SCOTUS it’s game over.

  • Strike_Twice

    How many more times must we swallow hard and “try harder”

  • mkghayes

    “he very, very much was concerned about keeping the Supreme Court above the partisan fray and damaging the reputation of the Court long term. It seems to me the left was smart to make a full frontal assault on the Court as it persuaded Roberts.”

    This is my main problem with him. What ever happened to judging based on the constitution? This man can be swayed and the left knows it. It also knows this about our leaders in congress. Remember the picture of Nancy Pelosi walking down the street with the big gavel laughing? This kind of thing is why she laughs.

  • Marcus_Traianus

    This is not now, nor was it a political fight. It was fundamentally about the meaning of our Constitution, it’s limits and individual liberty.

    What Roberts did was search the Constitution to find something which comported with the political circumstances. That is something being resoundingly criticized by many leading originalist constitutional scholars. He found meaning and intent where there was none. His opinion even conflicts with the Administration own arguments in some places. That is especially troubling.

    I am not a legal expert. But any laymen can see Roberts ignored the grotesque unpopularity of this bill with the people. Where is that in Roberts recitation? Nowhere.

    This is a government owned by the people. But that has been ignored in both passing this law and now by the SCOTUS with Roberts leading the way: irrespective of any alleged legal gymnastics and constitutional hi-jinx. That is detestable and he deserves our scorn for it.

    That is simply a sober, realistic position.

  • earlgrey

    Anyone have any advice on how I celebrate the 4th? It is my son’s birthday and I wanted the day to just be about him, but he is super patriotic because of his birthday and I don’t know how I’ll get through. Alcohol is not an option when celebrating a child’s bday.

  • http://nextgenerationvoters.com Bethany

    I started reading through Roberts’s opinion but didn’t finish yet. I can’t help but be disappointed but the blame can’t be solely placed on him; and we can still throw the mandate out by electing a strong Congress in November and regaining control of the Senate.

  • Ausonius

    In one sense, given that MAObama’s Hell-th Care Bill is so disliked, the Dems are in the position of be careful what you wish for.

    The nightmare was a partial ruling against the mandate: we still have a real issue now.

    Repeal and Replace: but will our RINO’S actually do that next year?

    By the way, one wag on InTrade predicted around 9:00 this morning that the ruling would treat the whole schmier as a tax issue.

    And if you do not know, there is a 10-day prayer and protest going on in the Catholic Church against BIG BRObama’s lack of a religious exemption.

    With the entire mess upheld, their issue that the “law” violates Freedom of Religion is still on the table

  • evilbloggerlady

    But it is a risky game. I think this is more about Roberts’ legacy than ours. And that troubles me.

    From a @zerohedge commentor: “The US Constitution was already dead, but this qualifies as necrophilia” Pretty accurate.

    Okay, the easy victory is out. So roll up your sleeves and put on your waders…we have some work to do.

  • garfieldjl

    This does not match oral arguments at all, and I listened to the oral arguments.

    It also wouldn’t surprise me if there is something that happened behind the scenes that we aren’t aware of. I hate to sound like a conspiracy nut, but “arm twisting” is rather standard Chicago Politics, and there was the rash of break-ins in Washington DC, a few months ago (including at least one Supreme Court Justice’s house was broken into).

  • avgjo

    Whenever some prominent ‘conservative’ messes up, as a group, we’re never ‘down’ on them.. That’s why they don’t fear us, their constituents. And that’s why i don’t think we have a realistic chance of getting them to defund this bill. Honestly, why should they?

  • garfieldjl

    If Government has control of our healthcare like this, they can basically dictate every aspect of our lives because Government can argue it affects health care.

  • raybacliff

    All Americans should have a right to healthcare. America was formed on the idea of a God given right of equality and the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The US Constitution further stipulates that the government is to promote the general welfare of all.

    Though not mentioned in the Constitution the right to good health is implied in the rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. It has been stated that healthcare is an essential safeguard of human life and dignity.

    Our founding fathers passed ?An Act for the relief of sick and disabled seamen? in 1798. The Act authorized a deduction from the pay of seamen for the purpose of funding medical care for seamen. The founding fathers did not believe this program to be unconstitutional. The founding fathers intention was to provide for the health of seamen because they were vital to US commerce.

    Today, many Americans pay for many others to have healthcare through various taxes. Taxpayers pay for Medicare, Medicaid, medical research, and government workers? insurance. In addition, state and local governments, collect various taxes to pay for government sponsored medical schools, nursing schools, healthcare technician?s training, medical research, ambulances, EMS, clinics and public hospitals. It is absurd to think that Americans don?t or can’t have an expectation to healthcare when most Americans have paid so much into the healthcare system already.

    In 1798, the federal government set up a system of medical care for seamen. It was paid for by the seamen. Today the federal government has set up a Cadillac healthcare plan for themselves and it?s paid for by American taxpayers. Americans are currently paying for healthcare insurance and healthcare of others even though they may not be able to afford it for themselves.

    Today healthcare is usually paid through a third party payer or healthcare insurance provider. Those Americans without healthcare insurance lack price controls that come with having insurance. Healthcare is expensive without insurance and too expensive for many uninsured Americans. Quality healthcare is readily available to those with insurance, but is rationed out to those without insurance or the means to pay for it.

    All Americans should be able to access healthcare through insurance since that is the way it?s currently obtained. Most Americans can?t afford to pay out of pocket for their own healthcare. Most Americans can?t afford healthcare insurance if not part of some group or getting government subsidized benefits. Many Americans wanting to buy their own private health insurance are not able to do so with pre-tax dollars like those in groups. Most Americans who own property don?t qualify for government subsidies.

    All Americans should have a right to healthcare in our current system because they have already paid into it. Let?s start with tort reform to stop the legal abuses. Then let?s make healthcare a universal right through a national healthcare plan and pay for it with a national sales tax.

  • http://www.erickerickson.org Erick Erickson

    Had to update that.

  • tnguy

    I can’t relate to you. You’re as alien as if you were from another planet.

    Our nation is tumbling towards a violent revolution, and the republican remedy is, as usual, cheap words and half measures.

    John Roberts isn’t worthy of your respect or anything else. History will record him as one of those to be held greatly responsible for the downfall of our nation.

  • wintermute

    Erick, how can you not be down on a guy who literally caved to political pressure (according to you) ?

    There’s right or wrong, not what looks best for the court.

    My blood pressure is still sky high.

  • benko

    …

  • fotophun

    this is going to give Obomber an even bigger swagger in his walk

    he has been already side stepping congress

    who knowS what else he has in store for us to side step congress

    he is going to use the excuse the people ARE ON OUR SIDE

    with a big ego like his anything is possible

  • jaykali

    I think the Obama/liberal line will be ‘we don’t agree with the Supreme Court that it’s a tax’. And so they will just try to push back just like they would have if it was thrown out that the conservative leaning court is wrong.

    It will be interesting to see if the ‘mandate tax’ really damages them politically or not. I mean people already knew the mandate was effectively a tax so will this John Robert’s label suddenly wake up a bunch of people that say – wait this is a tax? I don’t know. I just think Obama will continue saying what he’s always said, that the mandate is not a tax.

  • Samsara

    The individual mandate is now a tax.
    Mandate supporter Obama can live with that.
    Mandate supporter Romney, not so much. And Mr. Fantastic?s whole ?leave it to the states? argument just took a hit, because the issue has been framed by the court a tax issue, and he is on the wrong side of it.

  • reggie182

    Are you kidding me? This isn’t a game. This is about the Constitution. Obamacare is unConstitutional. John Robert’s job was to deem it as such and he failed. End of story. All the convoluted logic in the world can’t justify what he did.

  • acat

    Ginsberg is 79
    Scalia is 76
    Kennedy is 75
    Breyer is 73
    Thomas is 64.. and is included in this list to show how much of an age gap there is .. everyone else is 50something.

    Mew

  • jaykali

    Which is standard operating procedure these days. I can’t believe we had Kennedy in the fold and Roberts was the swing vote. Crazy.

  • fotophun

    Obomber will feel he can intimidate just about anyone

  • westcoastpatriette

    You state, “Roberts forces everyone to deal with the issue as a political, not a legal issue.” What is that supposed to mean? That it is okay for the courts to abdicate their role as the ultimate “legal” authority in the land? As if this is not a legal matter at all — only a political one? What a cop-out.

    Sorry, but the excuses you are making for Roberts make no sense as a justification for this decision.

  • Ender

    “Fourth, in forcing us to deal with this politically, the Democrats are going to have a hard time running to November claiming the American people need to vote for them to preserve Obamacare. It remains deeply, deeply unpopular with the American people. If they want to make a vote for them a vote for keeping a massive tax increase, let them try.”

    is that with this decision the court validates Obamacare in a lot of swing voters minds. It’s been unpopular before the decision, but I am not sure it will remain sufficiently so. People like validation. Watch poll numbers change and it becoming more difficult to oppose. I fear the only thing Romney and GOP would be able to do is to tweak it on the margins, if at all.

  • tnfriendofcoal101368

    I guess they will be out today. On this date, when the Supreme Court decided it’s reputation was more important than protecting individual freedoms I have neither the patience to hear your screeching nor the desire to debate you. I’ll just double my efforts to send you packing in November.

  • commonsenseobserver

    Romney will still have to address Romneycare ultimately. The states argument is true, and could work, but it’s shaky.

  • treeofliberty

    John Roberts proved that Republicans and Libertarians need to GOTV and influence the SC nomination process…

    so we can have more John Roberts.

    Forgive me for my lack of enthusiasm.

  • acat

    You got a pulse? Then suck it up and walk it off, eh?

    Mew

  • jaykali

    That issue will probably make it to the Supreme Court and I think that it will get overturned as most things related to freedom of religion win out in the SC.

  • tnfriendofcoal101368

    and we are now face to face with the reality that the socialist know they can intimidate Roberts with threats to “his and the courts reputation” through their outlets at ABC, NBC, CBS, the New York Times and Washington Post to look for every door to do their bidding. Having succeeded in their arm twisting, this won’t be the last time they use the hammer.

  • Repair_Man_Jack

    Congratulations, Mr. Roberts.

  • avgjo

    cannot be tolerated. Today exemplifies why.

    (NOW I’m harping!)

  • acat

    When did conservatives become such emotional, whiny, mentally-challenged …. liberals?

    It’s like Daily KOS up in here!

    Mew

  • fotophun

    with Obomber intimidating the court in public and almost threatening

    was someone or someone’s family threatened behind the scenes

  • http://boldcolor.blogspot.com/ Paula

    Did y’all watch his response? It looked like a hostage video. I think he may have even had his fingers crossed. I am not convinced that he disagrees with this decision.

  • Strike_Twice

    I always do…Need some time to recover from the gut punch. Called my RINO congressman already and told the aid that I want noise and if not, I will do everything in my [limited] power to primary him.

  • earlgrey

    Good news for RSers my access to internet will be limited next couple of days.

  • http://boldcolor.blogspot.com/ Paula

    We must. But I don’t have high hopes for him. I have a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach after watching his weak response. Imagine what Perry’s response would have been. Would be nice to have a candidate who gives a crap.

  • tcgeol

    CJ Roberts is supposed to uphold the Constitution, not play political games. It makes no difference whether he is doing it with good intentions or not, playing games is a violation of his oath.

  • proudmarinemom

    owe you their services, for compensation you deem appropriate. Right.

    Just go away.

  • runner12

    the limitations on the Commerce Clause and the expansion of Medicaid are a silver lining. Where I politely disagree is on the assessment of Roberts. It is not a feather in one’s cap to place one’s own vanity or that of the Court’s above the Constitution. This is exactly what Chief Justice Roberts appears to have done. I frankly have lost all respect for the man.

    It is the Court’s job to protect us from the overreach of other branches of government. It is why we have checks and balances, simply punting your role is not an option.

    There is a remote possibility, as you stated, that Roberts is playing a longer game. But to what end? What can he mean by it? Sorry, Chief Justice Roberts, but as of now you rank as one of the greatest disapointments appointed by a Republican President. I hope I am wrong at some point he can redeem himself.

  • parkfairfax

    “But any laymen can see Roberts ignored the grotesque unpopularity of this bill with the people. Where is that in Roberts recitation? Nowhere.”

    Popularity should not enter the discussion when discussing the legal merits of anything. This is the same reason judges should not be elected.

  • ghostship

    There will flying pigs before the republican establishment repeals Obamacare. Oh, they might make a token effort but it’ll just be for show.

  • Marcus_Traianus

    Frankly, Boehner and McConnell are weak leaders. I also worry about Romney at the helm aggressively pulling out all the stops to walk back substantial intrusions on individual liberty occurring in the past four years.

    They are not leaders. They are temporary stop gaps.

    The government has now been given the power to force Americans into activity or face a penalty. That power is despicable and beyond the limits of any governmental power our Founders envisioned. In the process, they have also trampled on religious liberty and are imposing a radical agenda on our country through Executive fiats and an out of control DoJ.

    Yet some see this in positive political terms? They celebrate that by ignoring the real meaning of our Constitution there is now somehow cause for the political fight?

    That’s mind boggling.

    I see it as a dire struggle to maintain our constitutional republic. Nothing less.

  • commonsenseobserver

    That’s an unfair critique.

  • acat

    See if the VFW or other veterans group would let him join in?

    Mew

  • runner12

    Sorry, earlgrey. This was supposed to be a stand alone comment and not a reply to.

  • congressworksforus

    …about general welfare for all.

    It says welfare of the United States.

    The Constitution and Bill of Rights very specifically use three terms: The People, The States, and The United States. They all refer to three different things.

    The welfare of the people is not necessarily in the interest of the welfare of The United States. In fact, one could easily argue that a national healthcare system, which would inevitably bankrupt us, is absolutely 100% not in the interest of the welfare of The United States because of the damage it would do.

  • http://boldcolor.blogspot.com/ Paula

    BTW, Chris Matthews said that Roberts and his wife made this decision because they were concerned about their legacy.

  • treeofliberty

    What kind of precedent does this make? Thinking long term are we?

    So what’s the future plan: the Left can pursue what basically amounts to a terror campaign against the SC with threats and verbal attacks and the SC shows its worth and responsibility to uphold the Constitution…by folding???

    On a side note, if the Bush had been as HALF as aggressive as Obama has been with the SC the media would have gone insane!! Can you imagine the calls of dictatorship, bully (and more) he would’ve been called??

    And is Roberts the first SC Justice to deal with “political pressure”??? I’d love for Chief Justice Rehnquist to school Roberts on what is real political pressure before Bush v Gore was announced.

    The man as Chief Justice as a responsibility to uphold the Constitution. Period. if his game (be it poker, chess, chutes and ladders or whatever) is anything but upholding the Constitution he is unworthy of his role and in my mind quite useless as a defender of such an obviously unconstitutional expansion of federal power.

  • runner12

    I watched it and I thought he did quite well. He pointed out clearly why O Care is a disaster and talked about Repeal and Replace. He related it specifically to its negative effects on the economy.

    I am honestly surprised by your take on it.

  • treeofliberty

    Mega dittos.

    Country is headed for disaster and we have prominent conservatives defending the actions of such a disgraceful SC decision as “playing games” and “thinking long term”

    Long term is socialism, Scratch that, make it short term.

  • commonsenseobserver

    http://mittromneycentral.com/2011/05/12/in-case-you-missed-it-slides-from-romneys-speech-on-health-care-video-to-follow-soon/

    Perhaps the “no new taxes” argument does not stand, but Romney’s reforms were an example of state-level innovation rather than top-down Obaminations.

  • acat

    Romney will sign whatever the Senate sends him.

    If we can’t get enough Conservatives into the Senate to get Romney a good bill … we’re screwed.

    That’s the key point that’s being missed in the Roberts decision – from now on, this is a *political* fight, and it’s right in the Conservative wheelhouse.

    Mew

  • jaykali

    I just think it’s naive to think that gov’t healthcare is going to be best thing for Americans long term. Maybe it is the inevitable conclusion as many other countries have it (altho no countries I am aware of that have 300 million people).

    I think it hurts innovation and leads to long waiting lines. I don’t want to wait 8 months for some surgery. The line that ‘don’t worry, govt will pay for it’ is naive bc they have to take taxes, etc. to fund it – and you can’t expect there to be enough rich guys hanging around to tax to pay for it. It just doesn’t work that way.

    Re: the universal right, that to me is completely wrong bc you can’t say it’s a right to have healthcare any more than you have a right to own a house. God did not give man a right to health care when a child is born, that is a right that govt gives and when govt giveth it can taketh away (as in rationing).

    I know liberals love socialized healthcare and we are probably on that path long term but I promise it is not going to be so great when it gets here.

  • Strike_Twice

    Sales tax paid for by those of us who work and earn a wage….The freeloaders continue their free ride…they get handouts to spend, so they are not paying the tax afterall.

    I bet you don’t have a job, or if you do, you do not pay payroll tax for your employees or health insurance for your employees.

  • jaykali

    I know conservatives have this new ‘tax’ talking point and it is worth a shot for sure.

    I just don’t know if it will stick. I mean Obama will just say he disagrees, right? I mean look at the Arizona deal. They just ignore rulings that don’t go their way. So George Stephanopoulos might have an interview with him again on the subject, and it might go the same way. He’ll just say Justice Roberts is wrong, and he’ll explain it the same way he’s always explained it.

    You have a compliant media that will argue that it’s not really a tax so I just don’t know if will stick or not.

  • Marcus_Traianus

    You’ll have to educate me and compare Roberts opinion, the Constitution, concepts such as individual liberty, democratic majorities and the evolution of PPACA.

    Then tell me how it’s a reach to use those concepts in a constitutional context to under-gird the unconstitutionality of this bill. That is opposed to the legal gymnastics used to find it constitutional in the vein Roberts did.

    Hint. Roberts ignored those factors in seeking to find a reason to meet his predetermined political conclusion.

    Wait a few days for the legal analysis to come out. This will not be a small factor. Irrespective of all the pundits trying to defend him now.

  • Spartan4Life

    I believe words do matter. And, upon closer examination, I think Justice Roberts did find a nuanced way to thread a needle and kick the responsibility for this monstrosity back to Congress. And, I agree that there are things to like in this ruling that might outlive Obamacare.

    Unfortunately, I have lost faith in Americans ability to dissect anything more complicated than “Keeping Up With the Kardashians”. The standard meme will be win for Obama, loss for Conservatives. While I may believe the truth is more complicated, the average millenial out there will just accept the CW.

    The last part is simple. This now becomes a single issue election. Do you want to get rid of Obamacare? Vote Republican.

  • acat

    and it is dependent, in large part, upon maintaining the reputation of being impartial, *not* political.

    Sure, Roberts could have found Obamacare unconstitutional .. letting Obama run *against the Supreme Court* instead of against Romney.

    If, in that circumstance, Obama won and got to replace Scalia and Kennedy (and Ginsberg), we’d be in even worse shape than we are now.

    Your short-term “we lost” whiny mentality is what I’d expect from a lib. Grow the {copulation} up.

    The fight from here is political, not legal – and that’s a good thing.

    Mew

  • http://boldcolor.blogspot.com/ Paula

    But sounded like he was reading a script. Certainly not the Romney we saw going after his Republican opponents in the primary.

  • http://nextgenerationvoters.com Bethany

    in his address he just mentioned that oh, by the way, the mandate is also “supported by the Republican nominee for President.”

  • jamesmpratt

    This crystalizes everything I couldn’t articulate. Thank you Erick!

    James M Pratt

  • garfieldjl

    I’m not into conspiracy theories, but the fact this is a complete 180 from oral arguments and the fact Obama acts like a 3rd World Dictator on a routine basis, I seriously believe he would do something like threaten a person’s family if he thought he could get away with it.

  • Ausonius

    Beginning back with Theodore Roosevelt’s Progressives, through Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, etc. etc., America’s slow but relentless march toward a Socialist nanny state – or worse – just took another rather large step forward.

    “Dire struggle” is exactly right.

    It is quite possible that, if any future Conservative historians exist, if they have not been relegated to crank windmills in the bayous of Louisiana, they will gauge today’s decision, and the mistaken election of MAObama, as large parts of the Decline of America. But that decline started a century ago: we have had respites and occasional gains against it, but long term the trend is unsettling.

    So with bankruptcy for the country looming, and with huge transfers of wealth set to occur in January via both the elimination of previous tax rates and MAObamaCare getting revved up, with crony quasi-dictatorial capitalism on the increase and smelling more and more like Mussolini’s Fascism, how quickly will our decline accelerate?

