« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Coffee and Markets LIVE Coverage of SCOTUS Decision

By: Brad Jackson (Diary)  |  June 28th, 2012 at 09:54 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Download Podcast | iTunes | Podcast Feed

On today’s edition of Coffee and Markets, Brad Jackson and Ben Domenech are broadcasting LIVE coverage of the Supreme Court’s decision in the Obamacare case.

We’re brought to you as always by Stephen Clouse and Associates. If you’d like to email us, you can do so at bjackson[at]coffeeandmarkets.com. We hope you enjoy the show.

Related Links:

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius
Erick Erickson: I’m Not Down on John Roberts
In 2009, Obama: Mandate is Not a Tax
High Court Upholds Health Care Law

Follow Brad on Twitter
Follow Ben on Twitter

Subscribe to The Transom

The hosts and guests of Coffee and Markets speak only for ourselves, not any clients or employers.

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • zachv

    Awesome.

  • Change Jar Conservative

    Country is really screwed now.

  • runner12

    This is awful

    • runner12

      I cannot believe that Roberts turned on us like that. How could he vote to uphold something so unconstitutional!

      • Flagstaff

        Roberts has damned himself.

        • congressworksforus

          I believe, and I hate to say it, that this is pure politics.

          Roberts just delivered the election to Romney, and I think that was deliberate.

          • rightlane1111

            It takes 2/3 of both houses to overturn this legislation. Good luck with getting that majority in the House. Romney…if he is elected…can do nothing without the Party of Stupid.

          • congressworksforus

            Why 2/3? It simply needs a law to repeal it. Yes, it would take 60 Senate votes to get by the filibuster…. although…. maybe not, since it is a tax, it could probably be slipped in through some budget mechanism requiring only 51 votes?

          • rightlane1111

            Vote for CONSERVATIVES for the Senate and the House in November. No RINOS. JUST GET THE CONSERVATIVES IN.

          • runner12

            I highly doubt that was his motivation. I think it is merely cowardice to not take a strong stand for fear of looking “political.” It is all about image for Roberts.

          • lapert

            You have what will be (and this quite a feat) the dumbest comments that will be made today regarding the decision.

          • congressworksforus

            Can you provide any other logical reason why Roberts veers way to the left of Kennedy?

          • lapert

            On first glance at the opinion his logic isn’t to the left of Kennedy. It isn’t his job to bail out the Congress for passing bad law and I think his construction of the individual mandate as under the taxing powers is quite defensible. On the Commerce Clause questions he drew the same conclusion as Kennedy and the conservative side of the court.

            But let me ask you a question – have you even looked at the opinion yet to discern the logic or are you just judging by the outcome?

          • congressworksforus

            Construing something as a tax, when Congress and the Administration specifically said it wasn’t a tax when they passed the law, is called judicial activism, something the left is known for.

            Listening to the audio now, someone just said the law was upheld using an argument that the Solicitor General refused to make. How anyone can claim that Robert’s argument is defensible boggles the mind.

          • lapert

            The SG did make this argument in oral arguments and his briefs. That led to Alito’s line: “General Verrilli, today you are arguing that the penalty is not a tax. Tomorrow you are going to be back and you will be arguing that the penalty is a tax,”

            There are plenty of laws passed under the taxing power that don’t use the word tax in them and the political sell job that is done is irrelevant to the constitutional standing.

          • congressworksforus

            The tax argument was a Hail Mary when the administration started grasping at straws for anything to make it stand. It worked as far as keeping the bill; but the long-term result will not be good for Obama or the Democrats because the only people paying the tax will be the people that can’t afford health insurance in the first place.

          • lapert

            It may have been their third preference – but they made it nonetheless.

            I also don’t think you are correct in who will pay it – the people who can’t afford insurance will either have subsidies to cover it or won’t be filing taxes anyway to pay the penalty.

            The people who will pay it are those for whom insurance costs more than the penalty and the recognition that they can purchase insurance when needed are willing to pay the penalty instead of insurance.

          • lapert

            This is pretty much what I thought the outcome would be though I thought it would be 6-3, not 5-4.

