Why Chief Justice Roberts Made the Right Long-Term Decision With ObamaCare

Independent Journal Review ^ | June 28, 2012 | I.M. Citizen

[semantic]

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.

[CynicalBear]

Wow! It will be interesting what the states that fought to stay out of the mandate do now. That just may have been a genius move for Roberts. If all the states that fought it stay out of it the bill may be dead any way.

[bill1952]

Chief Justice Roberts actually ruled the mandate, relative to the commerce clause, was unconstitutional.

Oh BFD!! Who CARES? - Roberts could have ruled that as any part of his ruling, and STILL ruled that the mandate was unconstitutional!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, that discretion is virtually unlimited!

[Brad from Tennessee]

Without the Medicaid expansion those residents who would have been covered by it are moved into that state's exchange program where they cannot afford the rates without a heavy subsidy. This throws off the whole ObamaCare funding formula.

There are very few states, if any, whose Medicaid systems are not already stretched to the breaking point. ObamaCare works only by forcing the states to pay for most of the Medicaid expansion.

Our former governor, Bill Bredesen—a Democrat, Obama supporter, and a businessman who made millions in the managed health care industry—said ObamaCare would be a “disaster for Tennessee.” He said the law was deeply flawed because it was written by people “who don't know how health care works in the real world.”

[azishot]

..was unconstitutional because it was not passed by Congress as a tax.

That's how I see it, too. And he also said that (in essence) elections have consequences. Wow, what a brilliant man...NOT! Don't show me a pile of crap and tell me it's a rose garden.

[snowrip]

Dumbass Roberts could have killed the monster today saying the mandate was unconstitutional because it was not passed by Congress as a tax. He would have made the exact same points as he is “credited” with making today *and* killed ObamaCare at the same time.

This. Roberts is an idiot who voted communism over freedom because he didn't want the court to appear as a party-line voting institution. He's a POS, and he fucked us all.

[newnhdad]

too much wishful thinking.. He took the cowards way out and it will go down in history as one of the worst decisions in the history of the court.
This could have been ended but he punted and in effect, legislated from the bench making law out of thin air to make it work.

[Cyber Liberty]

However, they can "tax" the hell out of you if you drive a combustion engine car instead of an Obama Motors Voltswagen.

That's 100% true. And it was 100% true yesterday as well. And it was in 1789 too.

[BluH2o]

I'm not buying this BS.
In his confirmation hearing Roberts talked about the SCOTUS being umpires in a baseball, football, whatever type game. They were there to officiate but not to be part of the game. Well ... what has happened here, the officiating in the last moments of a Super Bowl, blew the call and gave the win to an undeserving team. Thank you Roberts ... you f***ed up this call big time. No parsing changes the outcome.

[rollo tomasi]

No, Roberts believes in a negative tax. If Congress votes to COMPELL an individual to purchase something, all they need to do is punish them with a tax if the individual is non-compliant.

Quit drinking this statist Flavor-aid. Roberts could have chosen to side with Alito, Thomas, Kennedy, and Scalia to destroy the power grab, but chose Ginsburg, Kagan, Sotomayer, and Breyer side in rearranging the “penalty” plus keeping all the regulations intact. The "Mediscare" provision was a given but Roberts expanded Congress' power by calling the fine/penalty a tax and foolishly running with it.

I can't believe people on this website are buying the spoiled milk Roberts is trying to sell. In the words of Scalia in regards to the tax explanation from Solicitor General Verrilli, "Extraordinary".

[dragnet2]

You got a point there puke breath?

I'd stepped out... n' just found your post....

Hey, thanks for the kind words BTW!

Upbeat....I like it!

[scooby321]

After a quiet century or so, the scope of Congress’s power “[t]o lay and collect taxes” is once again in the news. The taxing power was at issue when the Supreme Court issued a decision that President (and Chief Justice) Taft would later call the worst injury to the Court’s reputation ever, Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust, striking down the Income Tax Act of 1894. That decision was largely reversed by the 1913 enactment of the Sixteenth Amendment. Today the taxing power is one of three grounds on which the federal government defends the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, particularly the individual responsibility requirement (IRR)—the portion of the Act requiring each individual to purchase insurance or pay a penalty tax.

Roberts is right on taxation but this was not a Tax case.

[kevao]

All he reaffirmed was, yes, Congress basically has unlimited power to tax.

Is Congress' power to tax really unlimited? For example, if Congress passed a $10,000 per-gun, per-year tax on firearm ownership (effectively making gun ownership impossible for a majority of the citizenry) would that be a legitimate tax function of the Congress, a violation of the Second Amendment, or both?

[lovesdogs]

If we were not dealing with Chicago mafia I might bite. But the silly argument that the state can opt out of the medicare provisions is plain nuts. The Won will simply issue an EO telling the dept of transportation to suspend all federal hwy dollars to that state. As to the argument that Roberts gutted the Commerce Clause “go to” route of congress, why in the world did it have to be done in this round robin way? There was a direct plain and simple way that was clearly not taken.

[Steve Van Doorn]

You might like to read this. very interesting.
and thanks again for keeping a positive outlook

[JRios1968]

I’ve been saying this all day. The Roberts decision is probably a blessing in disguise, because now it forces Obozo to run for re-election defending a HUGELY unpopular tax increase for all.

It may end up being more of a gift to the GOP and Romney than an outright tossing out would have. Now all we have to hope is Romney and the party don’t manage to screw it up.

[semantic]

Give a man a fish, or teach him how to fish?

Why rely on a single person's decision, when it's actually We The People who have to make the hard choices?

Roberts simply reaffirmed the constitutional powers with regard to taxation bestowed upon Congress. I don't see why everyone is so wigged out about that.

Sure, technically, they can impose a tax to force you to eat broccoli, but because it can't be punted to a cabinet (like the DHHS), they have to do it themselves, line by line. In broad daylight, raw state power laid bare.

Well, that's straight up in-your-face tyranny, no? Look, this baby was over before most of us were born. This ruling is simply bringing matters to a head.

Politicians will either run on a platform of tax cuts, or the economy/social situation will continue to degrade until the thing literally blows.

Roberts will be credited with forcing the issue by simply applying a strict constitutional standard to the matter of taxation.

[Rational Thought]

Anyway you cut this decision, basing Obamacare as Constitutional via the Congress's ability to tax is creating language which (I don't believe) doesn't even exist in the original legislation. In other words, what we've witnessed is the Supreme’s version of legislating from the bench.

Further, what this Court has done is to put their stamp of approval on Congress lying to the citizenship (as Obamacare was never sold to the citizens as being a tax).

While I understand your point, it should be pointed out that the House controls the purse strings. Yet, here we are almost two years later with no serious effort ever made to defund this monstrosity.

Bottom line, I'd say odds are good that Obamacare isn't going away anytime soon. God help us.

[Cyber Liberty]

I can't believe people on this website are buying the spoiled milk Roberts is trying to sell. In the words of Scalia in regards to the tax explanation from Solicitor General Verrilli, "Extraordinary".

I don't like it either, but we've just been handed lemons. Time to make lemonade, I guess...

[ari-freedom]

Why do they even need the commerce clause to screw us over when they can just screw us over this way? It’s just a legal fiction. Bottom line is they get to screw us over with Obamacare.

[rollo tomasi]

Congress can't force you buy jack squat, but now can thanks to Roberts sanctioning Congressional coercion, the Congreescritters have the backdoor open. You can choose to not pay an income tax through several means, homemaker/retiree/don't make enough, etc... Jeeze, this is not complex people.