  • Waderic

    It is a tax on the uninsured.

  • treeofliberty

    I can just imagine Obama’s pitch to the mushy, swing voters:

    “Now as you all know, the Supreme Court is not exactly..my best friend (chuckle) After all, the majority of the justices are conservatives appointed by Republican Presidents. But even in this court, a conservative Supreme Court, they said that the Healthcare reform act was constitutional. The Chief Justice, appointed by my predecessor, President Bush wrote the majority opinion. So when you hear my opponents talk about repealing my healthcare bill that just demonstrates how far out of the mainstream they are; arguing not just with me, but taking issue with a conservative Supreme Court whose Chief Justice was appointed by President Bush.”

    I think you will be surprised how effective that will be at painting the other side as “extreme” Of course aided and abetted by a media all too eager to do the same. I think with mushy “swing voters” that will be effective in making it a non-issue in their eyes.

  • avgjo

    intellectual game playing. This is no better than arguing about the no. of angles that can stand on a pin, but it is far worse, because it has real world consequences. Of course the idiots in the court who ruled in favor of this are insulated from it, as are all of the ruling class and many ‘elites’ in this country. That’s why instead of treating this as the life-and-death issue it is, they treat it like an argument about the Forms…

  • daniel22

    you about Roberts, I can’t. Like Erik said this decision has forced all of us literally to put up or shut up. There has been a division going on in this country that has shaped political thought and actions. There is a divide in this country that has been exasperated by this administration and its cronies. It is past time to choose where one stands.
    With 60 percent of the American people against this Law the decision given just made them wake up and realize that inaction costs. Do you really think that the democrats can convince the needed majority of voters to agree with them when they have had how long to do it. They have less than 5 months to do so now.
    We have almost five months to show people the stock market slide and ever more increasing unemployment as well as doctors closing shop and doubling insurance fees. Yeah there is a side to choose and Roberts just forced the issue to be decided where it should have been in the first place.

  • earlgrey

    day to be over. He really is into the patriotism thing. He wrote little songs for us to sing on flag day.

    It wasn’t until recently that I told him I didn’t want B. Obama elected President again. I figure almost 7 it is OK to say what you think. He asked me If I wanted him elected and I said no. Than he asked his dad and he said the same thing.

    Again, I just wish the timing was differnt. Ever since 2009, I have looked on my son’s birthday totally different and if I had my choice it would just be a birthday and no red, white & blue favors. I hope that changes someday.

  • misty

    30% of people think they are registered and are not. So if you want to make a difference, you need to vote the dems out, but are you registered. This election is too important to wait until Nov. to find out you are not registered. Go to Glennbeck.com and click on the box 1234 and find out if you are registered.

  • thebadpiper

    The Republicans ought to play every sound bite of Obama and the Democrats stating that this was NOT a tax with the Supreme Courts superimposed over them. Also, Obama’s promise not to raise the taxes on anyone earning less than $250,000 (family) with the line “What other taxes has Obama lied about? “What other taxes has he lied that he will not impose in his second term?”

  • cbartlett

    of running every single program they have charge of.

    NOT.

  • reggie182

    John Roberts is not supposed to be a political strategist. That is not his job. He is there to make certain that the Constitution is upheld and applied correctly. He didn’t do that today.

  • Dr. Botkin

    clicked the Politico icon on my desktop when I read this.

  • runner12

    If the economy was not as bad as it is, Obummer may have had a shot at spinning this. But not now. People are not going to be keen on an extra tax during these tough economic times.

  • PowerToThePeople

    all we need is for some morons to listen to your assumption, concern, suspicions, etc and we have another birther movement that discredits our side.

    The idea that any of the judges would allow a man, even a president, to threaten them into submission is not only ludicrous, it is absolutely stupid. You have said some stupid things in the past, but this takes the cake.

    It was a BS ruling by 5 people who have their heads up in their ass. Roberts has shown his true colors, but there was no threat to get him there. Stick to the facts and stick to reality. We really can not afford to become the tinfoil party and it only takes one moron to start a rumor that catches on.

    On a side note, are you still considering taking your ball home because your man crush Gingrich did not win, or are you finally convinced that voting for Romney is a must?

  • Common_Cents

    Now we are going to go back and rely on Republicans in congress to fix this?

    We get the govt we deserve. I acknowledge my part, and will get even more involved to keep my boot on the necks of our elected elite.

  • http://www.chicagobluesgirl.com chicagobluesgirl

    Right

  • acat

    as far as preserving the power of the court to make its’ future decisions stick goes.

    Go find your high school civics teacher and demand a refund.

    Mew

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    of July 4th will help. Find a couple of books to read that celebrate our independence and the sacrifices made to achieve it. Take time out to sing the patriotic songs and celebrate with the fireworks. Don’t let the politicians take that away from you and your family. Considering that many of us feel we are fighting for our independence from the chokehold of big government, perhaps we’ll understand the words of those songs and the meaning of the day a little better than ever. God Bless America.

  • http://hughcpeconjrs.blogspot.com/ hughpecon

    Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don’t mean to do harm– but the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves.
    – T. S. ELiot

  • acat

    Seriously, that’s what you’re going with?

    Look – the challenge isn’t Romney .. it’s winning the Senate.

    Packing the Senate with as many conservatives as we can.

    They will decide what Romney signs, after all.

    Mew

  • ihateliberals

    Regardless if he was trying to avoid partisan politics that doesn’t change the fact that the mandate is either a Tax which is outrageous or unconstitutional. The fact it was declared a Tax we are now paying private insurance companies a tax with the backup of the IRS as the collector. Now those that are too poor to pay andy taxes will now pay taxes out of income they don’t have. this wil now give companies carte blanc to dissolve their current benefits packages and force the individual to purchase their own insurance. In 2014 companies will no longer spend their money for insurance it is much cheaper for them to pay the penalty than to provide the benefits. John Roberts has not only disgraced the Court but has done a disservice to the American people and accompolished what he seemly was trying to aviod and that is to make the Court political. This has made the Court the center of attention in the November elections and the fact that Roberts decided this is a tax wil bring great scrutiny in allow judges to sit on the court. Roberts has discredit GW Bush with his choice of Roberts. when the average citizen can plainly look at this law and see that the mandate is unconstitutional and the Chief justice can’t see that this puts the entire court under suspicion of being incompetent. Even their ruling now on Stolen Valor is suspect.

  • azaeroprof

    Even Kennedy got it right. John Roberts failed the Constitution and failed the Republic. No matter how it is spun.

    P.S. I’ll bet Harriet Miers would have sided against Obamacare! ;)

  • Viet71

    n/t

  • runner12

    It was a press conference, not a speech. It read like a press conference and I think Romney did quite well. Being non-emotional in this instance made him look more matter-of-fact than partisan. This will play quite well to independents.

  • http://www.BillBowenAuthor.com RightinSanFrancisco

    Erick: thanks for this assessment – I have had a hard time getting up off of the floor. Your perspective that Roberts wants this to be a political issue resolved by the politicians is heartening. It would have been easier for it to be a legal issue, but I do not like for the Supreme Court to be our backstop when we cannot win the political arguments. That door swings both ways and I don’t think it is what the founders intended. And Roberts’ decision does protect the commerce clause and federalism. It will take a couple of weeks for the political ground to re-form.

    Truly, thanks.

    www.RightinSanFrancisco.com

  • http://www.plumbbobblog.com Plumb_Bob

    “…he very, very much was concerned about keeping the Supreme Court above the partisan fray and damaging the reputation of the Court long term. It seems to me the left was smart to make a full frontal assault on the Court as it persuaded Roberts.”

    Then he deserves damnation.

    The left exercises neurotic control by declaring “We’re going to call you nasty names forever if you don’t give us our way!” It is infantile, and it is evil when it occurs in an adult. No adult should ever, EVER, give in to that. Not for ANY reason.

    The left has abandoned civilization. They no longer participate in civilized society. What they do cannot be tolerated. Insofar as the Court gives in to it, the Court participates in the dismantling of Western civilization.

  • califgal

    I am trying very hard to understand.

    “Damaging the reputation of the court”? And, just what does he fear might be the damage done? Every once in a while, polls are taken about how Americans view the Court, just as how they view the President and Congress.

    So what? You think he believes that suddenly the liberal left that controls the media will rebel in the streets? Hardly. This law was unpopular with people. The lefites would have shut up in a bit and the far left, the MSNBC crowd has no viewers anyway.

    Okay, the main stream networks, the NYTimes, the WaPost, yes, they are the elite left, and yes, they wouldn’t have shut up, but do you think somehow now that Robers has given them what they view a victory that they ARE going to shut up?

    Hell, no. They control the news and how it’s presented, but this only emboldens them, shows them that if they whine and cry enough, a SCOTUS member, in this case the Chief himself, will be soooooo concerned about “politicization” that he’ll bend their way.

    I can’t see an end to this. I can’t see his believeing that this would assuage further attempts to claim politicization when a different decision goes against them.

    This is simply not a good reason for his decision.

  • http://hughcpeconjrs.blogspot.com/ hughpecon

    America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
    Abraham Lincoln

  • reggie182

    I earned nothing but “A”s from my civics teacher (a fine man who just retired after teaching for 35 years at a great Catholic school) as I recall, so I won’t be asking him for a refund. Perhaps you should ask your teacher at charm school for your money back.

    Aside from your insolent response, I’d like you to provide me with anything in the Constitution that implies that it is a role of a Supreme Court Justice to be a political strategist. Then tell me if you believe if Obamacare is Constitutional or not? Answer me that question please.

  • califgal

    Erik, never overestimate the American people’s polticial IQ; never underestimate a high-minded sounding politician, such as Obama (I work for you , the poor and the middle class) ability to convince the poor and the middle class that THEY are not the ones who will pay a tax.

    You watch: he’ll be successful convincing many that their taxes will be GOING DOWN, because…..well, he’s better at talking than our side.

  • keepcoolwithcoolidge

    My take

    1. He took the fire out of bogus “Court is activist” claim and upheld the integrity of the Court from the dishonest coordinated firing squad of desperate leftists searching for a scapegoat.

    2. He determined that Congress cannot rely on its commerce power to regulate inactivity, even in the healthcare market.

    3. He preempted any future government mandates along similar lines.

    4. He upheld the law, remanding political questions to Congress.

    5. He limited the coercive powers of the federal government over the states regarding federal monies.

    6. He gave both parties suitable talking points: Democrats have their law, Republicans have a tax increase to run against, as well as the fact that Obama and Democrats lied about raising taxes.

    7. He signaled that despite his alleged “partisanship” the only person willing to reasonably consider both sides, was a Republican appointee overseeing what many have ignorantly claimed to be a “right-wing” court. The votes were there to overturn the mandate, and yet Roberts crossed over.

    8. He removed the Supreme Court as a campaign issue.

    While I’m not in agreement with the decision, I think Chief Justice Roberts has solidified his place as one of the most intelligent, most articulate, most reasonable, and most suitable Chief Justices in U.S. history. Much more so than partisans like Earl Warren.

  • garfieldjl

    I’m just pointing out that with all the other shannigans this administration has pulled, it wouldn’t surprise me, and there has been quite a few other things that have happened in the news that would actually indicate that something like this may be going on, or did you forget the rash of break-ins in the Capital Building (the offices that were robbed all happened to be Republicans if I recall correctly), and at least 1 Supreme Court Justice’s home was also broken into. I also haven’t heard anything about someone being caught.

    Couple that with the New Black Panthers getting away with voter intimidation, Fast & Furious, etc., and you start to see a pattern where it wouldn’t be much of a stretch to suspect some Chicago style “arm-twisting.”

    As for Romney, I’m voting Republican in November, unless Romney officially change his party affiliation away from being a Republican, I think that more than answers your question, even if I don’t actively support Romney.

  • Viet71

    notext

  • acat

    Perhaps your civics teacher should be encouraged to demand a refund.

    To put it more plainly to you, reggie182, from where does the court derive its’ authority?


    The Court?s power derives from its moral authority throughout the political spectrum. Deprive it of that and its orders on the greatest issues of all are worth less than the US Reports as kindling. — Thomas Crown

    Roberts job is first to maintain the ability of the court to have its’ decisions taken seriously, and second to make wise decisions.

    Mew

  • reggie182

    How is the Supreme Court’s power to make future decisions stick compromised if Roberts votes the same way as Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy?

  • major

    I truly get the chess analogy, and I agree!
    He outfoxed the smarty pants radicals, and put the responsibility back in the peoples’ court!
    Let’s do it!

    (It is slightly better than it was, with a couple of extra tools to boot!)

  • tnguy

    It wasn’t to try to manage the country’s politics.

    He was wrong, and frankly, isn’t worth discussing any longer. His legacy is nothing more than a disgrace to our country, and nothing he does now can change that.To me, he’s no less vile and evil than Obama. Trying to bring up any good things he may have done is like praising Timothy McVeigh for his military service. And yes, that’s exactly what I said and I know some of the pantywaisters here will call it absurd, but McVeigh did far less damage to this country than John Roberts did today (or rather, when this was decided).

  • major

    Nice!

  • califgal

    American are pretty simple people especially when it comes to plain talk. They don’t follow the nuance of Supreme Court decisions, and you can not expect them to hear from watching their nightly news shows on NBC, CBS.ABC, or their morning shows (actually, I think the morning shows hold more sway over how Americans view an issue) that Chief Roberts was reminding people that this is a tax. because that will not be the thrust of the reporting done by those news sources. The thrust will be, “one ‘conservative’ justice, the Chief of the Court himself, agreed with this Obama law.”

    So a majority of Americans will think the Chief Justice just dissed them by taking what was called a “mandate” and finding it was legal because he decided to call it a tax. They will assume he is JUST LIKE the politicians they loathe, people who play word games with them each_and_every_time.

    They will not follow this case the way the rest of us do. They will not view his ruling as a way of forcing politicians to call something what it is. They will view him as one OF those politicians, seeing him as someone who must have wanted this to pass, and so to achieve that, he came up with the solution for passing it by calling it a tax.

    Thus, while he might have gained favor with the elite LEFT, he will be viewed by ordinary Americans with disdain and that will undermine any hope you claim he had to gain respect for the Court.

    It does just the opposite with the average guy.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    9. He destroyed the republic and the constitution by eliminating any barrier to raw federal power.

  • acat

    Are you really this dense, or just letting your emotions drive you?

    Had Obamacare been thrown out 5-4, Obama had telegraphed that he’d run against the court. That may have motivated his base enough to win …

    Whoever the next POTUS is will, likely, get to pick 3 new justices.

    You’re thinking way too short term, reggie.

    Mew

  • runner12

    Roberts seems to forget that around 60% of Americans despise this law.

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    If the Court made wise decisions, it would be taken seriously. The decisions the Court has made in the past that were wrong-headed are the ones that make people question it.

  • ihateliberals

    n/t

  • reggie182

    You’ve definitely learned something from the Bill Maher school of political haughtiness. You are well practiced in playing in that litterbox.

    Now back to substance. Do you agree with this decision, and why? Why was Scalia in the wrong here?

  • anjinconsulting

    It is not the responsibility of the SCOTUS to ?game? the process in it review of the law. It is the responsibility of the SCOTUS to simply review the law and to determine whether or not is constitutional; the ?reputation? of the court be damned. I concur with his statement that it is not the responsibility of the SCOTUS to protect people from the ramifications of their political choices.

    But in that process, it seems ridiculous to believe that if a person were to argue a case under oath using false testimony and the judge(s) were to disregard not only the factual basis of that sworn and false testimony and then look for a way to uphold the case it would be conscionable. It seems that you can not only lie in court but you can prevail if the judge looks away from that lie.

    Caveat Emptor my a$$; this is typical of the chicanery that led to the revolution.

  • acat

    different from the manifestation of god-the-father to moses, or of god-the-son to his followers?

    The power of the Supreme Court is *inherently* different .. and the court, by definition, must first act to shepherd that power, or – as Thomas put it – they become useless.

    The results, in our history, of times when the court “have become useless” persuade this cat that this decision, while not popular today, is likely to be seen as wise in the longer term.

    Mew

  • califgal

    Yeah, but they LIKE Barry. Sometimes I really don’t know if I believe the polls on that question, for how someone as arrogant as he comes off as likeable is beyond my comprehension, but it’s very hard to unseat someone they like and don’t look for the 60% to hold, what with the major news outlets writing poll questions that will make it look as if the law is gaining in popularity.

    This HAS to be tied in to all talk about the danger of the recession during into a depression, it has to be folded into every conversation about how employers are even MORE afraid to hire people, and for gawd’s sake, I WANT ROMNEY AND EVERY ELECTED GOPer to carry a copy of all 2300+ pages of that new law and to hold it up to the cameras at every campaign stop and connect it to the IRS and to BArry and to every democrat who blindly voted for what’s in it and then I want Romney and every one of our reps and senators reading the most offensive and bureaucractic paragraphs from it…over and over and over.

    It has to be done that way, Erick, and can you see to it the Romney people (don’t know if you have a clear line of communication to them) do this?

    There is absolutely nothing more effective than visual and aural evidence of what the Dems have done. Visuals. Visuals. Visuals.

    You doctor and you–torn apart.

  • cbartlett

    My knee-jerk, immediate reaction to the announcement was extreme disappointment.

    My second thought was that Roberts has just refused to play King Daddy and make the decision. He has essentially sent this problem back to the children and told them they have to come up with a solution and work it out.

  • ihateliberals

    right now some of the none scientific polls are showing a 58% approval of the Supreme court ruling. even though this is not scientific it shows the mood of the people. It is scary the number of women and so called educated college grads that think they are going to get free health care. did you know that starting in 2014 that when you sell your house there is a 4% Federal sales tax imposed? Now the government has the right to tax the sale of your car or anythng else they want to. Justice Roberts ahs opened the flood gates for the Liberals to tax and spend whatever they want too.

  • acat

    .

  • eldstenorge

    And, I think one of the first jobs for the GOP after the November win is to impeach him, and the Catholic Church should also excommunicate him and all the other Catholics on this court, as well as Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden and all the rest of those heretics.

  • reggie182

    i.e. that the Court’s responsiblity was to deem this legislation unConstitutional. They are all dense as well I suppose, right? They should all go and get refunds from their civics teacher, correct?

    What if Obama wins? It’s certainly possible. How does this brilliant strategy you think Robert’s has devised play out then?

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    have damaged conservatives in the process because the thinking will be that he’s no different than the liberals on the court.

    When we go knocking on doors trying to convince folks to vote for the GOP candidate, what are we to say when they ask why our guy voted with the libs? Try to explain some in-depth analysis of his trying to protect the court? That he was thinking long-term? Ha! Today’s society has an instant gratification mentality, and people won’t understand nor will they care about a long-term strategy. At this point, I’m afraid Robert’s strategy could very well backfire by causing some to come to the decision that who you vote for doesn’t really matter. I don’t believe that, but I think some will.

  • reggie182

    n/t

  • califgal

    fine in his response.

    He needs to keep pointing out that this makes climbing out of economic obscurity even more difficult, that our long-term prospects of remaining viable just got harder.

  • Marcus_Traianus

    The Founders indeed did give us the final say with the ability to vote for our government,

    I simply wonder how much of the destruction we can repair or whether great men are up to the task.

    We are truly at a precipice, as you so articulately pointed out. There is a confluence of very consequential events quickly coming.

    Let’s hope the corruption and damage can be limited until those great men step forward.

    It’s up to each an every American that cares about the future of this country.

  • Ausonius

    Here it is from YouTube the National Memory Bank:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meZGdzL9jb0

    You are quite right: play the lies again and again and again!

    I just heard Romney’s reaction: he sounds pumped for a fight! We will see if it lasts.

    Keeping everyone energized for 4 months is difficult, but not impossible.

  • califgal

    You know how people always say about politicians, “Be yourself.”

    I agree because when they force themselves to adopt a style of talking that goes against their basic nature, they look either fake or as if they are trying to hard.

    Obama used to look good, sound good with his rhetorical flourishes that have planned applause lines because that’s who he is– a bag of hot air, a big bag of wind, which is what people came to see the longer they watched him.

    Romney is and always has been at his best when he speaks with seriousness and reserve, when he furrows his brow and speaks as the bright guy he is. He looks phony when he delivers lines others have written for him that have applause lines. That actually speaks to me of his discomfort at being a phony speechmaker.

    Obama is at his most comfortable when he does give a planned speech with those applause lines.