      • commonsenseobserver

        …

        • treeofliberty

          Roberts please retire, you’re a disgrace and a disappointment comparable to Souter

  • commonsenseobserver

    “Our precedent demonstrates that Congress had the power to impose the exaction in Section 5000A under the taxing power, and that Section 5000A need not be read to do more than impose a tax. This is sufficient to sustain it.”

  • avgjo

    nt.

    Squishiness has serious consquences.

    • http://nextgenerationvoters.com Bethany

      This is sickening. I don’t understand at all. Part of the dissent said that this gives the federal government unprecedented power– and it’s completely right. I don’t understand Roberts’s logic.

      • avgjo

        Don’t get sick. Reason and craft must rule. Begin strategizing. And then begin acting. And don’t stop until you win.

        I’m dead serious. We musn’t give in to despair.

        Small numbers of people can change the world, IF they’re (a) smart, (b) committed and (c) passionate.

      • congressworksforus

        The opinion clearly states that the mandate violates the commerce clause, which is crucial to rein in Congress.

        • treeofliberty

          bye bye Constitution

          Thanks Roberts

          • http://nextgenerationvoters.com Bethany

            I’m reading it now but I must not have gotten to that part yet. That’s unbelievable.

          • lapert

            Not Roberts’ opinion. This view was only shared by Sotomayor.

          • http://nextgenerationvoters.com Bethany

            right?

          • lapert

            On page 61 of her opinion.

          • treeofliberty

            Just double checked to make sure I didn’t misread that as was possible since Roberts was on my mind but here it is:

            http://woldcnews.com/1016910/supreme-court-upholds-obamas-healthcare-plan-key-factor-struck-down/

            CNN Anchor: https://twitter.com/brookebcnn (Found this while reading the main article on CNN.com, usually don’t read twitter)

            I think lapert is correct though.

          • lapert

            The quote was in the syllabus when summarizing Ginsburg’s opinion so they may have confused that for part of Roberts’ decision since it is at the front – it is another of good example of how people who aren’t used to reading judicial opinions can misunderstand what they are reading.

  • http://nextgenerationvoters.com Bethany

    “The Court holds that the Anti-Injunction Act doesn’t apply because the label “tax” is not controlling.”

    A tax isn’t controlling?

  • Common_Cents

    • http://nextgenerationvoters.com Bethany

      I wish they could’ve shown this in oral arguments.

    • renl57

      …as promising that he would never raise taxes on the middle class or the poor.

      Here’s how it has to work now:

      The mandate’s penalty was supposed to rise to $1,100 for a family of four. Now it becomes a tax that everybody has to pay (up front for most via withholding). Then on your tax return, they get a refund if they can show they have insurance.

      That’s going to make ObamaCare even more unpopular with the voters than it is now–which is why the Dems didn’t structure it that way.

      • http://nextgenerationvoters.com Bethany

        Even if the Democrats adamantly said it’s not a tax since it’s not “structured” that way?

      • lapert

        It doesn’t have to affect withholding rates at all and it can be structured so that you only pay the penalty of you report not buying insurance.

        All that will be up to the IRS to decide.

  • commonsenseobserver

    Let’s see what he says.

    • http://nextgenerationvoters.com Bethany

      They said this gives the federal government unprecedented power and that’s part of why it’s unconstitutional.

    • commonsenseobserver

      I’m thinking we didn’t give this guy enough respect.

      • runner12

        Kennedy speaks the truth when reading the dissent of the minority.

        • http://nextgenerationvoters.com Bethany

          We should’ve been watching Roberts. If he had voted with the other side, the whole law would’ve been thrown out (judging from the beginning of the dissent). Wow.

          • treeofliberty

            I want to be positive but this is a big blow guys, repealing Obamacare will be harder than you think, even with Romney. We always talk about SC Justices being perhaps the number 1 reason to vote Republican…only to get Justices Souter and now Roberts??!? Good grief, what a mess.

            New respect for Justice Kennedy, in big decisions has generally stayed the course.

            New low for Roberts.

          • runner12

            I am trying to be positive here. It is good that the commerce clause was not expanded, but that is the only positive I can think of. The rest is an unmitigated disaster, as in the end O Care stands.

            I never thought Roberts would turn the way he did. What a disapointment. But I guess that he cared more for his image and reputation than the rule of law. It is a very sad day in America.

