Posted on 06/28/2012 3:46:37 PM PDT by neverdem
In today’s deeply disappointing decision on Obamacare, a majority of the Supreme Court actually got the Constitution mostly right. The Commerce Clause — the part of the Constitution that grants Congress the authority to regulate commerce among the states — does not authorize the federal government to force Americans to buy health insurance. The Court, by a 5–4 margin, refused to join all the august legal experts who insisted that of course it granted that authorization, that only yahoos and Republican partisans could possibly doubt it. It then pretended that this requirement is constitutional anyway, because it is merely an application of the taxing authority. Rarely has the maxim that the power to tax is the power to destroy been so apt, a portion of liberty being the direct object in this case.
What the Court has done is not so much to declare the mandate constitutional as to declare that it is not a mandate at all, any more than the mortgage-interest deduction in the tax code is a mandate to buy a house. Congress would almost surely have been within its constitutional powers to tax the uninsured more than the insured. Very few people doubt that it could, for example, create a tax credit for the purchase of insurance, which would have precisely that effect. But Obamacare, as written, does more than that. The law repeatedly speaks in terms of a “requirement” to buy insurance, it says that individuals “shall” buy it, and it levies a “penalty” on those who refuse. As the conservative dissent points out, these are the hallmarks of a “regulatory penalty, not a tax.”
The law as written also cuts off all federal Medicaid funds for states that decline to expand the program in the ways the lawmakers sought. A majority of the Court, including two of the liberals, found this cut-off unconstitutionally coercive on the states. The Court’s solution was not to invalidate the law or the Medicaid expansion, but to rule that only the extra federal funds devoted to the expansion could be cut off. As the dissenters rightly point out, this solution rewrites the law — and arbitrarily, since Congress could have avoided the constitutional problem in many other ways.
The dissent acknowledges that if an ambiguous law can be read in a way that renders it constitutional, it should be. It distinguishes, though, between construing a law charitably and rewriting it. The latter is what Chief Justice John Roberts has done. If Roberts believes that this tactic avoids damage to the Constitution because it does not stretch the Commerce Clause to justify a mandate, he is mistaken. The Constitution does not give the Court the power to rewrite statutes, and Roberts and his colleagues have therefore done violence to it. If the law has been rendered less constitutionally obnoxious, the Court has rendered itself more so. Chief Justice Roberts cannot justly take pride in this legacy.
The Court has failed to do its duty. Conservatives should not follow its example — which is what they would do if they now gave up the fight against Obamacare. The law, as rewritten by judges, remains incompatible with the country’s tradition of limited government, the future strength of our health-care system, and the nation’s solvency. We are not among those who are convinced that we will be stuck with it forever if the next election goes wrong: The law is also so poorly structured that we think it may well unravel even if put fully into effect. But we would prefer not to take the risk.
It now falls to the Republicans, and especially to Mitt Romney, to make the case for the repeal of the law and for its replacement by something better than either it or the health-care policies that preceded it. Instead of trusting experts to use the federal government’s purchasing power to drive efficiency throughout the health sector — the vain hope of Obamacare’s Medicare-cutting board — they should replace Medicare with a new system in which individuals have incentives to get value for their dollar. Instead of having Washington establish a cartel for the insurance industry, they should give individuals tax credits and the ability to purchase insurance across state lines. Instead of further centralizing the health-care system, in short, they should give individuals more control over their insurance.
Opponents should take heart: The law remains unpopular. Let the president and his partisans ring their bells today, and let us work to make sure that they are wringing their hands come November.
We haven't heard the slogan, "IMPEACH THE CHIEF JUDTICE" since Earl Warren's tenure. Guess its time to renew the cry.
This is convoluted and insane, but we now live with it. Thank you Roberts you JackA$$!
More crap in this article.
It’s ‘Robertscare’ now. He bought it. He owns it.
They don’t have to call it a tax. Call it a penalty and Roberts will pretend it is a tax!
Which is why I neither supported, nor voted for Duh-bya.
Like his daddy before him, he never met a big-government snake oil he didn't... LOVE!