    I wish his handlers would understand Romney is actually someone who doesn’t need to appear on the nightly news, standing on a bale of hay, yelling and screaming at the top of his lungs about taking the White House.

    If I had anything to do with his campaign, I’d put him in as many places as possible that showed him looking like the sharp businessman he is–actually put him at a round table with businessmen and corporate heads talking.

    Make the American people see the visuals that say, “Look, this is how jobs are created, and these people, these people who are holding their money out of the economy because of fear Democrat policies hold the key to your future.” And on that table, I’d have that 2300 page document of Obamacare in the center of the table!

  • The Grognard

    One of the “Originalists” on the Court just knifed liberty in the back, and you’re not down on him Erick?

    Your entire post reeks of pathetic Republican spin and capitulation.

    Obamacare is unconstitutional, and the Surpremes are supposed to be above the fray and rule accordingly.

    If it’d been Kennedy that voted with the other 4 liberal traitors, I’d have not been surprised at all.

    Roberts is the next Souter, and is a traitor to his oath to uphold that precious piece of paper that might as well be used as toilet paper at this point.

    Roberts entire argument comes down to “the government isn’t forcing someone to buy healthcare, the government is simply taxing those that choose not to do so.

    Forcing someone to choose is NOT a choice, and it is NOT liberty.

    Death by a thousand cuts.

    Give me Liberty, or give me… “free” stuff.

    To hell with that.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    it might dishearten a lot of people and embolden the democrats.

    But either way. The damage is bad, real bad. It is highly unlikely that it will ever be repealed now. At most the Republicans if they get elected will tinker around with it a little and then say they fixed it.

  • acat

    . . .

  • acat

    and we’ll need justices Scalia and Kennedy to remain healthy.

    If Obama loses and the GOP wins both the executive and the congress, we’ll *still* need the Roberts court .. because the Libs will file lawsuits to stop the dismantling of the bureaucracy – just as they did under Reagan and both Bushes.

    Yes, all the conservatives who are looking at this decision only in the short term are wrong.

    Mew

  • califgal

    You said, “as far as preserving the power of the court to make its? future decisions stick goes.”

    I don’t get this. Explain to me when the Court lost power to make its future decisions stick? In the modern era, that has always been based on the justices themselves.

    It appears any human being nominated and confirmed as a member of SCOTUS can make the words of the Constitution mean whatever he or she wishes.

    I can’t see that Roberts has behaved in a way to ever manage to make anything “stick.” No one has that ability, not Roberts, not anyone.

  • califgal

    pressure” brought to bear on the CJ.

    So, does this mean he was afraid his social life in DC was goint to suffer?

  • aeaeren

    I love the response, it’s not like I am going to roll over into the fetal position and scream WERE DOOOOOOMMMMMEEEEEDDDDD! The world is going to END SO I QUIT!!!!

    Get up off the floor and get angry and START HOLDING THOSE punks in Congress accountable. Primary them, donate to the other candidate ect. But DON’T EVER EVER EVER GIVE UP!

  • DesScorp

    I am.. He betrayed the Constitution that he claims to uphold. He lied and retconned Obamacare in a tax. He gave the government unlimited power, in all practical terms, over every aspect of our lives. Beat up on him? Today I despise the man.

  • reggie182

    I should know better. I’ve been on political boards long enough to realize that when you offer a comment and someone responds with personal insults, you are better off ignoring them, as the exchange that follows is not likely to be worthwhile.

    End of line.

  • califgal

    direction, even he knows that he’s treading into deep, dark, and stormy seas. Medicare? Social Security? Legacies?

    It might be 5 years from now, 10, or even a year from now that John Roberts’ decision on Obamacare plunged America into a morass from which it never economically escaped.

    We were in enough trouble before this thing passed, and now?

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    I’d really have to read the portion of the bill relating to the mandate/tax in order to have an opinion on whether Roberts is right.

  • acat

    The job description of supreme court justice, as written in the constitution, is “one who decides how the constitution applies”.

    Have you read the Obamacare bill? Have you read the Roberts opinion?

    Asserting that this is because of “social standing” is remarkably offensive.

    Mew

  • pirate55

    About now liberals er progressives are reveling in their newfound support of a middle of the road SCOTUS who they believe has sided with them. I do not for one minute believe that to be the case. The message here is Congress in passing this law has Raised taxes in an extraordinary way. Now the electorate Must be educated as to how much it will cost them. Remember the failure to secure insurance by many who do not now pay taxes will now be levied and let’s see how they will react to this. For now business will continue to Not Hire new full time employees and the economy will remain in the tank. The moderates and left can bask in the sunshine of their victory but this may be the Trojan Horse which they will regret in November. If not, our demise will certainly have a modicum of merit.

  • acat

    is to move the debate back to the right place, in the Congress.

    If the GOP can elect Romney, and if Conservatives can replace enough Dems and RINOs to get a good repeal bill to Romney, he’ll sign it.

    If the GOP fails to elect Romney, then it’s up to the Senate and that same Roberts court to overrule Obama.

    I’m disgusted by the short-term thinking on parade today.

    Mew

  • califgal

    If you live in MA and you don’t like Romneycare, you can get rid of it by organizing, something that doesn’t rise to the level of a California or New York or United States of American.

    States versus Feds still matters.

  • califgal

    And this is why I have been so disappointed in ALL GOPers in not talking about these points.

    Why don’t most Americans know this?

    This is the kind of thing that Romney et al need to pull out and pound home…and point out the arrogance of the Dems and Barry.

  • jamesm

    What does that portend? Definetely wouldnt want that guy in the foxhole.

  • acat

    you based your dissent from Roberts on.

    Mew

  • califgal

    taxes of all of us who already pay health insurance.

  • pirate55

    If we excommunicate all the heretics, how many will we have left. You and I can sit together at 715 Mass!

  • angryguy77

    unconstitutional or it isn’t. One can only think that EE believes the law is legit under the Constitution, otherwise how could he not be disappointed with the vote? If you believe this is an unlawful act of gov, how can you not be angry at the man responsible for it being upheld?

    I’m almost as down on you EE as I am with Roberts.

    I guess EE will get a few more cocktail party invites now. Your commentary will only be sought out for entertainment from now on.

  • tnfriendofcoal101368

    The court exists to protect the individual freedoms of Americans as enumerated in the Constitution. In the largest overreach by the Government in my lifetime, Roberts chose to side with the government. Not because he thought it was Constitutional to force me to buy insurance, he clearly did not. From his opinion: “The Federal Government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance.? He simply told the Government whatever action they forbid me to do, fine me and call it tax. Federal government doesn’t want my mailbox no more 10 feet from the road, hit me with a mailbox tax. Federal government doesn’t want me eating cheeseburgers for my own good, hit me with a cheeseburger tax. A think as a libertarian, you agree with me on this point so I won’t belabor it.

    In addition, Roberts has now shown the Obama administration; he can be intimidated by a media campaign targeted at his legacy. This is simply cowardice no matter how much you want to put lipstick on that pig. Don’t think this is the last time that the Reign or the MSM will go to this well (what care they if they win 5-4 or 7-2). This noting that I am not partisan on the issue of Constitutionality as I thought and argued the Arizona decision was correct i.e. the fact of Federal enforcement was not the issue before the court but rather could Arizona legislate immigration reform.

    As to your point that now we have to pitch ObamaCare ourselves by electing a Senate and House that will repeal it and a President that will sign the appeal, I agree. It is now a political fight but I want conservatives angry over this decision and then take that anger to the polls on November 6th, 2012 so to paraphrase the most interesting man in the world to conservatives I say: “Stay angry my friends”. We can win this fight in the end where it matters.

  • avgjo

    under our system of government can you think of a situation where using a tax to coerce citizens to buy a product is Constitutional? I’m not trying to implicitly say that one doesn’t exist, although I admit I personally cannot conceive of one. I’m wondering about your take on this.

  • acat

    and if you look at the demographics in New Hampshire and other States surrounding the Peoples’ Republic of Massachusetts .. you’ll see that’s exactly what’s happened.

    Further, if this is now a tax, it gives Romney some quick ads – cross-cut Obama’s “I’m a conlaw prof” and “this is not a tax” with Roberts “this is a tax” – as well as some longer-term “Obama raised taxes repeatedly” including maybe even a “Obama raised taxes more than any President in history” …

    In this economy, Romney won’t hesitate to use that.

    Mew

  • acat

    I’ll wait while you go look it up.

    Mew

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    .

  • macphisto96

    The House will repeal. We know that.

    If the Senate passes a full repeal, I guarantee that Romney will sign it. We do need Romney to sign the thing, because Obama sure won’t sign it. So it is important that we put Romney in there and get a majority in the Senate, preferably a comfortable one (55 would be a nice step).

  • califgal

    Vote out the lib Barry so at least we can get reasonable SCOTUS apoointees?

    How can the average guy buy that? Hell, I follow politics and I can’t buy that.

  • Common_Cents

    What a BS excuse to rationalize a poor decision.

    He ought to be ashamed.

  • chashand

    Ann Coulter was exactly right about Roberts. He was basically a blank slate. From her column on 7/20/2005: “But unfortunately, other than that, we don?t know much about John Roberts. Stealth nominees have never turned out to be a pleasant surprise for conservatives. Never. Not ever.”

  • Marcus_Traianus

    say it’s not OK to force and regulate people’s inactivity and behavior under the Commerce Clause. But it is OK to do that via taxation.

    Either way, the result is the same. Diminished individual liberty and a government with almost limitless power to implement any scheme they want under the guise of taxation.

    According to Roberts. they can force you to participate in any activity they wish you to engage in and penalize you if you don’t. In tandem, the can take over an entire industry, force employers to comply, force individuals to partiicpate in whatever rules they write and remove an entire class of business from the private sector.

    His entire opinion is a model of how to use taxation as a subterfuge to the Constitution.

  • califgal

    he could have had that happen anyway by ruling it unconstitutional?

    The issue of affordable health care (which is not what this law addresses) would have been back on the political table for both Barry and Mitt and surrogates to “come up with a solution and work it out.”

    Mr. Roberts made the “working out” much, much more difficult, maybe impossible.

  • acat

    and what I’m seeing here today is a two minute hate on Roberts that’s rather unjustified in the larger context.

    Obama was clearly prepared to run against the court if they threw out the whole law – this short-circuits that option and forces Obama to run against Romney.

    Obama denied up and down that this is a tax. Well .. decision’s in, this is a tax. Free ammo to Team Romney.

    A big chunk of Obamacare taxes and regulations start coming into effect in 2013. More free ammo to Team Romney – “If you re-elect Obama, X will happen”. (and remember, we had to pass the bill to read it .. I would wager that the Romney campaign has had experts go through the whole thing looking for ad fodder)

    This decision is not what it first appears to be.

    Mew

  • avgjo

    nt

  • celador2

    This decision was a set back and landed with the force of an earthquake in gale winds swirling out of the staid court. Whatever his reasons Roberts agreed to unlimited Congresional ACA power to tax because taxing is constitutional, he said.

    He agreed that ACA , a takeover or expansion of heath care delivery that defines health insurance as heath care, is constitutional also Roberts let most of this broad scope of ACA stand. Free market solutions are stomped in this decision and placed at back of the bus for consideration in the health care system in the majority opinion.

    Costs will rise when competition is stiffled and smoothered. And now market competition is declared illegitimate or even not relevant as a force in health care commerce. Roberts killed competition in health care commerce

    Roberts used judicial restaint, he said. But, ACA does not exercise rsstraint unfortunately.

    Voters are weary and frankly fickle and many see the Chief Justice as settling the legitimacy of Obamacare. I fear that repeal now may be the uphill battle we face for November,.How credible is ACA now with voters?

    The dissent by Kennedy gets little notice but they said the entire ACA should be stricken as a major overeach of federal authority.At some point someone needs put forward that health care across this land is not the sole responsibilty and monopoly of insurers and DC panels supreme.

    Roberts is a sell out to all things decent and looks to be a liberal sell out at that since Roberts also sided with liberal judges on AZ law.
    .
    I’ll leave it at that for now.

  • macphisto96

    Erick and acat are right on this.

    Erick was dead on when he said that Roberts is playing a longer game here. I was worried about giving Obama the victim football and letting him play with it.

    No, now he has to defend his tax. Roberts didn’t expand the Commerce Clause and we can see that the court would smack down an expansion of that. Despite Ginsburg dissenting on that bit, her opinion was not controlling so we ESSENTIALLY got a 9-0 smackdown on Commerce Clause expansion, though we know the other four likely would not vote against it if Roberts didn’t bargain.

    I think Obama’s people are not happy about this. It’s still a split decision and now they have to run on their record, not on the “I can’t do anything because of these darned conservative justices, congressmen, etc” meme.

    Obama raising taxes on the middle class after promising not to will stick. Anonymous sources in the White House have already said that it will, that now Obama will be easily labeled as a tax and spend liberal. We know that that’s not a winning label. Bill Clinton figured that out, so did Obama. Why do you think he was at pains to say Obamacare was not a tax?

    I agree with Jay Cost at Weekly Standard that Roberts gave the GOP a way to have their cake and eat it too.

    And now over at Slate they are saying that Roberts preserved Obamacare, but gutted the Federal regulatory powers under Commerce.

    If by the end of January we have ink drying on a repeal and we have Fed regulatory powers diminished, then I’d call this a huge win.

  • califgal

    if a service or a product was “purchased.”

    If a person chooses not to purchase health care, he’s assessed a penalty. A penalty is NOT a tax.

  • rightlane1111

    There are so many of us on the board that are so very upset. Because your pix looks like a male cat…I am assuming you are male also. I know you guys are pragmatic…but we just can’t help it…we’re emotional.

    You know…when I was young and we sang God Bless America…I used to cry. Well, I cried today…but for another reason. This Court has handed Obama his empire.

    I will say this…got a call from Martha Zoller (GA) today that she would keep her word…I believe her…and help repeal Obamacare. I just hope the stupid Republicans have a plan written already so it is ready to go on day one.

    Otherwise…when I get a little bit older…some remedies will not be available to me because I am no longer useful to society, i.e., death panels. In fact, Kitty…some of that is already taking place..where certain procedures are not permitted…both male and female.

    I’ll suck it up…like you said earlier…but I do not want ANY MORE RINOS IN THIS GOVERNMENT.

  • wintermute

    “The job description of supreme court justice, as written in the constitution, is ?one who decides how the constitution applies?.”

    but you’ve been saying up and down in this thread that the general perceptions of the court trump the direct constitutional concerns addressed by the court in specific cases… so which is it? Is he supposed to decide how the constitution applies or worry about the popular reputation of the supremes?

    I’ve been hearing this argument all day and I don’t see how it applies… the argument is essentially saying that if he didnt cave in to liberal pressure the court loses its mandate. Huh? If he is to concern himself with not embarrassing the court, then this was a lose-lose proposition for him b/c he was destined to enrage people no matter what. So by the logic of this argument he should have done what he felt was right instead of trying to prop up the standing of the court.

    Further, if Obama running against the supreme court is a guaranteed winner for him, then I guess Obamacare is actually way more popular than is being let on by conservatives. I thought this was a loser bill that most people want gone?

    Please read the above in the most respectful tone possible, I mean no disrespect but I cant help but think you’re dreadfully wrong. My blood pressure is really high right now, I have not been able to calm down about this.

  • zollistar

    Here’s Long’s statement re: the decision:

    http://www.wendylongfornewyork.com/statement_on_obamacare

  • acat

    I see this decision differently – it is handing the decision about whether we want to live in Obama’s empire or in America to We The People.

    If we can’t get enough conservatives into Congress to write a decent repeal-and-replace, if the GOP can’t get Romney elected so he’ll sign it, then .. yeah. The dream is over.

    What the Roberts decision gives us happy-warrior conservative activist types is *opportunity*. Let’s not waste it.

    Mew

    p.s. yes, I am a Chicago alley tomcat .. and I’ve got some long-term medical issues of my own…

  • ateam

    What kind of precedent did it set? What is to prevent the government from demanding it’s citizens buy electric cars under the auspices of a “tax”?

  • aeaeren

    the Congress have the authority to tax? It doesn’t say they can’t tax you for breathing but then again it doesn’t say they can either.

    I say the best way to make this a teachable moment i to find a favorite liberal cause and TAX it till it is completely dead on the ground and out of tears!

    Democrats learn once their schemes are used against them, until then they continue doing it. But use it against them and they will contort themselves finding away to flat out KILL the scheme!

  • acat

    The answer to that is the key to the difference between the constitutional job description and the actual job description.

    Mew

  • tnfriendofcoal101368

    Roberts said ?The Federal Government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance.? and then opioned that it was Constitutional to order me to participate as long as they call it a tax. I am not comfortable with the long term implications of the Government being given carte blanche to use the tax code as an engine of social change/welfare instead of a funding mechanism of the Government. If you are less uncomfortable with that; then we will just disagree. My anger with Roberts is that I think from the statements he made in oral arguments, his refusal to accept the government’s primary and secondary arguments, he felt this was unconstitutional Government overreach.

    Now, just because I think Roberts shirked his responsibilities and trashed his oath to protect the court’s reputation from the NY Times doesn’t mean I have forgotten about the SOB’s who bred this pig that Roberts put lipstick on. Cheap parting shot: the next “tax” will be one for not driving a fuel efficient vehicle.

    To my brethren I will say not one Republican, not even the squishiest RINO you can think of, voted for ObamaCare in either the House or the Senate. We must defeat every last one of them in November: President, Senator or House of Representative.

  • acat

    I love it when a plan comes together.

    Mew

  • ateam

    Or was this a long sarcastic post?

    Healthcare is a universal right about as much as it being a universal right that everyone should be able to play golf at Augusta National. Healthcare is a good or service to be purchased just like any other service.

    The next thing you will be dishing out is that being attended to by a top-tier medical school educated, board certified physician is a universal right. Just because I don’t earn as much as someone else shouldn’t prevent me from being able to go to the finest hospitals in the country?

    Think about where your argument leads!

  • jmmfulk

    The real issue for the so called “Supreme Court” to decide is not whether or not to call a fine by the Federal Government a tax if someone refuses to buy something our arrogant Government has ordered everyone to buy.

    The issue is that our Government has no business ordering it’s citizens, which created the Government in the first place and are the Governments employers, to buy anything. I have less respect for our Government than ever.

    So 68% of the people in the U.S. are opposed to Obamacare and the High Priests in the Supreme Court and our corrupt Government are telling us we have to do what they say whether we like it or not under penalty of law. And our Government is called a Representative Government? Welcome to the U.S.S.A.

  • wintermute

    Or is the fact that i have veins the size of twizzlers sticking out of my forehead right now preventing me from any cognitive performance? Are you trying to make a point that there is more to their jobs than whats in the constitution? That seems a lot like mission creep to me… and what about my other points? Especially the popularity of the bill?

    I also disagree with the entire assumption that ruling properly in this case would undermine the court. Kelo happened, and here we all were on pins and needles today, still taking them seriously.

  • adair

    Have him and his guests read the Declaration of Independence.

    As for you, wait til they’re all gone; hide; tie one on.

  • ateam

    Can someone point us to a resource that logically outlines what likely will happen to the rank and file insurance plan in the United States.

    For example, if a company pushes all of their employees to high deductilble plans with HSA’s, where the first $1,000 or more is borne by the employee, how does this plan fly in the face of Obamacare?

    Or, if a company believes in top tier, 100% coverage for employees, how is that impacted?

    Has anyone produced such a resource yet?

  • macphisto96

    As Erick said, good luck trying to sell a tax.

    As many of said already, if this had been sold as a tax originally then Obamacare would not have passed through a Democrat Congress.

    You can win points by taxing the rich, but that’s only because most people aren’t rich. We’ve actually been on a fairly downward tax trajectory since Kennedy and especially since Reagan. No one is really talking about 50% plus tax rates any more.

    Roberts made them have to call it a tax to get it through while saying it doesn’t work as a mandate under Commerce.

    That means any member of Congress who votes for it will have voted to raise taxes. That doesn’t help them with re-election.

    It seems to me that Roberts just made it so a lot of Federal expansions will now have to be categorized as taxes and that means you can use them as bludgeons in political games.

    I think the decision was quite shrewd, upon reading. It seems that Roberts found a Third Way, to use a Bill Clinton term.

  • earlgrey

    I have to do just that.

  • jimgetten

    I think Justice John Roberts has made (along with his fellow conservative justices) the smartest play a Supreme Court Chief Justice has made in our lifetimes. He has set the stage for the entire liberal agenda currently building steam to be shut down or at least severely contained by the voters. If the Romney camp & the GOP are wise enough to use this ruling in the fall campaign, the collapsing economy and rising jobless rate will give them victory in many state and possibly the national election.