  • Jack_Savage

    America, on behalf of myself and my ancestors, many thanks. Sorry I couldn’t stop this President, and as a result my children and grandchildren won’t really know what it was like to live in the country the founders dreamed of.

    Again, thanks. Sorry we screwed it up.

    • http://nextgenerationvoters.com Bethany

      (right?)

      Just makes more of a reason to focus on a strong Congress in November.

      • commonsenseobserver

        Elect Mitt Romney with a conservative Republican Congress.

        • nepanyrush

          1. Obama will get a boost from this and will promote the good parts. If Obamacare was overruled, he would have wasted the first two years of his presidency during a downturn. Now, he had a major accomplishment. He, and Obamacare,will get more popular.

          2. Romney’s road will be tougher, not easier, because of Romneycare.

          3. The GOP will never just repeal. The press will make them look like children throwing a tantrum. They will just tweak, and that is what the Dems and obama have said: that it just needs to be tweaked.

      • avgjo

        reconciliation to do it. So unless we win 60 seats in the Senate and the presidency, it doesn’t look like it’s going anywhere anytime soon.

      • hunter

        We are a narrowly divided government, except that all of the leadership seems to be OK with anything Obama wants.

        • http://nextgenerationvoters.com Bethany

          n/t

  • Tbone

    An unnecessary evil.

    • Flagstaff

      First, that it was even controversial. It was not even close to being constitutional. Second, that our Chief Justice has gone addled, apparently. Third, that if not addled, he helped craft a ruling that effectively said it is within the purview of Congress to pass a bill that has an unconstitutional section as long as it contains another part that “taxes” the people who do not comply with the unconstitutional part; those who comply with the unconstitutional mandate will not be punished. Fourth, that this isn’t the first screwy case we’ve had recently–don’t forget Kelo.

      It’s one thing to have an unpopular ruling. If it can be explained in an understandable manner, it can be chalked up to differences of opinion. But this one can’t be explained rationally using the English language. It simply defies logic. The court has re-defined the word “tax.”

      Whoever shouted “judicial activism” first wins the prize. It’s easier to find William O. Douglas’s “emanations” and “penumbras” than it is to understand the logic of this ruling.

      Final and scariest part: Remember weeks ago when the leftists were speculating that Roberts would do something exactly like he did (be the deciding vote in favor of OCare)? Didn’t it seem crazy at the time? How did they know?

  • evilbloggerlady
  • fpete13527

    nt

  • http://nextgenerationvoters.com Bethany

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

    • http://nextgenerationvoters.com Bethany

      “Beginning in 2014, those who do not comply with the mandate must make a ‘[s]hared responsibility payment’ to the Federal government.”

      Seriously, Roberts? How is that Constitutional?!

      I’m upset right now…but later I’ll be so pumped up and ready to fight even harder. I’m sure the same is true of Conservatives all over the country.

      • Flagstaff

        But this cries out for impeachment. The decision is from figuratively way out in left field, and I do mean left.

  • hunter

    Even though the bill was carefully crafted to avoid imposing a tax.
    This election just went to Obama.
    America, twice in a week, has seen the USSC contort itself in ways an olymipc gymnast could only dream of, in order to accomodate the Obama agenda.
    Now we have a President who writes law, selects which laws to enforce or not, along with a Supreme Court that can impose taxes and demand we pay them.
    We are serfs.
    We are no longer citizens.

    • funwithknives

      but may I be allowed to say “….and now, from this day forward, Spoken ,nor Written words have no clear, definitive meanings…”

      If This does not get America off it’s buns, what will??

      Calling Reince Preibus : Repeat The Video Of Barry stating it was Not A Tax over,and over,and over again…….

      • partyof1

        .

    • Common_Cents

      Try fighting the IRS, they steal money out of your account, or put you in jail. Maybe they have good healthcare for prisoners?

  • partyof1

    Like father like son.

  • commonsenseobserver
  • rightlane1111

    Good question…huh…we never saw it coming from Roberts.

  • wintermute

    I suspected this would happen. John Roberts and the rest of his kangaroos are dead to me. Barack Obama, you just sealed your defeat. This is an affront to everything this country has stood for.

  • Joshua Persons

    You know: “All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives” …

  • commonsenseobserver

    He’d better be strong, clear, and firm. It’s his time now.

  • Pingback: Handyortung