Posted on 06/28/2012 1:43:28 PM PDT by Whenifhow
Before you look to do harm to Chief Justice Roberts or his family, it’s important that you think carefully about the meaning – the true nature — of his ruling on Obama-care. The Left will shout that they won, that Obama-care was upheld and all the rest. Let them.
It will be a short-lived celebration.
Here’s what really occurred — payback. Yes, payback for Obama’s numerous, ill-advised and childish insults directed toward SCOTUS.
Chief Justice Roberts actually ruled the mandate, relative to the commerce clause, was unconstitutional. That’s how the Democrats got Obama-care going in the first place. This is critical. His ruling means Congress can’t compel American citizens to purchase anything. Ever. The notion is now officially and forever, unconstitutional. As it should be.
Next, he stated that, because Congress doesn’t have the ability to mandate, it must, to fund Obama-care, rely on its power to tax. Therefore, the mechanism that funds Obama-care is a tax. This is also critical. Recall back during the initial Obama-care battles, the Democrats called it a penalty, Republicans called it a tax. Democrats consistently soft sold it as a penalty. It went to vote as a penalty. Obama declared endlessly, that it was not a tax, it was a penalty. But when the Democrats argued in front of the Supreme Court, they said ‘hey, a penalty or a tax, either way’. So, Roberts gave them a tax. It is now the official law of the land — beyond word-play and silly shenanigans. Obama-care is funded by tax dollars. Democrats now must defend a tax increase to justify the Obama-care law.
Finally, he struck down as unconstitutional, the Obama-care idea that the federal government can bully states into complying by yanking their existing medicaid funding. Liberals, through Obama-care, basically said to the states — ‘comply with Obama-care or we will stop existing funding.’ Roberts ruled that is a no-no. If a state takes the money, fine, the Feds can tell the state how to run a program, but if the state refuses money, the federal government can’t penalize the state by yanking other funding. Therefore, a state can decline to participate in Obama-care without penalty. This is obviously a serious problem. Are we going to have 10, 12, 25 states not participating in “national” health-care? Suddenly, it’s not national, is it?
Ultimately, Roberts supported states rights by limiting the federal government’s coercive abilities. He ruled that the government can not force the people to purchase products or services under the commerce clause and he forced liberals to have to come clean and admit that Obama-care is funded by tax increases.
Although he didn’t guarantee Romney a win, he certainly did more than his part and should be applauded.
And he did this without creating a civil war or having bricks thrown threw his windshield. Oh, and he’ll be home in time for dinner.
Brilliant.
That's pretty small consolation, as long as the law is in effect.
What this says is that the government can force any actions they want through the power of taxation. And there's no way to say that this isn't a win for tyranny.
The left will say Roberts is there hero, UNTIL, obama wants to do something that Roberts has just limited. Wait until they wake up and realize that Roberts skunked them. Roberts agreed with every argument the conservatives brought up and put it those agreements for conservatives in his findings.
Consider this.
Ezra Klein: The Political Genius of John Roberts
By voting with the liberals to uphold the Affordable Care Act, Roberts has put himself above partisan reproach. No one can accuse Roberts of ruling as a movement conservative. He’s made himself bulletproof against insinuations that he’s animated by party allegiances.
But by voting with the conservatives on every major legal question before the court, he nevertheless furthered the major conservative projects before the court — namely, imposing limits on federal power. And by securing his own reputation for impartiality, he made his own advocacy in those areas much more effective. If, in the future, Roberts leads the court in cases that more radically constrain the federal government’s power to regulate interstate commerce, today’s decision will help insulate him from criticism. And he did it while rendering a decision that Democrats are applauding.
I am a lawyer. In thirty years of practice I have learned not to emote about things, but to think through them and look a few steps ahead.
Under Roberts’ reasoning there is no longer a need for a Supreme Court.