    As California cities declare bankruptcy and more of the American dream fades from the view of even the fairly well off, voters will be forced to choose from the reality of conservative economics or the feel good politics of tax & spend liberalism..

    I don’t believe most thinking and informed voters are very excited about a federal government run by liberal, big spending Democrats deciding what they can & can’t buy with what little money they are able to earn. The culture war has taken a decisive turn toward the thinking man and away from the feeling man.

    I applaud Justice Roberts and the President that appointed him.. Poker only takes a few minutes to play & win. A Chess match can last for days or in the case of American politics, a generation.

  • wintermute

    this has completely killed me today, Im exhausted. I certainly hope that I come around to your line of thinking cat.

  • garfieldjl

    Historically, government programs do not get shut down, the media will fight tooth and nail if Republicans get into office and it is highly unlikely that it will get repealed at this point…

    No matter how you try to spin this, Chief Justice Roberts failed to uphold his oath to defend the Constitution.

  • barleycorn

    Pick your self up and get over it. You will need Erick tomorrow and the days after that..

  • califgal

    but I can’t agree that Roberts was trying to limit the Commerce Clause while pushing Obamacare back to the political process.

    He could have achieved the same thing by saying that the commerce clause doesn’t allow regulation of inaction.

    Then, he could have tossed in a line that read simply, “The Congress clearly has the right to levy a tax.”

    If throwing it back to the political process is really what he wanted to do that is what he would have done for then Obama, the Congress, Romney, everyone would have been notified, ‘You want to provide health care expansion under the auspices of the government and you want a way to pay for it, then you are going to have to man up to the people, explain what it is you wish to offer, and explain it will be paid for the only it can be, by a levied tax.”

    No Chief Justice should ever believe that somehow HE has the abilitiy (much less the obligation) to shape, mold, and form a country that is less divided by ideology.

    If Chief Roberts thinks HE can tone down the left-right division in America, then he sorely misunderstands how we grew to be so divided in the first place.

  • http://aposematic.wordpress.com aposematic

    “First, I get the strong sense from a few anecdotal stories about Roberts over the past few months and the way he has written this opinion that he very, very much was concerned about keeping the Supreme Court above the partisan fray and damaging the reputation of the Court long term.”

    WTF?????

    What Roberts did was to destroy the SC’s reputation forever at this point. Roberts had to rewright a section of the PPACA to get the conclusion he ruled to be Constitutional. Rewriting Legislation is not the SC’s job!

  • stingray11214

    Gang;

    We need to get a hold of reality here. Roberts looked at this as a tax. Granted, nobody in their right frame of mind is going to campaign on raising taxes. However, we live in a “Gimme” culture, which are dominated by both liberals AND conservatives alike. Furthermore, it does not matter who gets elected, they are members of the “Re-Elect me!” Party. That means, if they move one iota in changing things that is popular among vast sums of voters, even if they are a minority, they are a threat to the incumbent members of the “Re-Elect Me!” Party members re-election to Congress. This thing, even if the Senate has 100 clones of Jesse Helms, and the House has 435 clones of Bob Dornan, will never get repealed. Period. Those in Congress likes the perks of power too much.

    Face also another fact: The American people are absolutely clueless in what they want. They do not know the difference between “need” and “want”. They want programs, but do not want to pay for them. They want rights, but no responsibility. They want American jobs, yet shop at Wal-Mart to buy cheap garbage from China. They want cheap gas, yet they demand no oil exploration in America and drive Hummers. They scream to protect the environment, but only in their neighborhoods and force us working folks to live like sardines.

    In plain and simple English, the culture of the Protestant Work Ethic is gone. It was taken long ago when people thought they were entitled to everything even if they did not work for it, and those in power indulged those indulgences to stay in power.

    We have seen the enemy…..it is in the mirror.

  • acat

    “Chief Roberts thinks HE can tone down the left-right division in America” …

    I don’t see that.

    Mew

  • Vaughn Harold

    not through this back onto the backs of the American voters to decide whether or not they want inactivity taxed or not.

    November will answer that question, and I for one am glad that the court is letting the people speak on the question instead of the great SCOTUS.

    If I remember right, it was the people who elected the idiots that passed the bill in the first place, and it was the mistake of the Republicans to through it to the court to fix the problem.

    I thought conservatives where against judicial activism anyway.

  • clearasday

    Chief Justice Roberts wrote:

    “It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”

    Then why even have a Supreme Court? That a Chief Justice could utter these words is not only an abdication of his responsibility to the Constitution of the United States, to which he pledged an oath to protect and defend, but also to the millions of Americans who did not vote for the political regime that put this monstrosity known as Obamacare into law by a bare majority vote using tactics many agree were illegitimate.

    Sorry, Erick, I see no upside to Robert’s decision in this case. He is no champion for the Constitution, no warrior for the doctrine of checks and balances. His nose is so buried in legal minutiae that, as the old saying goes, he cannot see the forest for the trees.

    Now the entire nation will have to endure more years of political turmoil, lost opportunites and massive debt. All because, in this case, one man did not have the guts or wisdom to do the right thing.

  • wlcjr

    “It’s only $90. For that we get millions health care (including poor children).

  • Vaughn Harold

    Robert’s trust that the American people will not stand for this tax.

  • Dr. Botkin

    And here all the time I thought Obama was the Messiah.

  • barleycorn

    As irritating as the it is that the left “won” this round, the fact is that there is ALWAYS another round and another round after that and so forth and so on ad infinitum.

    Roberts is sacrificing a minor piece (to non chess players a minor piece is either a bishop or knight) to protect his queen and king.

  • Vaughn Harold

    I must have missed the memo that conservatism should champion limited goverment except when the SCOTUS chooses to stay within it’s defined constitutional limits.

    Wow, just wow!

  • wlcjr

    Only to inaction = action. In doing so it sets up taxing us for anything under sun. That is regulation by another name. Sorry Erick, but you are wrong here.

  • Dr. Botkin

    the country is going off the cliff with all these gutless spinners trying to make Robert’s betrayal of the Constitution to be anything less than it is. Trying to make this defeat into some kind of victory is pathetic.

  • anjinconsulting

    but Article 2 section 3 states “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.” It was the states that brought the case to the court, through the appellate court system. Are you suggesting that the SCOTUS has no implicit power to review such a case?

    Sorry to get back to you so late.

  • jaykali

    Just ask him.

  • jaykali

    Why not take out some of your fury on some Huffpo commenters? We are not OBAMA, I feel like your cat has been kicked today.

  • aeternalis

    I’m ready for my lower insurance premiums now. Ball’s in your court, Barack.

  • califgal

    assessing a some kind of payment/punishment a (tax, a surcharge,a fine, a penalty, call it, as you say, what you will) for the NON-PURCHASE of a service or product.

    I was willing, for a time, to consider the possibility this was Roberts’ way of restricting the commerce clause and still appearing to be non-partisan, but the more I thought about it, the more I realize he was indeed feeling pressure (not that I think he should have, for in the end, all pressure is self-imposed) to “find a way.”

    What a crock.

    He’s a weak Nellie.

  • acat

    Be angry at Obama, who jacked up our taxes while lying about it.

    Be angry at Pelosi, who salted this bill with thousands of special interest handouts.

    Be angry at the uneducated voters who gave the Dems free reign.

    Work to replace all three.

    Mew

  • jaykali

    I think Robert’s is too affected by the press intimidating the court by calling it ‘extreme’ if decisions don’t go their way. No way to know for sure but I can’t think of any other reason why Roberts would side with liberals on this.

    I don’t think he has some secret plan that this is going to work out better in the long run for conservatives. I think he talked himself into this being constitutional enough so he wouldn’t have to take a beating in the press for the rest of his career.

  • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

    Pay attention.

    Roberts didnt create, write, pass or sign that bill. Or approve of it. He merely refused to strike down a bill of dubious constitutionality.

    I am glad we have 4 stalwarts who correctly voted to strike it.

    But the bad in the bill is of the Democrats’ making and its Obama’s folly and nobody else’s should this bill harm our healthcare and our freedom.

    Democrats play for keeps and play for power. Time we did the same.

    Repeal and replace Obama.

  • boballab

    before the thing was passed. Remember back in the days long ago when the reason the Dem leadership kept saying it wasn’t a tax, and removed all language saying it was a tax, was to get the blue dogs to vote for it? If this ruling happened then, that would have given those so called blue dogs a convenient cover for not voting for it.

    All this decision did was enshrine the word “Mandate” = “Tax” and the same bait and switch will be allowed by the SC whenever they use it again.

    I also have a proposal: We should contact our congressman to support the Affordable Handgun Act (AHA). We know from FBI statistics that violent crime drops where firearm ownership is higher. So to prevent this crime from occurring, and the resultant medical costs from it, we must ensure that everyone over the age of 21 owns a handgun. If a person decides to not buy a Handgun they must pay a small “penalty” to the IRS.

  • acat

    You seem to be much more interested in discussing my posting than in discussing the Roberts decision.

    Mew

  • jaykali

    I mean I can picture Jay Carney right now saying Obama has disagreed with the court’s opinion that the mandate is a tax but that he is glad the issue is settled and they can go on focusing (*trying not to laugh*) on creating jobs and fixing the economy.

    I hope to see the Jake Tapper, Carney exchange which might last 5 minutes but ultimately I don’t know if the Tax thing will stick. He’ll just say ‘we don’t agree that it’s a tax, we believe in personal responsibility…blah blah…emergency rooms…blah blah’ and so on.

  • nepanyrush

    Right now, its $ 90 or 1% of income, whichever is HIGHER. then it goes up in 2015 to something lke $350 or 2% income, whichever is higher. Then up to 2.5%.

    That is just on paper. At some point, it will be so high that you really have no choice whatsoever.

    I went many, many years without health care, from about 20 years old to 35 and several months since then because I could not afford it, and I never worked (not even now) for a business that paid health care. I save a lot of money and now that I am older I use those savings to buy my health care. But those days of choice are over. Healthy young adults are going to need to fork over the money. And it is a lot of money because Obamacare never addressed costs. My family coverage since Obamacare was passed completely exploded and I had to drop coverage for several months again because it got so extreme: $ 1,700 a month just for my coverage, out of my pocket.

  • joelson

    If you read the actual court decision, there is a good deal of discussion regarding capitation and direct taxes, which are not on the purchase of a service or product. I believe they do declare that this tax is not either of those categories. I’m still digesting it, so I can’t summarize it very well.

    The discussion of the mandate as a tax begins on page 31 of the decision. Discussion of the fact that it is a tax imposed upon an omission as opposed to an act begins on page 41.

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

  • jaykali

    Where Obama keeps saying its not a tax and then you have the big court announcement and some stats ab it being the biggest tax EVAH.

  • jaykali

    I think your actual point is valid but since you hijacked my thread here I think it is worth mentioning that you like to attack ppl who don’t agree with you.

  • acat

    Obama: “I taught constitutional law”.
    Obama: “It’s not a tax”.
    (pic of Robers) Voiceover: “Chief Justice Roberts says it’s a tax.”

    (pic of or video of Romney) “Perhaps it’s a good thing that Professor Obama sought a different career, clearly conlaw wasn’t for him. For the record, I oppose this tax increase.”

    Mew

  • sulmak

    http://www.mittromney.com/embed/video/day-one-job-one-fullrepeal0

    Not like yours, because it focuses solely on policy, but worth mentioning.

  • PowerToThePeople

    but as I stated before, stick to facts, not BS.

    I think you are a moron, but you are not stupid. I also think you are full of bull patties, but I do not think you are tin foil in nature. That being said, for you to shoot your mouth off about possible conspiracy possibilities does nothing but sow stupidity in the minds of the weak.

    It does not take much. The entire birther movement started with one lawyer who did not like that his hero Clinton was being beat by Obama. Now we have an entire group of people who are stupid enough to believe the nonsense and all it has done has made our party a laughingstock even though it was the dems who started the idea.

    All it takes for your comment to become viral is one weak mind to tell another who tells another…………..and then we have the new stupid movement.

  • acat

    I should have asked for what part of the bill the objection to the Roberts decision was based on.

    Seems quite clear to me, though, that reggie’s posts were driven by emotion, not logic.

    Mew

  • GopTiger

    I’ve enjoyed reading Redstate reaction today. Five hours after the announcement of the ruling, I still can’t decided if I think John Roberts is playing chess or vainly channeling his inner-John Marshall.

    Regardless,I do think Romney benefits more politically from this decision than Obama for many of the reasons you all have outlined.

    But I have a question: does anyone think today’s ruling may have an adverse effect on the unemployment rate? I wonder how many businesses, already facing a global economic slowdown and looming 2013 tax increases, may begin laying off workers now that they fully understand the Supreme Court is not going to offer them relief from Obamacare.

  • jaykali

    I am addressing comments like this – “I’ve answered your question, you’re just too stupid to understand it.”

    So that was my issue, that’s it.

  • PowerToThePeople

    to stay in school, gain a meaningful education or valuable skill, pursue a higher education, find a starter job to develop a resume, work towards a better job that allows one to afford their own desires and needs, and to continue to better yourself so that you continue to step up the economic ladder.

    One has a right to screw their life up with an early pregnancy or multiple pregnancies, a criminal record, dropping out of school, not developing a viable skill, using dope, etc but that does not grant one the right to lice off of others instead of pulling themselves up by the bootstraps themselves.

    Sorry bub, but healthcare is not a right, never has been, never will be. It is an option in life that one must earn themselves. If a person has made their own bed and lives in a way they can not afford health insurance, their choice. If they continue to live a lifestyle that does not allow them to afford health insurance, their problem. If they do not improve themselves and their lot in life, their problem. But it is not their right to make me pay for it.

    Welfare is for losers and it is time we end it. I can guarantee no one is going to die from hunger, they will go out and earn a way to eat.

    This Obamacare will end soon enough. It received a momentary pardon, but we are not done with it. And as more people see welfare for what it is and this Obamacare has awoken a ton of people, it will end up being the catalyst to ending or at least seriously curtailing the welfare system and will force the many ticks to earn their own way in life and that includes paying for their own insurance.

    We are tired, very very tired, of paying for healthy people to lay around and do nothing. Those days are quickly drawing to an end.

  • stevends

    The Supreme Court is not in the business of reversing elections or policies just because they are bad. Only if they are unconstitutional.

    And of course constitutional does not necessarily equal good.

  • jaykali

    It sounds like an easy, effective line of attack. It will be alot more difficult for Obama to defend in debates assuming he can actually get a direct question related to Obamacare. I think the moderators might be more interested in Romney’s car elevators.

  • acat

    That’s the key thing here .. there’s not much in this decision that Obama can run on. Given his press releases over the last couple weeks, he clearly wanted to run against the court, not Romney. This pins him to his record.

    Further, there’s quite a lot that should excite both the GOP base as well as the pocketbook-conscious mushy middle. Romney can now point at every single thing in Obamacare that ticks over in 2013 – when most of the new taxes go into effect – as “If you re-elect Obama, your taxes will go up, it’s already in the law.”

    Mew

  • The_Rebel

    “The job description of supreme court justice, as written in the constitution, is ?one who decides how the constitution applies?.”

    It would have been nice if Roberts adhered to this truth. It is not his job to legislate from the bench. But what seems lost on everyone is that he just did. In rewriting the law on the Medicaid section, which is a major part of the bill as originally passed, he is doing the job of the Congress. He should have rejected the entire law, not acted as a legislator, amending it to his liking.

    As an originalist, Roberts is a major disappointment.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    for the federal government that before this did not exist.

  • acat

    I trust Romney’s debate prep will prepare him to slip in “There you go again” or “I’m not going to hold his youth and inexperience against him” style zingers… and we all know Obama is brittle and easily rattled when off his teleprompter… or when someone asks uncomfortable questions.

    Mew

  • acat

    I disagree.

    Mew

  • tnfriendofcoal101368

    It’s a good ad – reinforces what Romney said today: 1) It’s bad law 2) It costs too much 3) It’s bad economics 4) Obama loves it and will keep it in place

  • The_Rebel

    you know that’s not what I said. I’m talking about interpreting the constitution vs legislating from the bench.

  • runner12

    As someone who is from Oklahoma it makes me vomit when the Left uses that deranged man in their talking points. As a fellow conservative, it simply should not be done.

    Roberts hurt the Republic today, no doubt. But please do not use a mass murderer to make your point. That is a tactic of the Left, we are better than that.

  • acat
  • avgjo

    I know you’re pretty strictly Constitutional. Do you think that the Obamacare mandate is a legitimate instance of taxation under the Constitution?

  • acat

    that while there are long precedents around the limits of tax law, the bulk of the taxes under Obamacare have not yet kicked in, so I’m not sure anybody currently has standing to sue and challenge whether Obamacare-as-a-tax is constitutional.

    My personal opinion is that it will depend entirely upon the makeup of the court when the challenge arrives.

    Mew

  • avgjo

    I respect your opinion. I only ask because to me, the real damage done today is that Roberts (who should know better) seems to have asserted that gov’t using taxes to coerce the transfer of wealth from one citizen to another is perfectly ok under the Constitution. Now I’m no lawyer, but I don’t see that granted anywhere in the Constitution to the federal gov’t. And that’s the source of m,y outrage at Roberts, a supposed ‘conservative’.

  • The_Rebel

    just based on the Medicaid rewrite alone, he should have rejected the entire law and sent it back to Congress for them to decide what to rewrite.

  • mizzou1776

    Have a nice chat with Hillary at CNN: meanwhile the dumb ole rank & file are a tad but down on roberts (dishonerable). Indeed his instant repeal to a higher Judge would be most welcome. He is a coward who failed to defend the Constitution. In the military cowards are shot; roberts can hid behind his mumbo jumbo. Absolute scum!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • clearasday

    I guess your definition of constitutional limits and mine differ. If the Supreme Court does not utilize its power to put a check on the Legislative or Executive branches when they seek to act beyond their enumerated powers, then they have failed in their duty to the Constitution and to the people.

    In the 1803 Marbury v. Madison case, Justice Marshall lays out the case for judicial review and states in part:

    “Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and, consequently, the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void.”

    Roberts position appears to be that whatever Congress and the President decides is constitutional is OK by him.

  • Vaughn Harold

    and uncloaked the lie that the mandate was not a tax.

    This ruling has limited the power of certain language that has been used to mislead the American people.

  • acat

    If (when) that question *does* come before the court, they’ll likely move the marker on what can be coerced via taxes in a bit.

    The wheels grind exceedingly slowly….

    Mew

  • Marcus_Traianus

    and a loathsome one.

    Read the dissents to see what should have happened. Which is strike this down in its entirety. That would be courageous and right. But instead, Roberts tried to build a monument to himself.

    Roberts arguments are precedent setting and not in a good way. Kyle8 is exactly right.

    Your argument aligns with the political sale Roberts was trying to make. It is specious and contrary to original intent.

    This will not be as easy to repeal as some would have you believe.

  • marktx

    If Roberts truly wanted to put a limit on the commerce clause, he would have ruled against the government in this case.

  • Vaughn Harold

    that mandate is constitutional under the taxing authority of congress.

    He also put a stop to judicial activism, and placed the burden on the American people, where it should be, to elect people to correct bad legislation.

  • avgjo

    that seems to be what Roberts affirmed. It IS interesting that he was the only one to justify the mandate with a tax.

    I will wait patiently as the wheel grinds…

  • jude68

    Ladies and gentlemen many of you are upset and that is totally understandable but at this point IT WILL CHANGE NOTHING!! Roberts did an end around and while I wanted the Law Struck Down he did put a viceroy on Congress. Look he clearly by turning it into a tax has shoved down Obama’s throat. Remember Obama did not like Roberts because Roberts did not like the EXPANDED COMMERCE CLAUSE!! In fact, he voted against his confirmation because of it. Now he has taken Obama’s signature piece of legislation and crushed the Commerce Aspect and NOW OBAMA HAS TO DEFEND IT AS A TAX!! And people believe me this will go over like a rocket with no power!! People are going to get irked like no one knows!! His words…THERE IS NO TAX ON THE MIDDLE CLASS!!!

    Shoot that down BIG TIME…Roberts just pushed the LARGEST TAX INCREASE IN HISTORY on Obama!! Roberts should have ruled it UNCONSTITUTIONAL yes!! However, by doing what he did he clearly has given Romney a MASSIVE OPENING and he knew it!

