Skip to comments.Actually, Justice Roberts Demolished Obama In His Supreme Court Ruling
Posted on 06/28/2012 9:09:26 PM PDT by little jeremiah
....But while Roberts may have saved Obama's signature domestic legislation and perhaps his reelection campaign by siding with the court's liberal wing, he actually did it in spite of Obama, not because of him.
Roberts' opened his opinion today by declaring, unequivocally, that the individual mandate which requires people to buy insurance or pay a penalty is not constitutional under the Commerce Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clause. It's a direct shot at the Obama administration's defense of the law's constitutionality, which largely relied on those two clauses, which give Congress the power to regulate commerce and to enact provisions that are necessary to carry out its laws, respectively.
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
The Supreme Godfather Court:
Either your Money or your Freedom will be on that Health Care Insurance Policy.
Yes, that is one of the "silver linings" described in this blog piece:
Just 51 votes in the Senate can put Obamacare on hold for ten years.
I wonder if Roberts considered that.
We let perfection be the enemy of the good so we have lost and shall continue to lose the culture wars.
Libs take the long view and are happy to move the ball just one yard each year.
We reject such small measures as having yielded the other 99 yards to the enemy.
A great man once said:
“Compromise” was a dirty word to them and they wouldn’t face the fact that we couldn’t get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don’t get it all, some said, don’t take anything.”
“if we remain steadfast and vocal, we can influence his Presidency should he win.”
I’ve given up any hope that “we the people” have any say in our own governance anymore.
The federal government is corrupt, anachronistic and needs to be dismantled by the states. It no longer serves the people. It causes the people to serve it.
We lost the republic the founders died to give us today.
Now that was funny :)
Absolutely correct. Roberts essentially said, "The People can't be made slaves under the Commerce Clause, but they always have been subject to being made Slaves under the power of federal taxation" and pretty much left it at that. What good does gutting the Commerce Clause do if the same Tyrannical Power appears under a different shell called "taxation.?"
It's a total shell game, a punt, and our backs are truly against the wall at this point. All that is left is to RESIST while we attempt to repeal.
I simply can't believe that Roberts is saying "sorry, the Constitution is inadequate to stop Tyranny along the lines of what 0bama is imposing", because if he is saying that, it is indeed time for either a Constitutional Amendment to address this loophole, or Revolution, if you know what I mean and I think you do.
I suppose everybody should give a chance for November to come and go, to see if this Tyranny is repudiated electorally, because if it isn't, then it's definitely rock and roll time. Eventually, there will be another Lexington/Concord. And even if it IS repudiated, the power will still ostensibly be there, awaiting some future Tyrannical President and/or Congress.
I just don't understand how any Patriotic American could construe the Constitution to allow this sort of power. It renders Commerce Clause concerns trivial!
Our backs are against the wall.
Funny, but true...
From your link:
“Congress cannot compel you to purchase insurance; it can only compel you to pay a non-extreme, non-coercive tax if you wish not to purchase insurance.”
But here’s the problem: if congress cannot compel you to purchase insurance, how can they compel you to pay a tax for refusing to purchase insurance???
Isn’t the latter a form of compulsion???????
This ruling is utterly ridiculous!
I think Grace Wyler needs to have her head examined. Barry is saying demolish me some more.
I think Grace Wyler needs to have her head examined. Barry is saying demolish me some more.
It will be on the "honor system". ;o)
Does anyone seriously think that a measly hundred bucks from a non-complier is going to be worth the billions it will have to take to track down and force compliance? There is a MUCH, much bigger and sinister plan behind all this than "we just don't want 50 million people to be without health care." Most of us ALWAYS knew that was a false flag. I honestly don't think it will make a huge difference in the long run whether Romney or Obama is elected. Of course, I will do all I can to ensure Obama is NOT reelected, but I wonder if the road we are on is already too far traveled down to turn us around and go back in the right direction.
If the cause is unconstitutional, how is the consequence then constitutional?
Outstanding, my friend! That is the most well-reasoned argument I've seen against Roberts' ruling today. Please consider posting it as a separate thread. It's too good not to share with the whole forum.
You've just punched a hole in this thing big enough to send it crashing to the ground.
This is an absolutely ridiculous ruling and no one should obey this law. No one! Lets see them try to put more than half of the people in this country in prison!
I do believe you have just read the future of this thing. The Constitution didn't fail today, and evil did not win. A blatantly unjust law cannot be enforced, except by direct point of a gun. They do not have the will (or enough guns) to do that, so the ruling will go unenforced. The people will not abide by it, so help me.
Roberts didn't hurt the people or the Constitution today. He effectively just de-legitimized the high court.
What nonsense. Where's the threat? Ginsberg resigns and is replaced by a younger version of herself? If such absurd chatroom chatter were correct Roberts would need to recuse himself from all further hearings on account of being an imbecile.
As long as we stand mute, and say nothing, then I agree. Of the several partners mentioned in our Constitution, The People are the only ones not fully exercising their rights, as I see it.
