Posted on 07/01/2012 7:29:54 AM PDT by Kaslin
I would caution my fellow conservatives on the frustration they may be enticed to express at Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. It is unwarranted, and it is unwise.
The reason I state such is that it is my firm belief that the Roberts' decision on the Obamacare mandate will without question bring about ultimate doom to the government control of healthcare, and through the best means possible--not judicial activism--but through the democratic process.
In boxing terminology no one has pulled a "rope-a-dope" this effective since Muhammad Ali himself. In doing so, it is clear that John Roberts duped the liberal wing of the Supreme Court into agreeing with him on calling out President Obama as legislatively dishonest, while assisting the conservative wing of the court into dismantling punitive measures against the states, and greatly limiting the ability of the legislature to use the powers of the commerce clause of the constitution to quietly take over people's lives.
Yes, conservative friends there are many silver linings in Thursday's odd verdict but let me assert merely four here:
1. Obamacare has been outed--by the authoritative voice of the nation's highest court-as a fraud. Yes the administration pitched it as a "penalty," as something that would not carry with it the burdensome label and politically repulsive thought of a tax. But Chief Justice Roberts seduced the four Obama supporters on the bench into agreeing that President Obama had in fact lied to the nation all through his 2008 campaign. Promising tax-cuts for 95% of the nation (a promise wrapped in a lie all its own), he has instead raised taxes--primarily on middle class families to the tune of $1.7 trillion dollars for the next decade. (And THAT'S just the starting point!) A tax, and nothing but a tax, is the only way the mandate funding could be understood in order for President Obama's only domestic initiative to survive. So a tax it is...
2. The commerce clause has been severely restricted. Roberts sided with the conservative wing of the court in asserting rightly that the Congress can't wander into a grey area of regulation, by attempting to force behavior of the population through manipulation of the commerce clause. The court rightly examined and asserted that the legislature has no right to legislate what people choose not to do. Punishments can not be levied on inaction. And if they attempt to do so, they must come in the form of a tax that the nation has recourse to change and remove through the electoral process.
3. The true cost to America's middle class was unveiled. Hiking taxes by close to $5 billion, with an additional $5 billion in medicare cuts, didn't close the loophole, no matter how much President Obama attempted to argue that it would. In reality the middle class families of America--already under assault by a horrible economy with limited prospects of improvement--will be forced to fork over another $1.7 trillion in forward looking deficits. Yes the families who earn $60-$90,000 per year will be the ones who make too much to qualify for the low income freebies, and not be making enough to be able to afford plans that they can buy in to. It will be these families who will be punitively crunched with this penalizing tax called Obamacare, and the Roberts' decision has removed the veil to allow this to be seen.
4. Perhaps the most important thing of all, the Roberts' decision will likely hand Governor Mitt Romney a 40 state victory in the upcoming elections. The Tea Party has been reignited. Grassroots groups have reawakened. And the roar of 2010 will be a distant memory when the voters take Governor Romney's advice and change Obamacare by removing President Obama.
To be very candid, I was more worried about the political outcomes of the case, had the justices thrown out the law all together in essence neutralizing one of the most glaring differences between the two sets of solutions being offered in this election cycle.
Instead we've been given an HD-retina-screen level upgrade in seeing the differences starkly and in greater contrast.
Re-elect President Obama and it will be the full implementation of the biggest small-business-killer ever invented by the Congress--Obamacare. Choose another path and you will set a course for the complete repeal of Obamacare, and the beginning of a new day for small business owners across the nation.
The choice is simple.
And John Roberts was the secret weapon that made it all happen, by outthinking everybody, and staying true to the Constitution.
Overall, not a bad outcome!
“More intellectual masturbation.”
Agreed. It either was or was not constitutional AS WRITTEN and passed by Congress, as signed by the Potus.
Roberts is a phuque up. Arizona immigration, and then this mess.
What a load of crap, except for the C base being energized. Roberts had no reason or rationale to rewrite the statute to call the mandate a tax other than he wanted to do it. “Protect the integrity of the court??” Hogwash.
I think he was compromised. Eric Holder runs the FBI and I don't think John Roberts is free from secrets. Supreme Court justices are just as fallible as the rest of us and I believe that Obama and his Chicago minions had the goods on Roberts. If in fact this decision was extorted out of him, then Obama and company probably included an early resignation as part of the deal to bury whatever they had on him.
If Roberts resigns in September, look for HRC to be appointed to replace him. And if HRC is appointed, don't expect any fillibuster on the nomination from McConnell.
Obama and his minions play dirty. They are as corrupt as Al Capone ever dreamed of being. The only thing that adequately explains Roberts decision is that Obama and Holder had him over a barrel.
Now that it’s a tax it can be repealed.
If that is true, then Roberts should have come forward or recused himself.
Actually, now that the “penalty” has more rightly been called a tax, and taxes fall under budget and budget reconciliation bills only need a 51 vote majority in the Senate, how hard is it going to be to get total repeal passed as a budget/tax bill, rather than trying to get 66 votes to repeal it as a commerce clause penalty repeal bill?
“The vote totals are more accurately represented as an 8 to 1 vote rather than 5 to 4 vote.”
Not sure how you mean this. The dissent (the four good justices) agreed the act was not within the commerce clause. So that’s 5 on Roberts dicta re the commerce clause. The four bad justices couldn’t imagine any limit to congress powers under the commerce clause. So I count 5-4 on the commerce clause, although Robert’s reasoning was all by itself.
I know. Poor wording on my part. Just wanted to point out how he was shifting between both sides. So ultimately nobody voted “in total” with Roberts.
Ex.
4 liberals voted - AA
4 conservatives voted - BB
1 Roberts voted - AB
Agree. It’s a weird ruling.
“I think that, with time, people are going to understand just HOW important [the commerce clause part of Roberts’ opinion] this is.”
IMO, this decision will have little-to-no effect on commerce clause law.
* To begin with, Roberts’ reasoning on this issue is “dicta”. That is, it had no bearing on how the Court ruled. The entire section could have been left out and it would have made no difference in the outcome of the case. Dicta is not regarded among attorneys or judges as having any value as precedent. Thus, it is NOT “stare decisis”—rather its value is persuasive only. Thus, if someday, we get a conservative majority on the Court in the future, it will be followed as persuasive. If there is a left majority on the Court, it will not. That is pretty much where things stood before the decision.
* Most people have not noticed that the Court’s decision, written by Roberts, was a one-man show on this issue. That is, the four left-wing judges (who joined him in the opinion) expressly excepted their agreement with the commerce clause section. So not only is Robert’s decision dicta on the commerce clause, it is Roberts talking to himself.
People searching for a silver lining in Roberts’ opinion should be looking at the discussion of the Spending Power in the Medicaid section of the case. It is actually a holding (as opposed to dicta) and held a clear majority of the Court.
“Last week’s decisions pushed me over the edge. I now am in favor of full-on secession. I want out of this sick country.”
I’m not there yet, but, man, I’m close. And secession might be easier this time than last. But there are less radical courses—impeachment of politicians as well as judges, repeal of Court decisions and laws, and of course election of Constitutional conservatives.
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.