    He wants this done in the Legislative Process….he has opened up the door to clearly more challenges and he also said states CANNOT lose their CURRENT FUNDING if they opt out…They can lose future funding…BUT NOT CURRENT. Now that also gives an out to the states as well!!

    Your gut is mad as heck at the moment….but down the road you will see that while Roberts did not rule exactly the way we wanted he has opened the door for REPEAL and made it alot easier for the Republicans to do!!

    Acat is right WE MUST ELECT CONCERVATIVES to the US Senate because we can repeal through thr reconcilation process like Erick mentioned…WHICH MEANS NO FILLIBUSTER could stop it!! In other words, by being a tax Roberts opened up the GOP to overturn without needing a new bill so it can be repealed through reconcilation….THINK ABOUT THAT PEOPLE!!

    Today Obama won a battle but Roberts has set up Obama to lose the war! So yes Roberts may have succumbed to some political pressure….BUT if that was simply the case….he would have UPHELD THE COMMERCE CLAUSE which would have been a major victory for Obama….HE DID NOT!

    It was a smart move by Roberts and it is now OUR JOB to elect Conservatives to the Senate!!

    I donated a bunch of money to Romney, as well as, other GOP Senate hopefuls. We must win!!

  • Vaughn Harold

    expect is that the American people will be enlightened to the fact that it is not the job of the judiciary to re-write legislation. If you want it changed elect people to change it.

    Stop blaming Roberts for the mistakes of our elected Republican’s in congress who caved and punted the ball to the SCOTUS.

  • avgjo

    he did re-write it. He imposed on it the status of a ‘tax’, which to my understanding appears nowhere in the mandate part of the bill.

  • aesthete

    The purpose of the SC *is* to shut down legislation that is not Constitutional. This set can include legislation which is passed democratically. That is why the SC has lifetime appointments, and why it is not a democratic institution. Its job is neither to be “partisan” or “non-partisan”, whatever that means. Roberts’ job entails making unpopular decisions. If he was not up to the task, then he should have never accepted the position.

    Even Anthony Kennedy could see that!

    I for one am not going to let Roberts off the hook. His is the rubber stamp legitimizing our banana republic. I don’t care that he had political consideratinos; he is a jurist, not a politician!

    Roberts is not a traitor to the conservative cause. He is a failure at his job and a man-pleaser, and that is infinitely worse in a Chief Justice.

  • RonLewenberg

    Wrong. Even by Roberts extra-Constitutional reasoning the law is unconstitutional. All revenue bills must begin in the House. The bill began in the Senate. QED unconstitutional.
    As to the larger point, of course this is political. Roberts has givien Congress power to do what it wants under the rubric of taxes, which is just as wrong as the anti-Constitutional reading of the Commerce Clause. He hasn’t fixed anything, only torn a new whole in the Constitution.
    What power do the people have when a lawless court ignores the Constitution? Can we vote the ersatz Krytocrats out? Or is force our only option, now that the Constituion is meaningless?

  • Ausonius

    You are quite right: Roberts blew it. And I cannot believe he is doing this with any kind of long-term agenda of crypto-Conservatism.

    Again, D.C.-itis claims another victim. Let’s all play nicely with one another.

    And so we are left waiting and hoping for our RINO’S to do something, anything.

    Perhaps a grassroots movement to amend the Constitution to limit the Commerce Clause and/or the taxing power and/or to prevent executive orders from circumventing laws and/or to prevent a quasi-dictatorship would be in order.

    Let’s see how angry people will become in the next days, when they realize what has happened: huge tax increases in January, loss of the Freedom to Choose…

    … and now the ability to tax you when you do NOT buy something!

  • aesthete

    if you consider Roberts’ job description “GOP apparatchik”. Yes, this decision will motivate base turnout, bla bla bla. What it has made much less likely is the repeal of the un-Constitutional ACA. If this was truly Roberts’ motivation, he should be ashamed of himself for selling the Constitution down the river for short-term partisan gain.

  • runner12

    You sum up how I feel about it nicely. Roberts may have a long term strategy in mind, but even that does not nullify his bad decision today. He ruled something Constitutional that is not.

  • Common_Cents

    Half america doesnt even pay taxes, many of them get money back. Is the IRS going to levy them? levy what?, is the IRS going to sue them? Is the IRS going to jail them?

    CONgress will do what they always do, govern by crisis. let things melt down into crises so they have some political power to do drastic things such as raise taxes, “because we have no choice!”.

  • Vaughn Harold

    to uncloak the language used to decieve the American people.

    IMHO, Roberts opinion accomplished more than the striking down of the law would have accomplished.

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    with regard to the direction of the court with Roberts as CJ?

  • westcoastpatriette

    and to see how I really feel, read this:

    http://www.redstate.com/westcoastpatriette/2012/06/28/time-for-another-tea-party-backlash/#comment-378

  • sulmak

    “The rest of this document should be upheld”

  • gekster

    have been knee-jerk reactions because the ruling didn’t go the way they wanted.
    They can’t see the forest for the trees.
    It has been set up nicely for a Republicaan controlled Senate and House to totally deep six this bill.

    Now it’s up to us to get them there.
    Tea Party anyone?

  • marktx

    All the generalizations coming from the punditry here and in the media in support of Robert’s motivations are ridiculous. Nobody but Roberts really knows why he voted the way he did.

    But since Erick and others are speculating, I offer you a possible reason of my own – perhaps Roberts truly believed in universal health insurance for all and put his personal religious beliefs ahead of all other concerns. And perhaps the guilt he would have felt for overturning ObamaCare was too much of a burden for him to bear.

  • aggie91

    My 2010 BMW M3 had a $5,000.00 ‘guzzler’ tax added to the sticker price.

  • aesthete

    that we can expect no decisions from the court which require any sort of bravery on high-profile political issues. Roberts will side with the status quo on any abortion decision, for example.

    Personally, I can’t wait for Roberts to take his leave, and for a better appointee to take his place.

  • Viet71

    nadatext

  • jamesm

    Gambling on a Senate controlled by Republicans is risky. Roberts may have stuck us with Obamacare. I pray that this is repealled. But this was nothing but a devasting defeat. Republicans expected to win more senate seats in 2010. The forest is Obamacare.

  • avgjo

    problem is, all kinds of statists are going to use this to control us far more than ever. And don’t believe that the politicians won’t use it because they’re worried about running on taxes. We’re nearly at 50%+1 non-tax payers, and after that, as long as the producers are taxed, these jerks will have no qualms about running on taxes.

  • Viet71

    Roberts’ opinion is supportable constitutionally and is conservative.

    Time will redeem him in the eyes of Redstaters, IMO. He is a very good Chief Justice.

  • acat

    I don’t know what went into Roberts’ decision.

    I was prepared to rejoice at a short-term victory .. but I think this sets us up for a larger long-term victory. It does, however, put the responsibility for making that victory happen in our paws.

    Mew

  • lineholder

    I’m not Justice Roberts’ judge. The decision is what it is, and we have to deal with it for what it is, like it or not.

    But ever since the Obama admin came out with a statement last week asking SCOTUS to strike down provisions in the law (such as the provision for health insurance when a person has pre-existing conditions) along with the mandate (if the Court struck it down)….I’ve had the sense that the admin had ulterior motives in making this request.

    The reason that was given by the admin is that without the mandate, it would drive health insurance premiums through the roof. But that makes no sense for the admin to be worried about this because there are mechanisms written to the law that allow the admin to refuse to grant rate increases.

    The only thing that makes sense is that the admin had something else in mind. And given the repetitive pattern that we’ve seen time after time with this admin when they don’t get their own way, they double down…go to extreme ends….making things worse than they already were.

    The type of behavior I’ve described, i.e. of doubling down, is consistent with the general character of this admin. And for all we know, they may have figured out a way to move rapidly towards a single-payer system if the individual mandate was removed.

    Say what you will about Justice Roberts, he isn’t entirely a fool. If he figured out the what and why of the admin’s request and then voted to rule this as a tax rather than leave us open to something even worse…

    If that happens to be the case, then I for one will gladly give him the benefit of the doubt.

    Does that make the ruling Constitutional? NO. But could it have saved us from an even more dire outcome than what we are considering now? Possibly.

  • synergist777

    And the only limits the Constitution puts on taxation is that it has to be uniform, unless it is based on income. Of course, the fact that it’s a tax means that all the exemptions given, including to entire states, CAN be challenged (although it may have to wait until someone actually pays the tax). This can and should be emphasized. And perhaps a Constitutional Amendment further limiting the power of taxation.

  • marktx

    ….for repeal to occur republicans would have to win the white house, hold congress, and take the senate with a filibuster proof senate. Not saying it’s impossible, but the odds are not favorable. But if repeal happens, it better be quick because once millions o Americans start receiving free healthcare they won’t want it taken away.

  • Conservative_not_Republican

    Being betrayed by a Republican Supreme Court should not come as a surprise. There has not been a Democrat majority on the Supreme Court for over 50 years! Every bad decision for over 50 years has been decided by a Supreme Court with a majority of Justices appointed by Republican Presidents. So remember that when you are told that we need to support Republicans because of the Court. John Roberts joins John Paul Stevens and David Souter in their service on the Court.

    If you elect a majority of Republicans in the Senate you will be faced with “Gang of” deals that give that majority away.

    If we retain a majority in the House we will be told that they only control one-third of the governement and can’t do anything.

    Reform the Republican Party of enjoy an endless growing government that steals your liberty.

  • clearasday

    The nub of the issue is when there is a question on the law, the Constitution reigns supreme. Congress, the president or the courts have no right to violate it. Period.

    The problem is the Supreme Court has once again declared an impermissible infringement of the federal government into areas it does not belong “constitutional,” when it clearly is not. It does not matter whether the mandate is authorized under the commerce clause or the taxing authority – the point is that the entire purpose and scope of the law is unconstitutional on its face and should have been overturned.

  • nepanyrush

    If Congress can tax not buying health insurance, can it tax not buying something else, or tax any kind of inactivity?

  • nepanyrush

    If the mandate is constitutional as a tax, then can Congress tax people for anything they decide not to buy? Can I be taxed for inactivity? Does Congress have that much power that it can be decreed that everyone has to buy broccoli or pay a tax, or everyone has to exercise an hour a day or pay a tax?

  • jamesm

    He is smart enough to get in trouble. Big victory for Obama.

  • avgjo

    for them to use the army, for instance, to intimidate people from criticizing the government.

    It’s not the tool; it’s the USE of the tool that’s more than questionable here.

  • aesthete

    A “long term victory” for the GOP? Sure, but who the hell thinks that’s an inherent good for the country or small government, under such leaders as Mitt Romney? At best, it’s good only in comparison to the Dems. It is unlikely that the ACA will be repealed in 2008-2012. We don’t have the votes in the Senate, and probably won’t even in a “landslide” victory. The GOP has no plans to liberalize any part of the economy; virtually no plan to balance the budget. Why should we be excited about this, again?

    Regardless, Roberts’ job is not to make the task of GOP campaign managers easier. It is to rule on the Constitutionality of various cases brought forth. He has failed at that job — or do you think that the ACA is Constitutional under the rationale put forth by the court?

  • acat

    That, to me, is the most interesting part – the tax-and-spend wing of the GOP ought to *hate* this just as much as the tax-and-spend Dems.

    This ought to throw gasoline on the arguments the Madison Project has been making regarding electing conservatives instead of trough-feeders in solidly GOP districts.

    Mew

  • marktx

    Nobody is arguing that congress doesn’t have the power to tax. What Justice Kennedy and others are saying is that the individual mandate isn’t a tax. Not even Obama suggested that the mandate was a tax.

    What Roberts did was come up with a clever way to keep ObamaCare intact even though he might have agreed that the law was an overreach of congressional power.

  • runner12

    for a while. He is young and who knows how much damage he will do before he is out of there.

    Sigh. Never though Roberts would turn like this and use legal gymnastics to justify a clearly unconstitutional bill.

  • acat

    There’s always this …

    Look, I agree, this is not a great decision .. but this was always plan B. Plan A is to overturn it, where it *belongs*, in congress.

    Mew

  • aesthete

    It does not, not in any way. All prior precedent related to the Commerce Clause still stands. The only difference is that now, there is no economic legislation which could not be justified so long as one adds an implicit tax.

    IOW, now statists have two ways to justify legislation: either the old-fashioned Commerce Clause sans tax, or through the taxing power if they decide to add a minor penalty.

    Heads, they win, tails, you lose.

  • acat

    a much better year in terms of Senate wins as many more Dem senators are up for re-election in “purple” States than were up in 2010, and Obama is remarkably unpopular in “purple” States.

    Mew

  • acat

    And in what way does the Roberts decision fail to address it?

    Mew

  • Vaughn Harold

    elect them. If the American people want a law or don’t want a law they elect people to than end, I think of prohibition as an example.

    We should thank Roberts that the whole idea that taxing inactivity will be a political issue for this November!

  • gekster

    Loke I said, just a note:

  • aesthete

    I’m not going to cheer Roberts for confirming peoples’ low expectations of the Supreme Court. He failed at his job. It’s as simple as that.

    And Plan B sucks, especially with Romney at the head of the GOP “charge”.

  • avgjo

    As you know, I’m still stuck wondering if the dimocrat statists (in other words, the democrats) hate this so much. They seem to take a ‘black cat, yellow cat, if it catches mice, it’s a good cat’ approach to stuff like this. They sense like all of us that we are extremely close to majority non-taxpayers; they’ll probably drive their efforts to finish that job into overdrive in the coming months. Then, they’ll be free to run on a raise taxes platform.. In the meantime, the media’ll help them hide the lie. All that matters to them at this point is that their cat caught a mouse.

    I imagine when we reach this state (probably very soon), their RINO brethren will come out of the closet so to speak. Som e RINOs will lose in solid districts, but the ones in purple districts will become indistinct from the dims. Their purple districts will become blue, i believe. And I wouldn’t be surprised to see NE republicans, and some Midwestern ones, run on tax-raising platforms at that point.

  • Vaughn Harold

    is being infringed upon by this decision.

  • Viet71

    Let the American people chew on the ACA once it kicks in. If it turns out to provide good health care at a lower cost, they’ll buy it. If it turns out to be a mere giveaway to the insurance industry, they and the docs will catch on — real fast.

    As things stand, the winners today are the lawyers who will argue ACA cases in the lower courts.

  • runner12

    First, he essentially re-wrote the law by arguing that it was a tax. This on its face is absurd as the administration argued it was not a tax. So he ruled that a law that never mentioned the word “tax” as a tax.

    Secondly, while Congress does have the right to tax goods and services, it does not have the right to tax my person. When you punish people by not making the choices you want them to regarding their body, that grossly oversteps the bounds of Congress’ taxing power. Additionally, taxing people as punishment is a penalty and not a tax.

    For the”legalize” version of my disagreement with Roberts, read Kennedy’s rather brilliant dissent. He is a much smarter person than I.

  • aesthete

    That will answer your question.

  • acat

    Do you happen to know, avgjo, just how low someone’s income must be to avoid paying the tax penalty for not getting health insurance?

    In other words, while this clearly increases the tax burden on some of the population, does it change the needle on 45%-pay-no-income-tax … and if so, in which direction?

    Mew

  • avgjo

    where in the Constitution is the Congress allowed to use its taxation power to compel the transfer of wealth from a citizen to a private company (insurance company)? I’ll wait while you find it. And in case you don’t, the 10th amendment is being infringed. As much as I hate to admit it, Romneycare was Constitutional by the 10th. This is not.

  • acat

    The majority opinion was pretty clear on this, aesthete… the mandate is not possible under the Commerce clause. Go look it up for yourself.

    Mew

  • jamesm

    left on the table in 2010. Now all we are left with is having to run the table and win House, Senate and Presidency. If only 49 senators vote for repeal we are done. There is no guarantee. It is possible to fall short. Logically we must take this in to account. Right now Roberts has screwed over conservatives.

  • Viet71

    You are correct about Roberts’ opinion, except that it’s a very good opinion constitutionally.

    You’ve laid out all the reasons why conservatives shouldn’t be sick about it.

  • acat

    Obama may have lied about it, so what?

    As to the tax issue, until the tax is levied there is no standing to object to it. There must be harm before the court can find the tax excessive.

    In other words, the court could not throw out the tax, but they were pretty clear that it *is* a tax, setting up another angle to get rid of it.

    I’m sure Kennedy’s dissent is well written and well researched, his clerks did a wonderful job … but it *doesn’t matter*. It’s a *dissent*. There’s no *there* there.

    Mew

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    a GOP controlled Senate is a far cry from a conservative controlled Senate. Based on their records, I have little confidence in our elected officials having the fortitude to deny themselves the control and power of the big government program of Obamacare. They’ve done nothing to reign in SS or Medicaid or welfare or stimulus packages or ……………………

  • avgjo

    of gross income, you’re exempt. It depends on how high the premiums go and how bad the economy stays/worsens.

    That doesn’t matter, though. I’m thinking a little more long term. The next time the dims get a majority (and they will, and probably sooner than later), they can tweak things to move that needle in the right direction. Then, i fear, the scenario I outlined is unleashed.

  • Vaughn Harold

    nt

  • acat

    I’m glad Kennedy’s clerks did a nice job on it, but it’s not relevant.

    The Roberts majority opinion is what matters, and it clearly does stake an outward limit beyond which the commerce clause does not stretch.

    The tax issue will be decided in the future, and *maybe* Kennedy’s dissent will provide some insight to lawyers arguing that matter. That, though, was *not* what was decided today .. and as I said above, it *cannot* be decided before someone is harmed.

    Mew

  • aesthete

    Are you seriously saying that a dissent is wrong simply because it’s not a majority. Geez, we are talking about a majority that only one originalist justice joined. Quite frankly, the decision is fatuous nonsense which resorts to a) bad precedent, b) legislative rewriting from the bench, and c) terrible logic.

    There is absolutely no connection between the ACA and the government of enumerated powers described in the Constitution and Bill of Rights — none at all. If you want to defend this decision, fine — just don’t expect the rest of us to join you.

  • acat

    I don’t see any bunkers available in Alabama… but it’s possible you could dig your own …

    Look, I agree, a GOP-controlled senate isn’t going to get us a great bill to replace this nightmare any more than it got us – under Bush 2.0 – an end to abortion.

    For that, we need a conservative-as-possible House (see here (hat tip Madison Project)) and a GOP Senate and a GOP POTUS… and we’ll need one heck of a bonfire to hold their feet to.

    It’s the best alternative we’ve got .. unless you’d prefer Ragnarok…

    Mew

  • clearasday

    The entire welfare/entitlement state apparatus that has been built up over the last 70 years is not authorized under a fair reading of the written Constitution.

    This is what happens when constitutional infringments, power-grabs and faulty court decisions are not immediately and vigorously challenged and rolled back. Too many people now have the idea that the federal government can involve itself in nearly every aspect of their lives.

  • runner12

    NT

  • califgal

    Because of CJ Roberts, Congress can now tax you for inaction.

    They can decide to tax you for not buying anything following Roberts’ logic.

    An electric car? You don’t want to buy one? Fine, pay a tax.

    Solar panels? You don’t want to or can’t affort to buy them? Fine, pay a tax.

    So, he protects the us from widening the Commerce Clause but widens the tax authorities of Congress, which are already enumerated?

    No victory there.

    Uh uh. He wanted the libs to love him or at least not to ostracize him, and he got what he wanted.

    God, I wouldn’t blame Alito, Scalia, and Thomas if they never again spoke to him so unconstitutional was this.

  • acat

    they’re both less trusting of the state party apparatus and they’re doing more vetting of candidates.

    The Mourdock nomination in Indiana comes to mind.

    Mew

  • acat

    I’m sure the Rehnquist dissent in Roe v. Wade is equally brilliant…. and equally *meaningless*.

    Mew

  • poorwilber

    I suppose now, the Government can tax us for every pound we are overweight…..or tax us for not car pooling….or for every degree we turn up the thermostat. The Government can even tax us for doing nothing….amazing. No amount of logic can untangle the reasoning used in this ruling. The distinction between commerce and taxing authority is one with little difference. As Levin said, another Warren Court emerges. Couple this with the assault on the 10th Amendment with the Arizona immigration ruling, this country….a depressing week with feeble Republican response. Even defending this is enervating.

  • runner12

    No matter what other Dem. Senators said or did not say.

  • Viet71

    …you’re making the sort of argument I see on Dkos, about using government power to transfer wealth from an individual to a for-profit entity.

