I dislike it when people attack Chief Justice Roberts over his Obamacare vote. He did it because of Justice Kennedy’s duplicity, which *made* him do it.
That is, Kennedy wanted to be the swing vote which would make Obamacare the law of the land, giving the left *everything* it wanted, and making Obamacare impossible to repeal.
It would be a 5-4 decision with Roberts on the losing side.
So, by instead voting *for* Obamacare, two things happened. First of all, Kennedy was thwarted (and reportedly was enraged at Roberts for denying him, Kennedy, the “glory” of being the vote that made socialized medicine in America.) But that is unimportant in the scheme of things.
What really mattered was that, by voting *for* Obamacare, Chief Justice Roberts could lay the groundwork for its destruction. And he did.
If Obamacare was just ordinary legislation, repeal would be next to impossible, needing in practical terms, a 2/3rds vote of both the House and the Senate, *and* a presidential signature. Bottom line, we would be stuck with it forever, like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
But in one of the very few powers of the Chief Justice, Roberts put in the decision that it was a “tax”. In the constitution, it clearly states that taxes must be decided by *simple majority vote*. This means that just 51% of the House and the Senate, with a presidential signature, can *KILL* Obamacare.
So Chief Justice Roberts had a simple choice: vote against Obamacare, and lose, condemning America to socialized medicine; or vote *for* Obamacare, then insert a “poison pill” into it, almost guaranteeing that *eventually* Obamacare will be torn apart and ended.
So, those who criticize Roberts for voting for Obamacare are being stupidly arrogant: that they would rather lose the war than a single battle in it.
Interesting.
I’ve not seen this interpretation of the Obamacare ruling before.
Food for thought.
> “If Obamacare was just ordinary legislation, repeal would be next to impossible, needing in practical terms, a 2/3rds vote of both the House and the Senate, *and* a presidential signature. “
Uh ...no. That’s not how it works. It takes only a simple majority to pass legislation to repeal and a presidential signature to make the repeal a law.
Legislation passed recently by simple majority vote to repeal Obamacare:
But of course a VETO was expected, so McConnell’s passage to repeal was only a ‘show’ vote.
Where the 2/3’s majority is needed is in OVERRIDING A VETO, but in that case, a presidential signature is NOT needed.
Roberts did nothing heroic. He had another shot recently to scuttle Obamacare but he failed to do so. So he has upheld Obamacare not once but TWICE.
The democrats used the 1934 FDR playbook for ACA where they argued that it was a social benefit for all while arguing in courts that it was a tax. Roberts carried their argument willingly even though arguments of the Commerce Clause were upheld.
Trump has openly pinned Roberts with culpability for Obamacare pointing out that Roberts upheld Obamacare not once but twice. Further, Trump’s SCOTUS picks show that Roberts will become in effect a seat warmer for major decisions in the future.
That is certainly a novel way to spin what happened, but while I’m not a lawyer, I’m not sure I’m buying it. Since the central question in the case was whether the mandate was a tax or not, it seems that if Kennedy or any other Justice voted for it being a tax, then it was considered a tax. I don’t think that this is under the sole purview of the Chief Justice. I must have missed “the very few powers of the Chief Justice” part of the constitution. Please enlighten us further. Thanks.
But does Roberts saying that it's a tax actually make it so for the purpose of repeal?
PPACA is atrocious (compulsion to contract is illegal) and Obergefell illicit.
Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Roberts have disgraced themselves and brought disrepute on the Court. They must be impeached.
Very interesting, hope that is why Roberts acted as he did.
Nailed it yefrag...