The time for that to change is obviously long overdue. Perhaps today's SC ruling will finally compel millions to step up and fight back like our forefathers did. If we don't, the next egregious over-reach by our government will be even worse.
You said it best in post 142. If the mandate is unconstitutional, then how can you be penalized with a 'tax' for not participating in the government's health care scheme?
What in the Constitution gives the Chief Justice the authority to grant Congress the unlimited power to tax? Answer: nothing.
People are going to revolt over that simple reasoning.
We’re here because of a complacent constituency; one that relied on the votes of others, and ultimately 5 jackwagons in black robes. No, I’m not placing my faith in Romney.
It seems to me that we can avert the ultimate remedy by making the proper investments in getting out the vote, not only for this November, but for the many years that follow. Can we at least do that?
It’s going to take a couple of decades to fix this... BFD. This ain’t nothing compared to the Revolutionary or Civil Wars. In comparison, the sense of defeatism expressed here is embarrassing.
Of course it is.
It may turn out to be more important to overturn yesterday's USSC ruling than to overturn Obamacare.
And the Dodgers outhit the Mets tonight but it didn’t matter. The Mets won the game.
It is not any tax that the Constitution permits.
Roberts also screwed Romney, who called his Massachussets mandate (tax) a “fee, not a tax.” Now we know it was a tax and Obama will point this out in their debates:
Romney: Mr. Obama wants to tax the middle class.
Obama: You taxed the middle class as governor.
Romney: Uh. Oh yeah. Sorry.
I'm in full agreement with that, and with resisting the tyrannical beast with everything we've got.
Wait til Americans start getting hit with the 'tax' for not playing the Socialist health care game. There's going to be mass resistance like you've never seen in this country.
I also hope that Boehner does hold a new vote on Obamacare in the House. Make the Democrats in the Senate vote for laying a tax on the people for simply existing, during the midst of an economic disaster.
I really don’t think that Obama gives a rat’s ass how he gets to take over the US health care system, so long as he gets to take it over. Whether it’s called a tax, a penalty, or unicorn turds, what matters is that he got what he wanted and Roberts handed it to him.
Yep.. get this law repealed and another passed that directly addresses that taxation issue.
Kennedy did. He said the entire law was "un-Constitutional" and Scalia, Thomas, and Alito agreed. Roberts made new law, along with the libs on the court.
>> I also hope that Boehner does hold a new vote on Obamacare in the House
Hell, yeah. Some opportunity for Boehner. Hopefully he’ll follow through.
WHat John Roberts did was give the us federal government unlimited power.
They can make us do whatever the hell they want, and they are sick, twisted, evil people.
It has been that way for a while. The mask is off, and all pretense otherwise is gone now. In a way, that is better. It brings us back to the truth of Reagan, which for over two decades has been muffled and hidden by neocon Republicans:
Government is not the solution. Government is the problem.
Eunuchs don’t breed, and Boehner won’t fight.
Roberts has some type of health issue, controlled seizures with medication. Don't know the details, but I wonder if that influenced his decision?
Bingo Dave!! Roberts eviscerated the “Commerce Clause” excuse for generations to come and set the stage for repeal this “tax” by a simple 51 vote majority in the Senate as was used to pass it to start with! It is now up to us to get those majorities in order to kill the entire issue without future challenges!!
As nice as it would be to have the Commerce Clause rolled back to its correct interpretation, I’ll believe it when I see it.
I expect what we’ll see is the worst of both worlds: the Commerce Clause AND the new wrinkle on “taxing power” being used to justify expansions of federal power.
Liberals absolutely love John Roberts. He’s the new media lib plaything like John McCain.
Lipstick meets pig. Here, we may have a case of more lipstick than pig.
” The fate of Obama Care is now firmly in the hands of the electorate”
Considering the fact that this is the same electorate that put obama in office in the first place, that isn’t a comforting thought.
Curious why you didn't mention Kennedy, the author of the dissent.
That aside, Roberts and his liberal co-horts wrote new law into the ACA by calling a fine a tax.
Failed logic, there are 2 parts,
1. The individual mandate requires people to buy insurance
2. The penalty is to pay a tax
It was better when it was still a mere “penalty.”
Not since Roe v Wade has the SCOTUS screwed up so bad that countless lives have and will be destroyed.
Roberts is the devil.
There’s no fixing this on fine points, like whether a tax must go into effect to be challenged.
The libs won and they will quickly move on — to a new Constitutional Convention.
Mark my words.
Because the majority has declared it a tax bill, it now becomes immune to a filibuster. All that is required for repeal is a simple majority in both houses and the President's signature. The problem here will be whether Republicans will actually vote to repeal once they take control of the Senate in January.
Whatever. His actions killed us.
Try explaining this to all of the businesses that are going to have to close, all of the resulting unemployed and all of the bankrupted families who can't afford the "largest tax increase in the history of mankind".
F* him, he's killed us...
” Cant he (Roberts) just come up with a straight, non-nuanced decision based upon the principles of the US Constitution? “
NO !!!! everything inside the boundry of DC is beyond corrupt
I’m sorry, LJ, but Roberts did not injure Obama at all today.