    Taxes suck. They take money from earners and redistribute the money. I’m a tax lawyer, by the way. I hate the federal income tax; the estate tax; the gift tax; the Sixteenth Amendment. Hate these taxes, but they’re the source of my livelihood.

    Taxes suck. They do. But not for Leftist reasons. They suck because they empower a monstrous central government.

  • aesthete

    You mean those silly personality contests where you have a statistically insignificant chance at affecting the outcome of a race between two statists?

    Yes, those have been so successful in the past when it comes to limitation of government.

  • Vaughn Harold

    the 10th is not being infringed.

    I don’t disagree that healthcare should not be the role of the federal government, but many Americans obviously believe, at this time, otherwise.

  • aesthete

    What we are disputing is whether it *should* have been decided that way, and to what extent Roberts’ joining of the majority had an impact on the decision. It would appear that Roberts was the “swing vote”: the difference between striking down the ACA on Constitutional grounds, and retaining the whole thing on silly, irrelevant grounds. That is why Roberts and the rest of the progressive majority is being criticized. I don’t want to be a jerk about it, but how in the high heavens did this core point of controversy elude you?

    Do you think that the Justices who joined the majority in Roe v Wade should be applauded, or insulated from criticism? Because that’s what you’re doing for Roberts.

  • nepanyrush

    Justice Kennedy thought that ruling this was a tax was writing law and that was something no Justice as supposed to do.

  • califgal

    government, no matter the branch, is to reach for greater and greater power.

    You can’t do that when you are a conservative on the bench. Thus, conservative justices are rare.

    We have seen John Roberts take a huge leap to becoming Earl Warren. After all, it’s liberal activist judges that get praised in the history texts,.

    Only if a tyrant tried to gain power would a conservative bench and CJ be praised. We just saw a huge power grab that is indeed tyrannical in scope and the Chief didn’t see that blocking it would have put him in the history books in a positive light. I am sure he was “thinking of the children.”

    PUKE.

  • Vaughn Harold

    in the past.

    I could only imagine what Obama would have been able to do had there not been a 2010 personality contest.

  • marktx

    Thomas was a stealth candidate as well without much of a track record. Bush1 and Bush 2 both played the stealth nomination game for variety of political reasons – one of which as to make sure the nominee was confirmed. In the case of Clarence Thomas, the stealth nomination worked out well. In the cases of Souter and Roberts, not so well. In fact,as a result of the ObamaCare decision an argument could be made that Roberts has done more damage this term than Souter did his entire career on the bench.

    Future republican president’s would be better off to nominate judges that have well known judicial philosophies – and then be prepared to defend such nominations. Democrats have been far more successful at the nomination game than republicans.

  • tcgeol

    If ACA is unconstitutional, it is unconstitutional.

    Any future political concerns whatsoever are completely irrelevant and anyone considering politics instead of constitutionality has no right to serve in any level of government.

  • jamesm

    according to an article posted on Drudgereport. Absolutely concocted opinion because he was afraid of how the court was viewed by other pundits.

  • aesthete

    There is no limitation of what was previously allowed under the Commerce Clause, because the Commerce Clause is not brought into the decision.

    There *is* an expansion of what sorts of bills are allowable under the taxing authority.

  • marktx

    ….there was no consensus on the issue of the mandate being a tax. Roberts pulled that issue out of a hat,and because he had four other votes on his side, his opinion won the argument. But that doesn’t mean he was correct in his opinion.

  • tcgeol

    we wouldn’t be here. Just a bit condescending there, maybe? That sounds like leftists saying that only (their) judges can understand the law and the rest of us should shut up.

    If you really believe that ACA is constitutional in any regard, I might question your conservative philosophy.

  • poorwilber

    by ruling against this unconstitutional law, he would have also limited Congressional power under the commerce clause. Who cares that Obama mislead the people, they get it already. Roberts opened the door to unlimited taxing authority….breaching previous enumerated taxing powers.

  • lineholder

    The decision is what it is. I don’t like it any more than you do.

    But making demoralizing comments about the electorate process isn’t helping matters any.

    If there was ever a time for Conservatives to fight harder, this is it.

    Don’t go fatalistic on us, please.

  • aesthete

    I must have missed all those elections that resulted in repeals of entitlements. 2010 hasn’t resulted in a single bill from the 2008-2010 period getting repealed. Don’t hold your breath on that happening later down the line, either.

    Most people are utterly unaware of what government does. Tens of thousands of pages of legislation are passed every year. Even more pages of EOs, Cabinet-level policy, and regulatory pronouncements issue from DC. How many voters are aware of, much less oppose, these things? Democratic input divorced of context has no meaning, and that is exactly what national elections are — input divorced from context. Increasingly, this input is also devoid of content, as well.

  • Viet71

    nolotext

  • avgjo

    In the case of the Kos, they often make ridiculous stretches, a la Bush using taxpayer money to wage war in Iraq as part of a secret plot to make Halliburton shares go up.

    In this case, as I recall, Obama got the insurance companies to meet him in private. Then all of the sudden, they sign off on his health care bill, the heart of which is coercion by the government of private citizens to engage in commerce with a group of private entities in a particular industry.

    Now I defer to your expertise on taxes. So please correct me where I’m wrong. I always thought that taxes were monies collected by the government to pay for defense, roads, etc. etc. In this case, the money is supposed to go to the insurance companies or else I pay the government. That’s my problem.. We’re being forced to engage in commerce with companies under the threat of confiscation of property (taxes). What bothers me today is that from my (admittedly non-professional and non-expert) perspective, Roberts affirmed the idea that the gov’t can force you to engage in commerce. Taxes are merely the weapon of choice.

    I just felt I owed you an explanation.

  • avgjo

    believe that or not. The question which, with all due respect, you’ve not yet answered is where in the Constitution is it allowed to force people to buy something? Taxes are merely the weapon of choice. There are two transfers here, so let’s keep track. One is taxes. Transfer from private individual to gov’t, which often goes to other private entities (whether corporate welfare or food stamps). Fine. That’s part of the process. The other is the transfer being forced on citizens simply for living. It is an involuntary transfer of wealth from you and me to the insurance companies (for as long as they’ll last) under the threat of another transfer (tax). My problem is not with taxes. I don’t like them, but they are a legit part of our gov’t. What I believe is NOT legit is the use of taxes as a blackjack to beat me with when I don’t buy something the gov’t decides I need to buy.

  • Vaughn Harold

    verses regulation, is the American people not the winner here?

  • aesthete

    as a scenario that conservatives should rejoice at.

    “Don’t worry, the electorate will handle the repeal of un-Constitutional bills” is a naive point of view.

    I am not trying to be fatalistic, but we will have to work harder than ever. What we are trying to do is virtually unprecedented. It will be hard as hell to get done. Is it doable? I don’t know, but I see no reason to spoon-feed people feel-good nonsense about how Romney and the rest of our GOP masters will take care of it and how we really don’t need to worry. Such an outlook does not reflect reality, and will not encourage people to fight this bill tooth and nail the way they should. It is also a view which is extremely unhealthy when it comes to SC Justice philosophy, and what we should be looking for in a jurist. Roberts is unacceptable as a jurist, and we should understand why going forward.

    Irrational exuberance regarding democracy’s strengths is not helpful. Neither is fatalism.

  • celador2

    The majority did not address the problem Obamacare brought to religious insurers most notably the Catholic srrvices and school insurers. It s a shame that the most fundamental and preciousliberty we have that of freedom of condcience was limited today by Roberts.
    I thought he had an interest in the First but apparently not.

    How repugnant, what a blow to one’s very core to have to provive abortion pills even contraception against one’s conscience.

    Has it come to this that religious freedom is not relevant anymore either? Free market delivery systems took a hit too so the private sector shrunk as an arena for health care delivery

    .

  • aesthete

    No.

  • Vaughn Harold

    that congress is limited in its taxing authority

  • avgjo

    aesthete is trying to assess the situation realistically. I try very hard to rally the troops and I don’t believe in fatalism,. But you gotta admit, we’ve gotten quite a few black eyes as a movement, and we gotta ask ourselves how we keep getting beat. Maybe if we’re honest, we can figure out how to win the next fight. That’s why my tone today has been a little more acerbic about this. I’m not trying to whine, whoop or holler, but we’ve got to figure out why things like this keep happening.

  • zachv

    … are older than retirement age – they are all on medication. Second, we don’t need to bash the Chief Justice by personally attacking him and his stature. That’s fallacious, below the belt and doesn’t help because it has nothing to do with the opinion of the Court. Focus on that (wrong) majority opinion instead.

  • clearasday

    which deals with the powers of the legislative branch. The powers are enumerated, meaning that any power not stated there is to be left to the discretion of the individual states or to the people. There is nothing there giving Congress the power to administer the healthcare decisions of its citizens.

    Vaughn, below you write ” I don?t disagree that healthcare should not be the role of the federal government, but many Americans obviously believe, at this time, otherwise.”

    It’s not what people “believe,” it’s what’s actually written in the Constitution that is the supreme law of the land.

  • avgjo

    So it seems that a future congress and version of Obama could start taxing couples if they don’t abort babies after the first. After all, more babies = more carbon, right?! As I understand it, in China, there is a fine for having more than one baby. Little difference.

  • Vaughn Harold

    Opinions are just that, unfortunately ours don’t count in the SCOTUS, but they do count in elections. Motivating the people to act against an over reaching congress and executive is a damn good thing.

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    as well as a realist, but I’m one that’s ticked off right now. And I’m just not very comforted by the fact that the “best alternative” Roberts handed us includes a boatload of liberals and a handful of squishy Republicans. I’m signed up at Madison Project and about every other group working to save the country.

    Don’t have a bunker yet, but I know people who’d probably let me share theirs as long as I bring my own Bible and other things I cling to these days.

  • jamesm

    too. Educating the indoctrinated is the solution. Reducing the dependency on government is essential for the survival of the country we know. Putting real conservatives as jurists is a requirement.

  • Viet71

    Congress cannot tax speech it doesn’t like. Amendment I

    Congress cannot tax the rights guaranteed by Amendments Iv, V, VI.

    The taxing power is indeed limited.

  • lineholder

    aesthete, in some ways, I’m grateful that it turned out the way it has. Yes, I know that sounds ridiculous, but just hear me out.

    Conservatives were more complacent than we should have been for a long time, aesthete. Now, we have to fight. We have to fight tooth and nail. And that means coming out of that complacency and taking on these tough challenges.

    If the decision had turned out other than it has, would Conservatives have returned to some of those complacent behavioral patterns that existed for so long? I don’t know, but I think it’s possible we would have. It would have seemed that the greatest danger had been turned back, had the ruling gone the other way, wouldn’t it?

    Yes, we have to fight harder. So what? I don’t see giving up as an option. And based on what you’ve said above, neither do you. I hope we both will be looking at it as an opportunity to take another step up…find out more of what we’re really made of, on the inside.

    And strangely enough, I also happen to think that as we become more proactive in doing that, it will inspire other people to do the same.

    So, I’m glad for it in those ways, aesthete. “That which does not kill us makes us stronger”, you know…and we aren’t even close to being dead yet.

  • aesthete

    The type of tax that can be levied:

    Art 1 Sect 9:

    “No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”

    16th Amendment:

    “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

    Uniformity of taxation:

    Art 1 Sect 2:

    “Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers…”

    Art 1 Sect 8:

    “The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”

    Lots of discussion about the topic in the Federalist Papers: http://www.taxhistory.org/www/website.nsf/Web/TaxingFederalism?OpenDocument

  • marktx

    Since none of us really know why Roberts chose to abandon the other four conservatives on this case, all we are left with is speculation. But what we do know is that many liberals in the press have tried to influence justices on the court in an effort to soften their views when deciding important cases.

    Whether Roberts was influenced to protect the image of the court, who knows. More likely it could be that Roberts never held a judicial philosophy anywhere close to Scalia or Thomas.

  • Vaughn Harold

    for Republicans come November. No one, not even lib’s, want the government to tell them what they have to do.

    Congress can pass taxes that do beat people over the head, that does not mean they will get away with it just because Roberts said they could. I believe Roberts intentionally framed his opinion so that the American people would know that congress was beating people over the head with taxation.

  • acat

    The court tossing this disaster of a law was always plan B.

    Plan A was taking it out through winning the whole enchilada… house, senate, white house.

    Clearly, plan B has failed. There is, in my opinion, some long-term good that will come of the failure, but .. yes. Today, it’s not good.

    What I question is why so many are quick to beat down Roberts instead of working to replace the author of this nightmare, Obama and the sycophants in congress. It’s misplaced.

    Mew

  • jamesm

    Personally I believe he got scared about how he would be viewed.

  • avgjo

    I’d love for you and the others arguing this line of logic to be right and for me to be wrong. But like many people far smarter than me have pointed out today, rarely does gov’t not abuse a power it has.

  • avgjo

    sorry about that.

  • Vaughn Harold

    that the constitution does not, as you have supplied, note what can and can not be taxed outside of the bill of rights of course as noted by Viet71 above.

  • acat

    It’s a distraction, and you went for it like a raven to a silver dollar.

    Yes, if Obamacare had been thrown out, it’d be good news in the short term, and I’d be celebrating.

    As it is, I’m not convinced that what we did get isn’t – long term – better.

    We now have a clear limit to the commerce clause.
    We now have a clear decision – Obamacare’s mandate is a tax.
    This sets up a number of anti-Obamacare strategies.
    Obama can’t claim “activist court” and can’t run against same.
    Obama can’t wiggle out of “it’s not a tax” vs. “it is a tax”.
    Obama is firmly tied to his economic record *including* Obamacare.

    This is not the large-scale victory many had hoped for, but it is far from the disaster that you see today.

    Mew

  • marktx

    Some of the “conspiracies” regarding Robert’s secret motivations are getting absurd. Why on earth would Roberts vote to save Obamacare in an effort to secretly hope republicans would repeal it later ? Wouldn’t it have been alot easier had Roberts voted to end it now ?

    The facts are these…

    1) Roberts voted with the liberals to save ObamaCare

    2) Big tax increases are in the way

    3) Roberts decision has moved the country far closer to the european socialistic model than we were yesterday.

    4) Probably the only way ObamaCare will be gutted will be by financial bankruptcy of the US economy….and we are well on the way as a result of Robert’s decision on Obamacare.

  • acat

    Any member of the GOP who doesn’t get that should be encouraged to change teams.

    Mew

  • jude68

    If Obama was so fond of taxes as you proclaim then why did he go out of his way in 2009 to NOT CALL IT A TAX??? So that is now on TAPE all over the place and will be played over and over again….you think he now wants to go out and DEFEND A 500 Billion dollar tax increase??? I think not…..Taxes are toxic that is why it was put in the Commerce Clause. People think Congress can now tax this and that….the difference is YOU CAN VOTE CONGRESS OUT!!! which is why Congress hates using the word tax!! Roberts makes them use it and confront it!! NOBODY RUNS ON HI I WANT TO RAISE TAXES!!

    Yes Congress can tax but lets see how many Dems running in election are going to run saying hey look I supported Obamacare and that 500 billion dollar tax increase!! NOT!!

    Romney was handed a MAJOR CAMPAIGN ISSUE!! It was a battle victory for Obama but a war lost!! Take how you feel right now and MAGNIFY it by MILLIONS and lets see who laughs in NOV!!

    WE MUST ELECT CONSERVATIVES TO THE HOUSE AND SENATE and REPEAL THIS!

  • acat

    And, if you look at all of the previous court findings regarding taxes, you’ll see that this finding is a Good Thing.

    Mew

  • JSobieski

    this is simply an invitation to use tax/spending powers to coerce individuals in the same way that spending power is used to coerce states.

    While it will often be slightly more politicallyh difficult to characterize future intrusions as taxes rather than regulations, that incremental “victory” is overshadowed by the fact that future politics will be transformed by this law.

    Unless Senate Republicans are prepared to do away with the fillibuster in 2013

    AND

    Unless Republicans get a majority in the Senate in 2013

    AND

    Unless Romney wins the presidency and doesn’t triangulate . .

    we are stuck in a way from which no nation has ever recovered without essentially falling as a nation, and being recreated.

  • Vaughn Harold

    Those that were elected created this mess deceiving those that entrusted them. There is only one solution remove the idiots from office.

    PS. Congress can tax anything that it wants as long as it does not infringe on the bill of rights or the means of taxation as noted in Article 1.

  • ranun

    Have you ever seen a nation commit cultural suicide and revive itself back from the dead? Have you ever seen a nation reject the God it knew, but return to Him like the prodigal son? Neither have I.

    Anyone who thinks ObamaCare will be repealed must still believe that Roe v Wade will be repealed, Social Security will be privatized, and that the federal government will get out of the red. Believing the government will be good and virtuous (ObamaCare will never pass! The SCOTUS will strike it down! Congress will repeal it! Romney will find a way!) is much easier than fostering a culture that requires government to be good and virtuous. And here I thought only liberals were suckers magical thinking.

    “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.”

  • runner12

    In effect, the CJ ruled on the mandate as if it were a tax when its Constitutionality was being defended on the Commerce Clause. He found a loophole in which he could call the law a tax, after it was written. It is like arguing Case A, then morphing it into Case B to fit the narrative desired.

    Additionally and most importantly it exceeds the taxing powers of Congress.

    Listen, I am not alone in decrying this as a bad decision. Other respected scholars wiser than I with a law degree concur.

  • jude68

    Roberts was wrong no doubt about it….but we must move forward…I know Conservatives want to be mad and angry and want someone to demand this and that but remember to many people when you do that you look like a KOOK and then no one takes you seriously!

    Passion must be genuine and sincere and that is how we must methodically and systematically defeat Obama and his merry thugs!!

    You want to win voters should passion with clarity of direction and goal. Give the people a reason to vote for you not look at you like some carnival side show. Romney needs to show passion and determination with a clear VISION and MESSAGE!!

    His response today was good….I know many wanted fire and brimstone but balance your anger with reason and persuade people! Show true conviction!

  • http://libertynews.com/ mbecker908

    is you.

    We’re less than 12 hours into the decision and people have barely had time to read it.

    Frankly, as has been noted by numerous folks, you’re too dumb to figure out the political process. Don’t even try to do legal work and then project a political result.

    You can now crawl back under your rock.

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    Roberts was wrong, and we hoped he would be a Scalia or Thomas or Alito who are the constitutionalists we expected. I didn’t pin my hopes on Kennedy.

    My goal and what I’m working toward is to oust Obama and the libs, regardless of the decision, i.e., even if SCOTUS had tossed the whole thing. I’m doing my part. I just didn’t think it was too much to ask for them to do theirs.

  • http://libertynews.com/ mbecker908

    “hyperbole”. And to a greater degree, “idiocy”.

  • Vaughn Harold

    the federal government upon the states.

    I believe he trusts the American people to address the coercion of the federal government upon their lives through their voting power.

  • JSobieski

    None of that stuff made the country stronger. It may have made the political resistence stronger, but look where that has got us?

  • JSobieski

    The fact that it is now well established that the US government can use tax law to mandate that you eat vegetables is no “victory”

    There are a few positive aspects, but those are substantially overshadowed by the negatives.

  • gekster

    And I was not condencending..
    Just pointing out how all of a sudden some of us seam to know all about it with nothing more than opinion.

    And I said nothing about ACA being constitutional.
    Reading things not there, just like a lefty.

    And I don’r have to prove my conservative bono fidis to you or anyone else.
    (THAT was condencending ;) )

  • JSobieski

    Mortgage interest.

    Energy efficient windows.

    You could make a list a thousand miles long—and now the list is longer by one.

  • tnfriendofcoal101368

    is epic. Pretty much says the majority lost their minds….Rehnquist’s doesn’t even touch it.

  • garfieldjl

    I’m probably more intelligent than you are mbecker, if I am an idiot what does that make you?

    Now if you’re finished with juvenile insults, I actually heard something on AFR, that the dissent Opinion reads as though it was the majority opinion, which leads me to believe that John Roberts changed his vote at the last minute.

    All this talk about Roberts playing politics is stupid, his oath is to upholding the Constitution, not playing politics. Effectively you can justify government ordering you to do anything because it somehow has to do with healthcare.

    The odds of Romney successfully repealing Obamacare if he wins the election is extremely low, a lot of Republicans have a history of caving on issues the instant the left-wing drive by media starts their version of “Chicken Little.” So if this was a political gamble on Roberts’ part, he is in fact a complete idiot, whether or not the unlikely event happens that Obamacare gets repealed in 2013 is immaterial, Roberts would still be a complete idiot.