The constitution has been betrayed. The rule of law has been betrayed. The American people have been lied to and betrayed. The Republic has not been kept. A dangerous world is one step closer to the end of all freedom. Limitless government is forcing its power and reach to control every aspect of our lives. Well everyone one of you in government can just kiss my a$$.
“Taking away the commence clause crutch is going to make it very difficult for congress to justify the constitutionally of a large portion of the laws and regs that come out of Washington.”
naa Congress will call it under commerce clause and the SC will call it a tax for them and make everything work out.
What does obama have on roberts?
“They don’t have to call it a tax. Call it a penalty and Roberts will pretend it is a tax!”
There are tens of thousands of federal laws and regulations on the books today based on the commerce clause. Things that have nothing to do with interstate commerce...
Conservatives -- and especially Republicans -- have no reason to be disappointed in a ruling that was handed down by a Supreme Court justice who was nominated by a guy who would have been 100% on board with the ruling.
“There are tens of thousands of federal laws and regulations on the books today based on the commerce clause. Things that have nothing to do with interstate commerce...”
I’d be happier if those laws were repealed by this ruling but they’re not.
I can think of a few reasons why Judge Roberts decided as he did.
First, he said that, it’s not the role of the Supreme Court to protect the people from the consequences of the political decisions which the people make. In that sense, he’s punishing the people for voting in the people who created and voted for Obamacare. (Never mind that, the rest of the people who didn’t vote for the commiecrats, are also being punished). In that sense, Roberts might be thinking the way I feel, which is, that the people won’t learn the tough lessons of socialism, until they find themselves in deep depression and desperation, or like a Greece.
Then, Judge Roberts may be forcing Obama and the democrats to have to defend Obamacare and their tax and spend policies, during this coming election, and if the people are smart and notice the dangers the country is headed towards, then Obama will be voted out, and many other democrats will lose their seats.
Also, keeping Obamacare as an election issue, is one way to help replace Obama, and, Roberts might be feeling confident that, with a republican congress and a “republican” president, that Obamacare will be repealed, and therefore, still meeting the death it well deserved.
So, Roberts might have been planning to kill two birds with one stone, Obama and Obamacare, while teaching the people a well-deserved lesson that stupidity deserves.
I think he frequents the same bathhouse that he and Rahm go to.
Once again, he voted AGAINST Scalia, and voted WITH Kagan. There is no other spin than that.
never trust judges...
throw the swine out...
I just wish the SC was on the side of the people...but its not...
I want to stay and fight for this country, and frankly don't know of any other place to go except maybe Canada....but geesh...its getting hard to be a patriot...
I know....its hard to learn to be a bastard but what are ya going to do?
I agree roberts should rot in hell! It was totally despicable what he did, siding with four morons and being a judicial activist from the bench. He now has cast his lot with the commie side of the court and he deserves to be spat upon. The poor commie roberts was “concerned” about the partisan court in his name so he decides to punish Americans.
Unbelievable!
Roberts is a worthless liberal that Bush put on the court. This SOB looked for a way to make Commiecare work. When Bush nominated this smirking creep to the US Supreme Court, and as the CHIEF JUSTICE to boot, over more senior people like Alito and Scalia, I started doing some background investigation on this unknown judge. I found out he was a junior judge, having no experience whatsover to qualify him for the highest court in the land. I also found out that when he was a practicing lawyer he represented some sdomites who took their case to the Supreme Court. That’s right, Roberts was a lawyer that took the side of the immoral degenerates. This is the second time this year he has sided with the liberals in a ruling. The other one was on immigration this year. So when the Roberts fans try to explain anyway this betrayal, just remember this creep has always been a liberal and his true colors are coming out now.
Also saying the Stolen Valor Act is unconstitutional overrides Congress who approved it under Bush with an overwhelming majority. So now I think I’ll buy me a cop uniform and pretend to be cop. I’ll stop women and tell them to give it up or they are going to jail. I’ll show the girl my medal of honor I won during the Tet Offensive.
Afterall it’s my free speech and I have a right to lie about anything I want to lie about it.
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.