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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Whatever ‘they’ have on Roberts would make for some interesting reading.
Can’t see anything coming from the origination argument:
“...“Having become an enrolled and duly authenticated act of Congress, it is not for the court to determine whether the amendment was or was not outside the purposes of the original bill.” Rainey v.
United States, 232 U.S. 310, 317 (1914); see also United States v. Munoz-Flores, 495 U.S. 385,
410 (1990) (Scalia, J., concurring in the judgment).2”
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT
It’s hilarious to hear them argue that it’s not a tax!
It’s a huge hidden tax: in increased premiums- which tax is both collected and disbursed by exchanges and insurance agencies, and, of course, the penalties.
They are now losing their employer sponsored health plans if not having their jobs cut to part time or gone entirely. They are finding their choice of doctors or even hospitals is being limited. Their private insurance has skyrocketed in cost with ridiculous deductibles. They cannot get to the Obamacare webs site and if they do they get more sticker shock and have their private information compromised. If they say that the insurance is not worth the cost they get a little surprise from the IRS next year.
So few people are signing up that the financial failure of the Exchanges is almost assured without massive new government subsidies. A year from now Obamacare will be a heap on the ground and one would hope even the low information voters might finally have a clue. However the MSM media will, like their counter parts in North Korea, be trumpeting Obamacare's success, the triumph of the Dear Leader and blaming all of the failures on external forces like the GOP.
PS - pllttt!
Words ... Words ...Words ...Words ...Words ... BLAH BLAH BLAH ... BLAH BLAH BLAH ... BLAH BLAH BLAH ... My esteemed colleague .. BLAH BLAH BLAH ... BLAH BLAH BLAH ... Of COURSE I’ll yield time ... Words ...Words ...Words ...
I’ve thought that was Roberts’ intent since the ruling came down. “You made a mess; I’m giving you a way to fix it if you are smart enough to figure it out.”
Robert’s rewrote the law from the bench with the most specious legal gymnastics conceivable to call the unconstitutional imposition of a penalty under the Commerce Clause a tax in the first place.
If a man can stretch that far, I don’t see him having any problems doing away with the Origination clause. The Constitution means nothing to him.
Robert’s got what does mean something to him: Flattering coverage in the Slimes and the Compost.
There is also the equal protection angle. Obama has extended waivers to some Americans and not to others. The law does not apply equally. I don’t know why that hasn’t been brought up.