    No matter what Roberts would have been in the majority, he could have easily tossed the whole thing out.

  • JSobieski

    The problem with that logic is that if frankly supports abdication by the court.

    Look, I agree with you that the limits on tax power are not comforting and that this goose was essentially cooked many years prior.

    How is Medicare any different than raising taxes and then using the money to pay for private insurance?

    How is a tax penalty different than a tax increase with an offseting credit or deduction?

    All that being said, the purpose of the Constitution and the courts is protect the country from temporary excesses of temporary majorities—which is exactly what Obamacare is. Only it will be with us for a long long time.

  • davenj1

    n/t

  • garfieldjl

    Particularly that the Dissent was written in a manner that suggests it was originally the majority opinion, makes one wonder why someone would change their mind at the last moment.

  • garfieldjl

    The Catholic Church’s lawsuit hasn’t made it to the Supreme Court yet.

  • poorwilber

    Sixty percent of the American people want this thing repealed or vastly modified. I wouldn’t care about offending the 40 percent currently celebrating this ruling. They’re not listening anyway.

    John McCain’s passionless campaign should have been instructive to the establishment.

  • Xasteius

    At least the part that cares, and give us a chance to reform America in a conservative just as FDR set us on the path of progressive hell.

  • lineholder

    To each of us our own, sir.

    All this hand-wringing over a decision we can do next to nothing about for the time being almost makes me glad that I’ll be away from a computer for the next day or two.

    Have fun.

  • Xasteius

    no text

  • renny

    WH, but I am sure Roberts just gave the GOP some very excellent pol. ads about taxes that the big o promised not to raise on anyone earning less than $250,000, and it provides Romney some great ads on who lies to the public and then sneers at them.

  • gekster

    I have been called and e-mailed by several of my friends, and from some people I don’t even know as to where they can go to join thier local teaparty.
    I even got a call from someone in Ironwood MI, who happens to know someone who knows someone who knows me.
    The sleepiing giant has been awakened.

  • mjdaniels

    . . . some very similar thoughts: http://www.redstate.com/mjdaniels/2012/06/28/roberts-obamacare-opinion-is-not-as-bad-as-you-think/

  • 10ab

    I also want the FACTS…NOT talking points from either the left or the right. Just the facts. It is shameful and a waste of time disparaging Justice Roberts…he did his job. Now the rest is up to us. Our university is inviting the public to hear a non partisan panel discuss ACA. I would hope that those immobilized by fear get a grip and find out for themselves what the actual facts are before shuttering their businesses and lamenting “death panels”. A little calm reasoning needs to prevail!

  • gekster

    Yeah, were waking up.

  • clearasday

    The federal government has the power to levy taxes necessary to carry out its limited responsibilities as enumerated in the Constitution, and no others.

    The fact that its provisions have been violated over and over for the last 70 years by various Progressive courts and politicians does not legitimate the violations.

    Go ahead, wave your “Tax and Spend Me into Oblivion!” flag. I’ll be in the front lines with the Freedom Fighters.

  • stingray11214

    Wendy Long is a great candidate. However, she has no money, and nobody is giving her any money. Gillibrand is going to annihilate her. The only chance she has is if Romney wins NY, which while possible, is more than likely not going to happen.

  • rightlane1111

    Ha…Ha.

    By being notified that we are now saddled with the LARGEST tax increase the the WORLD’S history.

    Happy 4th of July….We don’t even have a Democracy…and the Republic was gone with Daddy Bush.

  • fortcollins

    . . . about at least one thing:

    “It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.” (opinion by Roberts, C.J., at Page 6)

    This quote should be on billboards and bumper stickers in every state.

    Other aspects of the Chief’s opinion invite significant criticism.

    + His finely nuanced hairsplitting finding the mandate not to be a tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act (slip opinion at 12 and 15), but to be a tax for purposes of the taxing power (slip opinion at 31-32, 33, 37) is a bit too cute. The dissent properly dismantles the taxing power argument first, and finds the Anti-Injunction issue moot, because of violation of the taxing power.

    + His rationale for taxing authority equates taxation of inactivity with taxation of activity. The reasoning rests on two flawed analogies and undermines his rationale for finding the mandate violates of the Commerce Clause. Read the following at pages 31-32 of the slip opinion:

    “Under the mandate, if an individual does not maintain health insurance, the only consequence is that he must make an additional payment to the IRS when he pays his taxes. See ?5000A(b). That, according to the Government, means the mandate can be regarded as establishing a condition?not owning health insurance?that triggers a tax?the required payment to the IRS. Under that theory, the mandate is not a legal command to buy insurance. Rather, it makes going without insurance just another thing the Government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning income. And if the mandate is in effect just a tax hike on certain taxpayers who do not have health insurance, it may be within Congress?s constitutional power to tax.”

    The analogy would only work if the federal government taxed — indeed, COULD tax — the failure to buy gasoline or the failure to earn income.

    Attempting to resolve this weakness, the Chief (at page 41 of the slip opinion) analogizes the tax to a capitation:

    “First, and most importantly, it is abundantly clear the Constitution does not guarantee that individuals may avoid taxation through inactivity. A capitation, after all, is a tax that every?one must pay simply for existing, and capitations are expressly contemplated by the Constitution. ”

    That analogy, of course, fails because by its nature a capitation applies equally to all citizens. The Obamascare mandate tax does not apply to the 48% (give or take) who do not pay taxes and applies unequally to those who do pay taxes but opt not to carry insurance. That is not a capitation.

    Justice Scalia’s eloquent dissent lays bare the flawed reasoning of Chief Justice Roberts and of the liberal four.

    + Searing the liberal four on their creative interpretation of the Commerce Clause, Justice Scalia states at pages 14-15 of his opinion:

    “The dissent treats the Constitution as though it is an enumeration of those problems that the Federal Government can ad?dress?among which, it finds, is ?the Nation?s course in the economic and social welfare realm,? ibid., and more specifically ?the problem of the uninsured,? ante, at 7. The Constitution is not that. It enumerates not federally soluble problems, but federally available powers. The Federal Government can address whatever problems it wants but can bring to their solution only those powers that the Constitution confers, among which is the power to regulate commerce. None of our cases say anything else. Article I contains no whatever-it-takes-to-solve-a-national ?problem power.”

    These words should be required reading for every political candidate.

    Justice Scalia also illustrates the difficulties that lie ahead (at pages 64-65 of his opinion):

    “The Court today decides to save a statute Congress did not write. It rules that what the statute declares to be a requirement with a penalty is instead an option subject to a tax. And it changes the intentionally coercive sanc?tion of a total cut-off of Medicaid funds to a supposedly noncoercive cut-off of only the incremental funds that the Act makes available.

    “The Court regards its strained statutory interpretation as judicial modesty. It is not. It amounts instead to a vast judicial overreaching. It creates a debilitated, inoperable version of health-care regulation that Congress did not enact and the public does not expect. It makes enactment of sensible health-care regulation more difficult, since Congress cannot start afresh but must take as its point of departure a jumble of now senseless provisions, provisions that certain interests favored under the Court?s new de-sign will struggle to retain. And it leaves the public and the States to expend vast sums of money on requirements that may or may not survive the necessary congressional revision.”

  • Vaughn Harold

    The last 70 years just record that the people wanted their government to do more and elected people to get them what they wanted.

    By the way I am not disagreeing with you on the limited powers enumerated in the Constitution. I am simply stating the reality we live in. Complaining about something not be constitutional that has been accepted by the American people for over 70 years is pointless. The electorate must understand what is being done to them, instead of what some promise to do for them. Roberts has shed light on what congress is going to do to people, and our constitution provides the means for accepting or rejecting their laws.

    The people in this country will not be told what to do by the federal government! We have a history of not putting up with that kind of crap.

  • JSobieski

    Neither of which was ever rolled back.

    Has a successful rollback ever occurred?

    Medicare opposition was limited to Republicans, but only a short time later Reagan ran for President and he didn’t run in 1980 on an effort to repeal it.

    You might be right, but many people have in the course of history thought (or maybe just hoped) for the same thing.

  • UpLateAgain

    But it still stings.

    I cannot afford to buy health care coverage since Obamacare passed. I had great coverage, but my rates more than doubled within a week of him signing it into effect, and I could no longer afford to keep it.

    Not being able to afford medical coverage, I tried to at least buy accident medical insurance (that would cover me for an emergency room visit up to ten thousand with a five thousand deductible…. and only for injuries incurred in an accident. Pathology of any kind was not covered).

    I was denied because of a pre-existing condition. They essentially told me they didn’t care if the law said they now had to cover people with pre-existing conditions, they were not going to, and suggested I try to find another insurer that was willing to go along with Obamacare. I may have a civil case against them after 2014, but not now.

    I make too much money to qualify for VA (which is means tested), but not enough to cover my obligations AND buy health care. Since I lost my coverage, I have been operating on a pay-as-you-go system, which in truth has only been costing me about 20% of what my coverage was costing me when it was ‘reasonable’.

    So I now don’t have any medical coverage of any sort whatsoever, and I will be fined for not being able to afford it. I am going to not have health care, but my fines will help pay for the health care coverage of the illegals Obama is now letting into the country. There is something patently criminal about that.

  • Dr. D

    Rationalizing Robert’s decision means nothing to me. The question is: does he truly believe this is constitutional? If yes, I’m disappointed in his judgement. If is was to protect the courts image, I consider it cowardly. His oath is simply to defend and protect the constitution – not the reputation of the supreme court. As with some us, I’m fearful his “good intentions” are adding another brick to our road to hell. We are economically in deep trouble, our liberties are under attack and our “friends” appear weak.

    Yet, I’m more inspired to rebel and fight this tyranny than than ever. Holder, Geithner, Obama, Rangel … seem to be immune from the law. This artificial aristocracy makes me sick and makes me more sympathetic to strict constitutionalists.

  • Ausonius

    We know what we are against! Your news is most heartening!

    Unfortunately, the electorate gave us MAObama, and RINO’S gave us McCain in 2008.

    BIG BRObama and company are already cranking up the agitprop machine to repeat The Big Lies: “You can keep your doctor.” “Your taxes will not go up.” “Health-care costs will stay low.”.

    Conservative Republicans need to start showing what they propose as a replacement, as well as countering the lies by quoting the law and quoting the assorted Dr. FrankenDems who created the Monster.

    Like Pelosi and her comments about “Jail for the Uninsured.”

  • tcgeol

    While I could have misunderstood, your post seemed clearly to indicate that the majority of posters were speaking out of their elbows and didn’t understand the constitutional questions involved. Since those questions seemed rather clear cut generally, it seemed a bit condescending to indicate that those of us who were upset with Roberts were ignorant of the Constitution and the others were not.

    If I’m wrong, I apologize.

  • avgjo

    And here was I thinking the Constitution was written so that even simple folk like meself could understand it ; )

  • gekster

    I thought you might have misunderstood my meaning.
    I ain’t sweating it. :)

  • cbartlett

    would have made it very easy for Romney to mess around and not do anything. Congress would have been pretty much backed into a corner and “forced” to repeal it (BTW – an “unconstitutional” ruling would give the Dems some cover for that – Oh I HAD to vote for repeal…) BUT there’s very little motivation for squishy Mitt to do anything positive about reforming the system AFTER the repeal vote. For heavens sake, Republicans could have been doing something about this long before Obama took the reins and forced this down our throats and they have sat around and done nothing. Republican Progressives are wimps. We MUST get real conservatives in there to get anything done (AND keep Romney in line).

  • http://www.timelyrenewed.com timelyrenewed

    Erick is right. We can not count on the Supreme Court to defend the Constitution. Even if Obamacare is repealed, that will still leave in place 75 years of Supreme Court decisions which have allowed the federal government to expand far beyond its original constitutional limits. We must now resort to the ultimate power the Framers left us – amendment. Only constitutional amendments restating and re-affirming those original limits will save our Republic. Of course, Congress will never initiate such amendments. Therefore, we must first reform the amendment process to enable the states to initiate and enact amendments without having to go through either Congress or the unworkable and dangerous mechanism of a convention. See http://www.timelyrenewed.com

  • mizzou1776

    But Eric’s disgraceful dyke pal hillary spouts her filth freely. In more enlightened times witches were burned. Just like traitors were shot! roberts can scribble all the mumbo jumbo in the book: he is a coward that failed to defend the Constitution. May he burn in hell!

  • Dave_A

    The Congress isn’t the obstacle – the states are…

    You will never get enough states to ratify a strip-the-Feds-of-the-power-to-mandate-thru-tax amendment, because the blue states won’t go for it…

    As of now, an Amendment requires BOTH Congress AND a super-majority of states to pass…

    The states aren’t there, even if Congress was…

    And we do NOT need to make it easier to amend… That is big-time BAD.

  • cbartlett

    We also need a very precise, easy to understand list of each tax that the law imposes (like the 4% on sale of home, etc.) and when they go into effect. Something very direct and shows “See how this wil affect YOU”. We have way too many sheeple that are uneducated and uninformed that can all cast a vote (or two…)

  • larueladue

    .

  • tnfriendofcoal101368

    I understand the anger but direct it towards running Obama and his cabal out of town. Let’s not drag ourselves down into the DKos gutter.

  • gekster

    He has set it up nicely.
    Isn’t it better that Congress and a President kill this thing as opposed to the court doing it.

    Roberts put the ball on the tee, we just need to get the right people in there to hit it out of the park.

  • garfieldjl

    Roberts pretty much shredded our liberties. This talk of some other motive where we win longterm is rather laughable.

    Roberts had the chance to throw out Obamacare once and for all, there is no other way to look at it. You don’t gamble something when you have the alternative to accomplish it and be done with it, unless you are a complete fool.

    Our best chance now is the elections the only other chance is the court case where the Catholic Church has filed their lawsuit.

  • The_Rebel

    Another solar company, Abound Solar, bit the dust today, one with $400 million in taxpayer-funded loan guarantees, about $70 million of which was released. It looks like taxpayers may be on the hook for around $50 million with this bankrupcy. And, oh yes, an Obama bundler was involved with this one, too.

    If the Dems had control of the House right now, I could easily see a bill mandating solar panels for either businesses, residences, or both, And failure to comply would mean a tax. That would stop all these bankrupcies and reward those bundlers.

    The Roberts decision would have paved the way for this since he said in so many words that the Congress can tax just about anything, whether moving or standing still.

    Brings to mind a famous Reagan quote:

    “Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”

  • Dave_A

    the limits on direct taxation (now direct nonincome taxation)…

    The issues are:

    #1: IF the mandate were a tax, then Roberts is right – it would be Constitutional to pass…

    #2: As a direct tax, the revenues SHOULD be subject to apportionment. While Roberts addressed uniformity (wrongly, I’d contend), he skipped apportionment…

    #3: It’s a fine, not a damn tax. That’s what everyone connected to it said, UNTIL it became clear that calling it a fine would get it thrown out by the Court.

  • gekster

    Which is better?
    5 out of nine judges striking down the law, all appointed by politicians.
    Or.
    A house and Senate striking it down, with a President signing it,
    All of whome were elected by the people.
    I know you are slow, but even you must be able to see the advantages of that.

    Roberts put the ball into the peoples court, and now it is up to us.
    Or can;t you handle the responsibility if that.

  • jkines

    This was the last nail in the coffin for the republic. On what basis do you ever believe we will walk this entitlement leviathan back any more than our profligate failure to even provide a veritable speed bump to the horrors of Johnson and Roosevelt which are already bankrupting the nation as I write this reply?

    It is pointless to redouble our effors to elect Republicans, as we would need, not only a filibuster proof majority, but a filibuster proof majority sans any RINOs, which, qiuite frankly is not going to happen in the time frame exigent to save the nation from fiscal insolvency. To continue to fight at this point is tantamount to the footsoliders huddling in the trenches and planning a valiant charge after their commander has unconditionally surrendered.

    My advice for everyone is to take the money you traditionally allocate to political contributions and instead add it to your portfolio pursuant to retiring and hence outrunning the Grecian debacle that is the fate of America at this point. Staying the course and fighting on, at this juncture, would be every bit as delusional and insipid as the Loyalist Tories of the Revolutionary War.

    It’s over. We lost. It is time to come to grips with this reality and manage it accordingly.

  • http://libertynews.com/ mbecker908

    I respond to you as I would to a 13 year old punk wanna-be because you’re a 13 year old punk wanna-be.

    You came here totally clueless about politics and the political process and you haven’t learned a damn thing since day one. You have zero fundamental understanding of issues, you are totally clueless about the Supremes and the idea that you would actually call Chief Justice Roberts any thing but “sir” says everything anybody needs to about you. Jackass.

    We’re many months away from being able to judge the import of this decision and on the whole, Roberts main point is correct, elections have consequences and we get the government we deserve.

    I would have voted with Kennedy, etal and would have preferred Roberts had as well, but the very idea that you’re flacking around that he’s stolen our liberties is probably the stupidest thing you’ve ever written and you have set a monstrously high standard for stupidity here.

  • runner12

    the government deems necessary, which certainly does not add to our freedoms in this country.

  • checkmate2012

    no matter what else people say. It expanded the Taxation enumerations beyond scope and now there will be no limits.

    As I posted earlier, we were almost subject to a Vehicle Mileage Tax but for one Congressman to block in the Transportation Bill, but my guess is it will be the norm for Congress to tax us into submission to buy what they want us too, i.e. GM Volts

    http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/28/house-adds-language-to-block-development-of-mileage-tax-to-transportation-bill/

  • califgal

    concerned with establishing or saving some image of himself than he seems concerned with issues that SCOTUS justices should worry about.

    Are we to assume he believes that under no circumstance should important SCOTUS decisions be 5-4? Well, damn, he seems to have seen to it that a 5-4 was reached….against the good guys! So, what in the heck has he accomplished?

    Like Levin says, he’s supposed to be a justice first, second, and third.

    The more I listen to lawyers on tv, on both sides, talk about his decision was “contrived”, about how he paid absolutely NO attention to the proscribed definitions of taxes, the madder I am.

    He’s the most activist of activists!

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    and I live a long way from NY. So “somebody” gave her money.

  • runner12

    I meant to say Roberts gave the Feds “the power” to tax us on whatever they want.

  • acat

    The Supremes didn’t help us. Yes, that’s frustrating, but .. next plan.

    Don’t get distracted.

    Mew

  • acat

    We do not have an outer marker on the power to tax, because there has not been a case to establish it.

    There is nothing in this decision that indicates this is an unlimited power. Nada. Zip.

    I’d be happier if this was a slam-dunk “unconstitutional” finding, but .. it’s not. It is what it is.

    The bloviations and beat-down by people who haven’t read the bill, who haven’t read the decisions and the dissensions, and who are chasing after this like a ferret on pixie sticks going after a silver dollar are .. an embarrassment to conservatism.

    I am disgusted.

    Mew

  • cardcarryingmom

    There’s no fight left and Chief Justice Roberts was worn down by wings of the democratic party. O will be re-elected sealing the coffin nails and our beautiful nation falls. Everyday that passes, things get worse and worse…

  • westcoastpatriette

    but stop confronting people who need to spew about this stupid asinine decision today. The truth is, the courts just made our job fifty times harder because justice was perverted — one more time — as far as many of us are concerned. Because of one punk trying top prove a point on the court.

    It is not a waste of time for people to spew their rage. It a necessary part of the process — this is the counselor (mental health, not legal) speaking. Now, go climb on the window sill and watch the butterflies for a while.

  • acat

    Congratulations, @barackobama. You have yet again brought unity to the GOP. Just like you did in 2010. — Moe Lane

    Or .. do you perhaps think Romney raising … 3.2 million and counting (Ace of Spades has links to donate if you want) is happenstance?

    Yes, it sucks. Too bad. Walk it off.

    The cavalry turned out to be a mirage, we’ll just have to go save ourselves… by replacing the senate majority and the president.

    Mew

  • JSobieski

    First, I never said it was a slam dunk case for invalidity. To the contrary. google “JSobieski $X tax mandate” and see that I have repeatedly suggested that one man’s penalty is another man’s tax with an offsetting credit/deduction.

    Second, the opinion specifically upheld Obamacare on the basis of tax power. The decision was explicit on that point.

    Third, the decision did NOT provide any kind of outside marker—THAT IS PRECISELY MY POINT.

    Trading unlimited commerce power for unlimited tax power is just giving future leftists a roadmap for enacting whatever they want.

    Roberts affirmed that the federal government can use the ability to tax as a way to justify power grabs so long as the impact of the power grab is financial.

