Obamacare’s doom (George Will)

Washington Post ^ | May 2, 2014 | By George Will

[okie01]

The question will hinge on whether or not the "shared responsibility payment" is, in fact, a tax.

Chief Justice determined that it was, thereby justifying his vote with the majority that the ACA was constitutional.

But the court did not share in this determination. While Roberts thus joined in the majority opinion, nobody joined in Roberts' opinion that the "shared responsibility payment" was a tax.

Accordingly, in order for the 1st Circuit to decide Sissel in favor of the plaintiff, the majority must determine -- independently of any higher court opinion -- that the "shared responsibility payment" is a tax. And, then, they must decide that the measure did not originate in the House -- even though it has been a common practice for the Senate to pass re-written legislation in the husk of a House bill.

Who knows what they'll decide -- but it's certainly not an open and shut case.

[PapaNew]

Somehow, through all of this, I think God is going to work this out in our behalf. I have reasons for thinking this, but I have faith that Obamakill and Socialism will go down and America will rise again for awhile - maybe even a few decades.

[BuckeyeTexan]

While Roberts thus joined in the majority opinion, nobody joined in Roberts' opinion that the "shared responsibility payment" was a tax.

That's incorrect. The shared responsibility payment was upheld as a tax by a 5-4 vote in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius:

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Part III–C, concluding that the individual mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s power under the Taxing Clause.

ROBERTS, C. J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, and III–C, in which GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined;

Accordingly, in order for the 1st Circuit to decide Sissel in favor of the plaintiff, the majority must determine -- independently of any higher court opinion -- that the "shared responsibility payment" is a tax.

That's incorrect. SCOTUS ruled that it is a tax in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius and that opinion is binding upon the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia; they don't get to reconsider that particular legal question.

[FredZarguna]

I’ll make a bet that if the DC Court upholds the law, SCOTUS will not hear it, and if it overturns the law, they will.

[FredZarguna]

Unfortunately, the problem is not Barack 0bama, nor is it five judges on the Supreme Court, and it never, ever was.

The problem is with 60 million enfranchised adults who voted him into the Presidency. They are not simply going to disappear; their objection to 0bamacare is the same as their objection to the Soviet Union. They think the principle is sound and has simply not yet been correctly implemented.

Had Hillary won in 2008, there would be no difference to the effects currently being seen. The same bureaucracy would exist. The same apparat would exist. The same nomeklatura would exist. The same families [the Ickes, the Blumenthals, ...] would still be appointed to run everything [both families had fixers in Johnson's administration, and before that, in FDR's.]

But most importantly, the same dependency class -- which continues to grow -- would still exist as well.

[okie01]

Appreciate the response and clarification.

I was under the impression that Roberts' opinion that the "shared responsibility payment" constituted a tax was an "advisory opinion" and wasn't officially shared by any of the other justices.

[Usagi_yo]

I understand, the courts are always hesitant to give somebody a ‘second bite’ at the apple.

[Salvation]

You are probably right. Do you think the SCOTUS will go limp again?

[FredZarguna]

If you believe the "John Robert's is a supergenius who planted this bomb deliberately" crowd, then the whole thing was a setup and they'll now overturn 0bamacare in its entirety.

Personally, as I read Roberts' decision it is exactly the same kind of tomfoolery that got us Griswold vs. Connecticut, which in turn led to Roe vs. Wade. That is to say, it isn't so much legal reasoning as it is a number of disjointed, more-or-less silly observations intended to get the result the majority wanted: that 0'care was Constitutional.

So yeah... squishiness is my take...

[PapaNew]

The problem is with 60 million enfranchised adults who voted him into the Presidency.

Bingo. A lot of folks don't get that.

They are not simply going to disappear; their objection to 0bamacare is the same as their objection to the Soviet Union. They think the principle is sound and has simply not yet been correctly implemented.

Double bingo. There's no right way to do the wrong thing.

the same dependency class -- which continues to grow -- would still exist as well.

But bigger than all of this is that same Divine Providence that moved across the face of the dark deep in Genesis 1:2 and across our land from the 1500's through the 1800's until now. I have a hope and a dream that He will move again today to raise our country back up.

[PapaNew]

If the judicial, legislative, and executive branches of the government continue to ignore and violate the Constitution, either or both of two things will happen.

1) the Convention of States proposed by the Citizens for Self-Governance will succeed in passing amendments forcing a huge cut in government, forcing things like Obamakill to essentially go away, AND/OR

2) Some states, like Texas, will begin nullifying clearly unconstitutional law and make moves toward financial independence from the feds.

Where it goes from there is anybody's guess, but it wouldn't be long before independent states that embraced constitutional limited government and the free market at the state level would become stronger financially that the feds. The feds would probably need to start borrowing from them.

[Graewoulf]

” - - - “All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; - - - “

It looks like Doormat Speaker Boehner may soon be forced again, (against his steel sieve will), to appoint ANOTHER House Special Prosecutor Committee.

However, Boehner may not want to protect his turf, he has always been wimpy and very weepy about obeying the US Constitution - - - .

[X-spurt]

It won’t happen in a Lower Court for sure. I just think that Roberts outsmarted the liberals in a way to make it look like they got a free pass.

Maybe I’m wrong about Roberts’s subterfuge, but his suddenly turning left with too cushy a freeby for the left was just too convenient by a factor of about a thousand and it did not reflect his previous years on the Bench.

This is a serious game of chess, not checkers. Most moves are not outwardly obvious from the sidelines.

[BuckeyeTexan]

You’re very welcome. To further clarify, note that Federal courts cannot issue advisory opinions because of the Constitution’s case-or-controversy requirement.

[Mears]

bfl

[zeestephen]

Thanks.

That’s an excellent summary.

[kvanbrunt2]

it’s old news. There is a corrupt cabal running the government. needs to end, i don’t know how.

[PapaNew]

Some states, like Texas, will begin nullifying clearly unconstitutional law

Here we go - just posted on FR

Texas Is Permanently Shutting Abortion Clinics and the Supreme Court Can't Do Anything About It

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3152238/posts