Today’s decision gave Obama ObamaCare. It also gave it to America.
Worse, the legislation was specifically written as a mandate, and in order to save it, Roberts said that it was written as a tax.
He created a fix out of clean air. That’s the worst that happened today. The Court is now on record with a precedent that if you can change a word or two in any legislation, then go ahead and do it. They should have changed the wording of the stolen valor act, too. They should have changed words in the Arizona law. But they didn’t.
They only changed words in the healthcare law.
Now WE are funding abortion.
“I will remember that it’s my job to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat.”
— John Roberts, 2005.
“I REFUSE TO PLAY ALONG”
all taxes are voluntary, Sheehan refuses to pay her taxes as an objector and hasn’t filed or paid since 2005 and is still out and walking around.
CJ Roberts applied two levels of criteria to decide whether or not the SCOTUS could review Obamacare as a “tax.” Limits imposed by Congress in laws, like the Anti-Injunction Act (AJA), are applied literally. Congress called it a “penalty,” but the AJA specifically applied only to a “tax.” Since it wasn't called a “tax,” the Anti-Injunction Act can't apply.
Constitutional limits, on the other hand, require a much higher level of analysis that cannot be restrained by simple legislative acts or terminology. If the constitution permits taxes on income, for example, anything that's effectively an income tax has to be treated (constitutionally) as such even if Congress calls it something else. I'm not saying CJ Roberts is right, it just appears he believes the constitution cuts to the heart of an issue, while law is taken at face value.
He makes the point it doesn't matter if Congress calls something a penalty if it more accurately fits the description of a tax. Alternately, something isn't a penalty if doesn't met the criteria of a penalty from previous rulings (regardless of what Congress calls it).
The four liberal justices didn't surprise. They ruled the Commerce Clause pretty much lets the federal government do anything. The four conservative justices also didn't surprise. They took Obamacare at face value. If Congress called the mandate a penalty, for example, the four justices treated it as such.
CJ Roberts seems driven by something that doesn't fall into either conservative or liberal definitions (trying to find the right words to describe him). He tried to determine whether the law's effect was constitutional and did not take it at face value like the other justices. That could work for us or against us depending on the case.
I think the mandate could be challenged again on the grounds that it's effectively an income tax (for constitutionality purposes), but it didn't originate in the House. I don't believe that particular issue was addressed. The dissenters treated it as a penalty, and the libs thought it was regulating commerce. Only CJ Roberts seemed keen on making it a tax, and he can't ignore the strict constitutional standards he's applied here if he's consistent.
BTW, Congress could have simply raised taxes and given a rebate for having private health insurance. Wouldn't that be constitutional? I think so. They haven't traditionally assigned tax increases for not doing something, but CJ Roberts is probably right Congress can do nearly anything it wants with income. As we know, The 16th Amendment is pretty broad.
Does anybody think ANY Democrat Senator, Congressman, or Obama will even want to be anywhere near the campaign trail this fall with this Tax Monster draped around their neck?
If the Pubbies don’t manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory yet again...we’re talking 70 senators!!!
Personally, I wouldn't have went through all the legal wranglings Robert did to try and determine constitutionality. I would have taken Congress at its word. In other words, they said the mandate was a penalty and treated it as such. However, I see Roberts’ point that previous SCOTUS rulings have defined certain elements that are required for something to be, in fact, a penalty, and that criteria doesn't fit the mandate.
Can Congress encourage certain behaviors by giving income tax breaks? Apparently it can. It certainly does. Could it do the opposite, assign a higher tax rate to someone for not doing something it wants? I'm trying to think of an instance like that, but I'm drawing a blank. Nevertheless, there's a very small distinction in my opinion between giving out tax breaks based on behavior and assigning tax increases for same.
That blasted 16th Amendment was written so poorly it pretty much allows the federal government to do whatever it wants with our incomes. I think we need some constitutional amendments to reign in the madness.
I decided today to revoke my pledge to never vote for Romney. I will hold my nose (and other parts) and vote for the wimp party, one more time. Obama and his (Obamacare) legacy MUST BE STOPPED!!!
Which would I prefer Obama nominated Supreme Court Justices or Romney nominated Supreme Court Justices?
Bush may have given us Roberts, but he also gave us Alito.
Would Obama give us an Alito?
Another such victory and we will be finished.
But that's no reason to celebrate, because the rest of the ruling says that they don't matter anyway, and that Congress has essentially unlimited power to compel anyone to do anything, as long as the noncompliance penalty is a "tax".
Congress can stop the decades-long "commerce clause" tap dance now and simply ram whatever they want through by making the penalties "taxes/fines" rather than jail time. But if you accumulate enough taxes that you can't pay them, what happens in the end anyway?
Who needs an "assault weapons ban"? We'll just levy a $10,000 annual tax on "assault weapons"! The ones who can afford to pay that are the ones we'd generally exempt anyway! You didn't separate your recyclables out of your trash? That's a $1,000 tax per offense. Every house is required to have solar panels, or pay $2,500 a year in extra tax.
And so on, and so on...
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.