  • mizzou1776

    Good ole Charlton Heston woke up a few Americans with his challenge to the scum who want to cut your balls off, Dude: FROM MY DEAD, COLD HANDS!

    Get a gun, boy. Time to walk tall & be a Man.

  • acat

    but be angry *in the right direction*.

    This was never “plan A” to get rid of Obamacare.

    The Tea Parties about “getting the supreme court to save us!”

    The 2010 election, the Massachusetts Miracle, the overthrow of Bennett (RINO-UT) and Lugar (RINO-IN) and the election of Johnson (R-WI) and Paul (R-KY) and others weren’t about “getting the supreme court to save us!”…

    This was “plan B” .. the “maybe we’ll win the lotto” plan…. and it’s pissing me off to watch people who normally are more rational going into Daily Kos – worthy rants!

    Rants by people who never read Obamacare, who haven’t read the Roberts decision, accusing a Supreme Court Justice of making the decision out of fear! It’s absolutely crap!

    I’ve no problem with people being angry .. although happy warriors get more done .. but I have a rather large problem with people who, in their anger over losing the lotto, are tearing apart their houses.

    It’s pathetic.

    Mew

  • gekster

    Geeze guy, get a grip.

  • JSobieski

    supporting the proposition that the federal government can use its spending power to “persuade” states to do things that they can’t officialy “force” states to do.

    The Roberts decision simply makes it clear that the tax power of the federal government will be a similar end run around limited powers.

    There is nothing positive about this.

    If you check out some past RS threads on this point, I have repeatedly expressed my concern that tax power would save Obamacare. I have repeatedly argued with people who thought it was a slam dunk case.

    My primary fault of Roberts in this context is that he FAILED to put any thought to an outer marker for the limits of tax power.

    On that basis alone, Roberts deserves some criticism.

  • mizzou1776

    Being a weakling is not an excuse. Go back to enjoying LADY BOYs OF SIAM 24. This is man talk.

  • westcoastpatriette

    The more you resist it, the longer it takes to get it out of their system.

    No one’s expecting the courts to save them, however, no one expected Roberts to betray them like he did today, either. And you cannot spin that. To many of us, his reasoning is convoluted and flat out wrong and nothing you say will change that.

    Go get in the window.

  • tnfriendofcoal101368

    Barack Obama: “I will not raise taxes on the middle class”
    Scotus: “Barack Obama forced on the American People the largest tax increase in American history.”
    Oh and as Hannity pointed out, he is set to also institute the 2nd largest tax increase in American history with the retirement of the Bush tax cut.

    Mel: Barack Obama has raised your taxes to pay for a health care law, you don’t want and then took a leak on your leg and told you it was raining. Bloomberg estimates 800 billion in new taxes and taking 500 billion from Medicare. To his credit, George Stephanapolos called this a tax 3 years ago.

    Dick Morris: “The Supreme Court has upheld the mandate but gave us a mandate to take back the Senate and take the White House to repeal this bill”

  • JSobieski

    http://www.redstate.com/steven_willis/2012/03/26/handicapping-health-care/

    Its not as simple as you say

    JSobieski (Diary) Monday, March 26th at 10:13PM EDT (link)
    Government can tax your income
    Government can spend the money on virtually anything (spending is not limited to enumerated powers)

    Obamacare could be implemented by a tax, with the government going out and buying insurance on your behalf. Based on current precedent, nothing would stop that from being constitutional.

    Change 1.5 variables (1 government buying you the policy, 0.5 the tax issue) and you have Obamacare.

    The Founders got in some very intense arguments even though the federal government was far simpler than it is today. Trivializing complexity doesn?t accomplish anything if you want an honest intellectual inquiry.

    _________________________________________________

    I sympathize with your defense of Roberts in some respects, but I am not making the argument that you think I am making.

  • checkmate2012

    and not a Constitutional issue. Similarily to the Holder Contempt charge.Roberts was just plain wrong and there is no way around that, even if he was smarter than us mere mortals to push this for an issue to rev the base or make Congress act.

    To say he calmed the Commerce clause in favor of the Taxation Clauses is not a good trade off. It’s the same punitive punishment IMO. Surely they can tax me into buying a Volt.

    I am against Roberts for judicial activisim for re-writing the statute as if he can read the minds of Congress.

  • gekster

    Idiots.
    I got a pair.
    You and garfield.
    And before you want to mantalk, you got to be a man.
    Idiot.

    And what did I say makes me a weakling.

    I don’t suffer fools much.
    Go away little boy, ya bother me.

  • mizzou1776

    The gloves must come off. By any means we must restore the Republic. Liberty or death! Smash socialism. Homosexuals: Tolerated not celebrated. Restore Traditional Values by Law. Of course this may require that the Tree of Liberty be watered. BUY LOTS OF GUNS!

  • tnfriendofcoal101368

    Awesome argument #sarcasm. You talk like one of those basement dwellers who hang out at DKos. We have language rules here. My taste in movies runs to the Dark Knight Rises. I understand the anger, use it to vote the yahoos out of office who gave us the crap sandwich out of office.

  • tnfriendofcoal101368

    Now I am thinking more of the anarchist element that supported Ron Paul. I am sure by the time I sign back on in the morning – he will be ghost anyway.

  • gekster

    ntnt

  • gekster

    I have no idea who lady boys of siam 24 is, but it appears he knows.

  • mizzou1776

    Well that is what is necessary. Your incapable. Plenty of gay porn for you to enjoy.

  • mizzou1776

    Either join the Men or keep losing. Anger is totally appropriate (to use a homo PC appropriated word). No more playing by Left rules. Lynch the scum!

  • gekster

    I see you have exsperience with that.

  • johninohio

    will have little impact on the vote in November for the simple reason that the tax isn’t imposed until 2014. Americans are too short sighted to care until it actually hits them in the wallet. By then, of course, it’ll be too late.

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    …turn off this account now. I’ll piece together what happened in the morning.

  • westcoastpatriette

    refers to male children who are abducted to be sex slaves, dressed up as little girls and sold on the streets to every pervert who comes along. One of the most disgusting underground travesties around.

  • PowerToThePeople

    this loser is an uneducated prick who likes to use gay slurs and threatens violence all from the safety of his computer.

  • PowerToThePeople

    .

  • westcoastpatriette

    these children. It is so sad.

  • gekster

    that’s one thing I didn’t want to know.
    Not your fault, and I kinda had an idea I didn’t want to explore.
    Again, not your fault.
    And no need to be sorry, not needed.

  • checkmate2012

    That was a great response and no wonder you are a pro! Gave me some reason for acting irrationally while calling the one a liar and other things in the E Garden speech!

    You are awesome, thank you. Starting to feel better now, temporarily : |

  • JSobieski

    The venom directed at Roberts is disappointing. The opinion is quite defensible.

    I think what people can’t get over is that Obama failed to call it a “tax” in the political process, even as they argued it was a “tax” in the litigation process.

    To me this is analogous to two businesses saying that they are “partnering” with each other, even though as a matter of law there is no “partnership”:. There are numerous examples in law where what the parties say (what Roberts refers to as “labels” in his opinion) don’t mean a hill of beans in litigation.

    The Roberts decision is unfortunate in my view, but it is NOT inherently the result of him caving, changing his mind, being influenced by others etc.

    Given the amendment on income taxes, it is hard to find hard limits to taxing/spending power.

    After all, Medicare, SS, and Medicaid are constitutional programs. There is precedent to that effect, and that precedent is explicitly based on the reasoning that Congressional spending power is broader than its regulatory power.

  • gekster

    I’m all for taking a childs side over any adults.
    Tell me where I can send an anonymous donation.

  • westcoastpatriette

    awful stuff

  • westcoastpatriette

    xpmedia.com Click on missions and you can read more about what they do.

  • westcoastpatriette

    Christian Services Association
    P.O. Box 1017
    Maricopa, AZ 85139

    That would be much appreciated, I’m sure.

  • checkmate2012

    sigh.

    And after you told acat twice to go sit on the window sill- I had a hardy laugh on that one.

  • gekster

    I knew you had a heart,
    just didn’t know it was as big as the moon. :)

    You deserve another one. :)

  • checkmate2012

    nt

  • joeconstitution

    Hey erick read this , you won’t post it because you r full of yourself,get a job

    ERICK ERIKSON THINKS THE CONSTITUTION IS A CHESSBOARD
    Dear Fellow Conservatives,
    ?
    I used to think Erick Erickson had a brain in his head.? He could be arrogant (I once placed an article on this blog written by him and forgot to put in a trackback) One day later he posted a comment advising me of my neglect).? Now I know he is a complete horse?s ass.? As Mark Levin stated tonight ?if you are for this law and Chief Justice Roberts you are against the American way of life)
    Mr Erickson is just another political junkie who thinks EXTREMELY highly of himself.? Maybe hobnobbing around Washington went to his head.? As far as I am concerned Redstate.com is now spam.? He is probably a political Science major with nothing but a blog.? Maybe he would like to come see where I work; see if he program something that individuals around the world use.? Or even write out a mathematical algorithm or pay 60% of his income in taxes. ? Oh i forgot, he pimps for donations.? Read his pathetic letter
    Dear RedState Reader,
    As you have no doubt heard by now, the Supreme Court largely upheld Obamacare with Chief Justice John Roberts writing the majority 5 to 4 decision.? Even Justice Kennedy called for the whole law to be thrown out, but John Roberts saved it.
    Having gone through the opinion, I am not going to beat up on John Roberts. I am disappointed, but I want to make a few points. John Roberts is playing at a different game than the rest of us. We?re on poker. He?s on chess.
    First, I get the strong sense from a few anecdotal stories about Roberts over the past few months and the way he has written this opinion that he very, very much was concerned about keeping the Supreme Court above the partisan fray and damaging the reputation of the Court long term. It seems to me the left was smart to make a full frontal assault on the Court as it persuaded Roberts.
    Second, in writing his opinion, Roberts forces everyone to deal with the issue as a political, not a legal issue. In the past twenty years, Republicans have punted a number of issues to the Supreme Court asking the Court to save us from ourselves. They can?t do that with Roberts. They tried with McCain-Feingold, which was originally upheld. This case is a timely reminder to the GOP that five votes are not a sure thing.
    Third, while Roberts has expanded the taxation power, which I don?t really think is a massive expansion from what it was, Roberts has curtailed the commerce clause as an avenue for Congressional overreach. In so doing, he has affirmed the Democrats are massive taxers. In fact, I would argue that this may prevent future mandates in that no one is going to go around campaigning on new massive tax increases. On the upside, I guess we can tax the hell out of abortion now. Likewise, in a 7 to 2 decision, the Court shows a strong majority still recognize the concept of federalism and the restrains of Congress in forcing states to adhere to the whims of the federal government.
    Fourth, in forcing us to deal with this politically, the Democrats are going to have a hard time running to November claiming the American people need to vote for them to preserve Obamacare. It remains deeply, deeply unpopular with the American people. If they want to make a vote for them a vote for keeping a massive tax increase, let them try.
    Fifth, the decision totally removes a growing left-wing talking point that suddenly they must vote for Obama because of judges. The Supreme Court as a November issue for the left is gone. For the right? That sound you hear is the marching of libertarians into Camp Romney, with noses held, knowing that the libertarian and conservative coalitions must unite to defeat Obama and Obamacare.
    Finally, while I am not down on John Roberts like many of you are today, i will be very down on Congressional Republicans if they do not now try to shut down the individual mandate. Force the Democrats on the record about the mandate. Defund Obamacare. This now, by necessity, is a political fight and the GOP sure as hell should fight.
    60% of Americans agree with them on the issue. And guess what? The Democrats have been saying for a while that individual pieces of Obamacare are quite popular. With John Roberts? opinion, the repeal fight takes place on GOP turf, not Democrat turf. The all or nothing repeal has always been better ground for the GOP and now John Roberts has forced everyone onto that ground.
    It seems very, very clear to me in reviewing John Roberts? decision that he is playing a much longer game than us and can afford to with a life tenure. And he probably just handed Mitt Romney the White House.
    *A friend points out one other thing ? go back to 2009. Olympia Snowe was the deciding vote to get Obamacare out of the Senate Committee. Had she voted no, we?d not be here now.
    Read my full thoughts here.
    Sincerely yours,
    Erick Erickson
    Editor,RedState.com
    ?
    Oh erick i gave you a trackback, you leave a trail of slime like a snail on the internet
    Joe Constitution

  • gekster

    Ypu can tell us.
    We’ll laugh until you’re banned. ;)

  • gekster

    nt

  • luvcats13

    For the Conservatives who thought the Court was 5-4 in their pocket . . .

    Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

  • avgjo

    you’re about to get banned, I’ve a feeling.

  • gekster

    One comment and proof of an idiot.
    Care to add more to show how stupid you are.
    Is ir\t your time on the OWS computer.

  • jkines

    if one is to postulate this as a tax, it must necessarily be construed as a direct tax, as it is demonstrably inconsistent with the tenets of an indirect tax. Furthermore, Artice I Section II of the Constitution requires that direct taxes be apportioned among the states on the basis of population. Hence, the individual mandate, even if it is to be construed as a tax, is still Constitutionality invalid as a direct tax. This ruling had nothing to do with strategy and everything to do with cowardice.

  • jkines

    is utterly moot when the court has just empowered the same ends to be achieved by taxation, furthermore by duplicity, not to mention a direct tax in violation of the enumerated powers of direct taxation in article 1 section 2. There is no feasible way to spin this as anything other than the abject failure it is.

  • JSobieski

    the opinion discusses this point. Medicare and Ss are both funded by taxes not classified as “income taxes” by Congress but are classied as such by the SCt

  • windwaker24

    He took upon himself to rewrite healthcare law as the other 4 justices pointed out. For him to accurately “kick this back to Congress” he would have joined the other 4, striking the whole law down and telling the Congress to rewrite it. I said this on another post, when Kennedy sides with Constitution and is giving out dirty looks, it’s time to question the Chief’s “Conservative” creds, not make excuses for him.

  • windwaker24

    You know, that document Roberts was supposed to protect and uphold. If what you say is true, the Founders would have created only 2 branches of government. Face it, the guy punted on his responsibility, then tried to blame the citizens. I like Erick, but I have to disagree with his post, the Supreme Court is not a place for games. The Constitution is always serious business!

  • joeconstitution

    Google this keyword erick you r number one and two

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    nt

  • tnfriendofcoal101368

    My reaction as per Justice Roberts is one of profound disappointment and some fear as to where he intends to lead this court.

    You have to understand the National Heath Care Opt Out Tax (let’s call what it is – if nothing else Justice Roberts got that right) was not for me the most objectionable part of the PPACA. If you are going to do socialized medicine, then I don’t see how you pay for it unless you tax those folks who would otherwise free load the system. What was objectionable to me was the idea that the Government would take over an industry from the free market. The PPACA basically is the complete socialization of health care. You get your health care through Federal government run exchanges, insurance companies and health care providers profit is set by the government not the market. This is what was objectionable to me.

    In it’s silence on health care, I don’t believe the constitution gives to the Federal government the authority to take over an entire industry. In as much as health care is a government concern, through the 10th amendment the constitution pushes it to each state to decide through the own constitutions and legislatures to craft solutions best for that state. This is where the decision scares the beejesus out of me and my disappointment with Roberts. Roberts joined the progressive liberals on the court in ruling that the government take over of health care was constitutional. In my mind (and maybe you can convince me I am wrong), no one but a progressive, liberal democrat can believe that it is constitutional for the government to seize control of an entire industry. This leads me to the conclusion that either a) Roberts is a progressive, liberal democrat and he is ok with the government take over health care or b) he is not a progressive, liberal democrat, believes that the takeover of health care was unconstitutional, but voted to uphold it anyway because he is afraid of the damage Obama and the liberal cartel will do to his and his courts reputation. Roberts is likely to lead the court for 25 years and I don’t know which conclusion scares me more either he is a progressive, liberal democrat or he needs to grow a backbone.

    I will agree with you that at this point what Roberts has done is done. We have to fight out tails off to drive the liberal cartel out of Washington to the dank, dark places where the rest of the rats hang out.

  • rdm42

    its supposed to be good that the chief justice is playing a game with the constitution, by rewriting bills to say something that they very very clearly do not?

  • http://libertynews.com/ mbecker908

    if anything, he may have provided the tool to deconstruct government with his commentary on the Commerce Clause.

    I would have preferred he side with Kennedy etal. He didn’t. I disagree with his decision, but the dKos after Citizens United. I can’t recall reading so many stupid, ill-though-out, totally off the reservation comments on any subject.

  • http://libertynews.com/ mbecker908

    unconstitutional? Don’t bet on it, nobody’s ever been able to make that case rationally.

    Everybody here is all wound up about the ACA tax. ‘Splane the difference, constitutionally, between ACA and Medicare? Or Social Security?

    If Medicare is a constitutional entity then you’ve got a hard time arguing ACA isn’t. As a matter of fact, one of the options Ds looked at, IIRC, was just expanding Medicare..

    SCOTUS job isn’t to protect us from electing idiots, and we’re getting the government we deserve. I’m not fond of it, but it’s not an easy course to correct, just look at what Utah Republicans did with their Senatorial primary.

  • crazyfreddie

    I THINK JOHN HAS A BIG SURPRISE WAITING FOR OSAMA BAMA THE MUSLIM DICTATOR AND HIS WORTHLESS 30 PLUS CZARS
  • ceili_dancer

    And , angry as you are, moby speech is not the best way to get your thoughts out. unless you are living up to your name.

  • jkines

    are indirect taxes on the activity of labor transaction, whereas a tax on NOT buying health insurance is a direct tax. The former does not contain the same statutory limitations as the latter.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Lay off the posting.

  • ihateliberals

    There is so many things wrong with what he did. Even if the law is rpealed roberts has opened the foor to congress to take controll of whatever they want and make the taxpayers pay for it just by calling it a Tax. for an extreme example: Congress now can pass a law that says everyone must by a Chevrolet or pay a penalty and call it a tax. while this is an extreme example it is within the realm of possibilities. Why would that be any difference than forcing people to purchase health insurance or pay the penalty? This decision by Roberts to call this a tax will stand even if Obamacare is repealed where the possibility of that happening is about like me winning the Powerball lottery twice between now and November 6th. In other words it isn’t going to happen even if Romney should accidentally be elected. If it had been any other justice to be the deciding vote I would not be suspicious but the fact that it is Roberts the conservative leader on the court makes this decision very suspicious of foul play. If Roberts was trying to make a point abut us the voters making bad decision he picked the wrong piece of bad law to make an example of. The power he has given to congress now is incredible. It is a crying shame there is no recourse against a Justice unless they have been convicted of a felony. In my book Roberts ius a traitor to the constitution and the American people. he has saddled us with a law that might just be the straw that breaks the camels back. we can’t afford it financially or politically. yesterday will go down as a very sad day for Democracy around the world and especially for what use to be the United States of America. I generally don’t disagree with you but this time your opinon on Roberts is a loser.

  • ihateliberals

    The bottom line is that Roberts is full of it and I don’t mean goodness. roberts was gotten to and had no choice but to make sure the law stood. His logic is so flawed even a high school freshman could tell he was wrong in his decision. he has now unleashed a power to congress that will stand even if Obamacare should be over-turned which it won’t be.

  • ihateliberals

    roberts in his atempt tomake people vote more responsibly has unleashed a power to congress that is unprecedented. Now congress can do whatever they want just by calling it a tax.

  • ihateliberals

    After hearing Romney’s response yesterday I wanted to cry. If this is what we are expecting to beat Obama in November we are screwed big time. There was no emotion or passion in his speech. It was just blah, blah blah “if i gete elected” blah blah. One phrase he should never again use in any speech is “If I get elected”. he should have said “When i am President”. Nothng he said yesterday built confidence of leadership. We need some more kooks if that is what you want tocall us that have a passion for this wonderful country. Remember they called Reagan a Kook too.

  • ihateliberals

    After his speech yesterday i wanted to cry. There was no passion no emotion what-so-ever. there was no confidence built for him. he even made a statement that made your heart sink: “if I am elected”. That wul dif should have never been used in that statement. the correct word was “When” . with that kind of passion who needs depression?

  • garfieldjl

    It would be better if the entire law had been struck down in the Supreme Court in a 5 to 4 decision, because quite frankly I don’t think Romney and/or a Republican Congress would have the political will to repeal this unconstitutional piece of garbage.

    I think Roberts failed to uphold his oath of office, and based on what I’ve heard on Rush Limbaugh’s radio show, I think Rush woud agree with me.