Posted on 10/19/2013 9:01:26 AM PDT by LS
Few people are as unpopular on the right at Chief Justice John Roberts. He is viewed as having legitimized Obamacare. But did he?
My understanding of the "leiu" (the law, according to Inspector Clouseau) is that for a suit to have merit there must first be a harm. Keep that in mind.
Matt Sissel currently has a suit against Health and Human Services on appeal claiming that Obamacare, since it was ruled a "tax," in fact violates the Constitution's origination clause that all tax bills must originate in the House. According to Andrew Kostler at the Heritage Foundation, the concept has merit.
The difficulty, he argues, is that often courts don't want to get into the legislative one-upsmanship. However, Sissel's case will come up for review soon.
According to Kostler, the Origination Clause was breached. It was first introduced on in the House as a resolution called the "Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009." The House passed that measure, but the Senate used it as a vehicle for a health-care overhaul. The House bill in the Senate was "gutted almost entirely" and retitled the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act," passed in 2009.
If the appeals court rules in Sissel's favor, he could obtain an injunction.
Personally, I think a real case will await the first imposition of a real tax penalty or fine in January which would generate a new, possibly stronger case. If that occurs, Roberts could very well have been admonishing conservatives to get on the stick when he said that it wasn't the Court's job to correct bad legislation and may have been winking and nodding a message: "you have the means right now to stop this once I deemed it a tax and no one objected."
It will be interesting to see where this path leads.
Supreme Court, eh? What a sick joke.
It’s not a penalty. It’s not even a tax. What the Dems will argue is that it’s really something new— a Tenalty or a Pax, and Roberts will OK that, too....
“..when he said that it wasn’t the Court’s job to correct bad legislation...”
:::::::::::::::
Well, it is the Court’s job to nullify bad legislation if it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. It remains the opinion of MANY Constitutional scholars that Obamacare is indeed unconstitutional in its penalizing/taxing of Americans as it is written. So Roberts became an “enabler” for Obamacare and he will carry that scar for life. The details are much more complex, but that kind of sums it up.
I am for any action that can slow or stop this. That said, I think Roberts acted out of fear or intimidation to create that ruling. Like most in Washington the Supremes live in the bubble and he either fell to public or private pressures that the court should avoid political decisions. In other words, he abandoned his personal beliefs and changed his vote for reasons outside the constitution. Did he leave open opportunity for other challenges? Possibly, but i don’t see his decision as any clever attempt to help constitutional conservatives. He had a chance to do that and specifically decided not to. Allowing Obamacare to exist in whole because it is a tax...a tax levied if one does not buy a product of the govenrment’s choosing...is a horrible precident to set. An historically bad decision on his behalf.
If what Roberts tried to do was some screwy tactic he such crapped in our mess kit.
It doesn’t really matter. Roberts will write an argument not brought by either side to up hold this obamanation. We’re long past turning this around through the normal channels.
I’m off the opinion that if ACA rightfully is removed, it will not be because of Roberts, but in spite of Roberts.
FU Roberts.....The Father of “RobertsCare”.
Department Of Rationalization Department.
You mean a ‘supremely’ bad joke...
Those federal employees in black robes uphold the constitution against their appointing masters like the constitution against their appointing masters like a life long vegetarian eats meat. Rarely if ever and it always makes them sick.
Last I saw, the 0bamacare exchanges are online, if only in a crappy way consistent with how the government generally does business.
The damn thing is being funded.
The taxes it imposes are still being collected.
Insurance companies are dropping policies.
Full time jobs are being converted to part time jobs.
The quality of health care is falling because health care providers are cutting staff.
The law is still on the books.
I fail to see any favors the Chief Justice did for us in allowing this patently unconstitutional power grab to remain in force and effect.
Accordingly, other than an "explanation" as to why Roberts changed direction in mid-strean, I wonder if the "individual mandate as tax" opinion has any legal standing, at all.
Excellent point.
In any case, it would take years to get Obamacare back up to the Supreme Court again, and then Roberts would think up some other reason for voting with the liberals.
The most probable explanation for what he did is that he was blackmailed. Perhaps, as several sources have suggested, because his adoption of his Irish children was questionably legal, and he risks losing them if he offends The One.
Bottom line is he still voted with them.....the rest is just noise.
In the future there will be a conservative president with conservative majorities in Congress. When that happens a bill should be passed requiring everyone in the country to buy a firearm. Then sell all of the M16, M4s to the populace.
Same thing as 0bamacare.
The democRATs/progressives/Marxists/liberals heads would explode. Kinda like the movie Scanners.
5.56mm
“It doesn’t really matter. Roberts will write an argument not brought by either side to up hold this obamanation. We’re long past turning this around through the normal channels.”
It really is amazing how often the Federal court does that to justify their appointing master’s power, and whatever other edits they happen to want to impose.
Some lawyers claim there is “reasoning” behind the convoluted madness they usually call “opinions”, but of course they say you have to have a law degree just to find it. A problem that is itself a bit reminisces of the times of the original Martin Luther in his Protestant Reformation against the corruption of the Catholic church.
The only difference is we can read the plain English(not Latin) Federal Constitution and we know what they say is totally bunk.
Its not written traitor John!
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html
Haha but fellow freeper (the village Marxist) Cringing Negativism Network has been posting all week how he is actually in favor of Obamacare. He thinks it’s great law and is necessary for the ‘greater good’ of our community.
What a turd huh?
Roberts should be impeached for his decision. Impeach him and see where the cards fall. My guess is he’ll make a deal for himself by turning on some small frys.
5.56mm
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.