They all ready have a tax on all your phones incl cell phones
there is a sales tax on electricity in case you have not looked lately
There is a tax on your internet allready
the citys charge you for water with there tax
Gas has 54 cents a gallon tax on it
diesel has 54 cent tax on it
LNG has a 8% sales tax on it
Roberts pulled off a great shot. If a state refuses to join they dont have to get it???? so the same 27 states that appealed to the SC opt out of the plan that makes it useless....Roberts is a genius by the way since its a tax only the House can fund it so they defund it like what was done to Regan on Nicaragua or like Vietnam was underfunded.....
Occam’s razor:”other things being equal, a simpler explanation is better than a more complex one.”
The Roberts decision is so complex as to defy reason. One principle of law is what would a reasonable man expect? There is no such standard in this decision. Rather, there is a twisted, convoluted Machiavellian path from A to B that no reasonable person would accept. If something is repeatedly deemed not a tax, by what stretch of the imagination is it suddenly a tax?
Only in a coward’s mind will you find such a connection. John Roberts, see the traitor’s face in the mirror and sleep lightly, if you sleep at all.
God Bless FreeRepublic........
I was very upset this morning, but since then, reviewing articles like this by smart folks....I feel great and ready to vote this scumbag out and hairy harry ried to the back bench....
AND don’t forget what else Roberts knew: Romney will probably win, the senate will go GOP and the taxes that support bambi care were passed with 51 votes and can be killed the same way.......no money no bambi care
The commerce clause ruling was 5-4. When Zero is relected, he will get 1-2 more justices. 3-6 after that.
Roberts rewrote the penalty provisions to be taxes. Judges can’t rewrite laws. He murdered the Constitution today.
They already tax behavior. Consider the exorbitant taxes on a pack of smokes.
The financial viability of Obamacare is reliant on the young and healthy purchasing health insurance. If the tax for not purchasing health insurance is not at least as high as the cost of purchasing health insurance, the program cannot be funded.
I can’t wait to see the reaction of all the young numbskull Obama supporters who are going to have the IRS sicced on them because they don’t have health insurance.
Any liberal whose employer drops their health coverage and tells them “you’re on your own now - enjoy Obamacare” has not right to complain. I hope they enjoy paying $1,000+ a month for family health coverage.
I hope you’re right but considering congress no longer feels the need to be constrained by a budget and I don’t see them defunding anything. And yes, I understand that we already have taxes attached to our bills but here were talking about taxes that may soon be larger than the service charge.
So when did Obama change from citing the Interstate Commerce clause to say it is a tax? Answer, Obama didn't change his argument. Roberts like an activist judge did in his opinion. Here's an excerpt from last year's Federal court judgment on ObamaCare where it was found to be in violation of Constitution because it was an overreach by Obama stating that the Commerce Clause gave him the authority.
Obama health care overhaul struck down by Pensacola, Florida federal judge
"The central issue remains the constitutionality of the law's core requirement that Americans carry health insurance except in cases of financial hardship. Starting in 2014, those who cannot show they are covered by an employer, government program or their own policy will face fines from the IRS.
Opponents say a federal requirement that individuals obtain a specific service — a costly one in the case of health insurance — is unprecedented and oversteps the authority the Constitution gives Congress to regulate interstate commerce.
Vinson agreed that lawmakers lack the power to penalize citizens for not doing something. He compared the provision to requiring people to eat healthful food.
"Congress could require that people buy and consume broccoli at regular intervals," he wrote, "Not only because the required purchases will positively impact interstate commerce, but also because people who eat healthier tend to be healthier and are thus more productive and put less of a strain on the health care system." ...."
-end snip-
Only if Patriots figure-out ways to undo this will Roberts look good...in spite of himself. Until then, Roberts screwed the pooch.
bttt
Which means I can be forced to purchase drugs my body rejects and be forced to take them, as it is to treat a disease I have. My PCP would love that. I can’t take any cholesterol drugs, they damage muscles..and I have Fibromyalgia and Peripheral Neuropathy both muscle destroying diseases + a tad of cholesterol he considers to high, and I ignore as genetic and eat reasonable.
Well this CELT US CITIZEN does not function to the tune of the feds..I send many RX’s back as rejected for side effects now. And I know how to flush the toilet on what I don’t want to take.
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.