"Judge Roberts ... kept ObamaCare alive by twisting legal definitions."
Fellow, fellows, no one can beat me for being a conservative, but you need to understand at least EXACTLY what Roberts did when he upheld Obamacare. And don't accuse me of being a lib, I am as far right as they come but I am a technical man and also a bit of a constitutional scholar.
Roberts voted with the conservative majority on Obamacare, initially. But he did not vote to overturn the entire 2,000 page monstrosity; he only voted to overturn the individual mandate. Why? Because he thinks that citizens should live with the decisions made by their legislators. So you don't make the romantic decision that conservatives want, overturn it all, you make the decision consistent with judicial restraint. Only overturn the few lines about the mandate.
But the other conservative justices disagreed. Overturn it all, they wanted. So Roberts had to make a choice. Abandon his principle of judicial restraint and side with Scalia, Thomas et.al., or switch votes and ... this is important ... get some concesssions from the lib justices in exchange for his vote?
He chose the latter. Yes, he had to do some written contortions to accept the fact that a mandate was instead a tax, but to him this seemed less egregious than overturning 98% of a law that was fully consistent with the constitution.
But the concessions he got from Ginsburg et. al. were very significant. He got them to agree to narrowing significantly the use of the Commerce Clause for bypassing the 10th Amendment. Clarence Thomas was no doubt thrilled with that. He also got them to agree that the Feds can't use witholding money from another program as a bribe, or a cudgel, to force states to act a certain way. Obamacare would have taken away Medicare funding for states who didn't set up exchanges; that's some serious arm twisting. But in exchange for the mandate, the libs agreed that this was unconstitutional. This has always been the source of the Fed's greatest power, get you dependent on their money and then threaten to take it away for another reason. Roberts deep sixed that.
So with Roberts' legal maneuver, the states could blow off doing a state exchange without penalty. THIS IS WHAT DESTROYED OBAMACARE OVER THE PAST 4 YEARS. Without the ability to force states to act, Obamacare imploded on its own.
This was clear back in 2012, when the SCOTUS decided on Obamacare. It gave us what we wanted, just over a longer timeframe. I think Roberts knew exactly what he was doing.
So cut him some slack. He got us some major concessions and, from the perspective of a veteran Supreme Court watcher, he won for us in the end.
He didn't get rolled, he made a very clever legal gambit. Just remember that.
Yes but...... the Free Republic Dogma is that Roberts was blackmailed.
Truth doesn’t matter
So you think.
It could have/should have all been thrown out years ago.
I appreciate your analysis Tom h and agree with you.
I don’t know about Roberts. But, this nation is where it is today because of the ASININE way people vote. Yes voter fraud is a problem but it’s only got to this point because we have elected horrible representatives who have aided and abetted the fraud.
We as a nation have to start voting better.
We have good voters, good patches and some really good elected officials. But not good enough. This country has got to start voting CONSISTENTLY BETTER. Hilary should not have gotten a tenth of the votes she got. Obama never should have been elected once, let alone twice. Standing against the political opinions of most Californians, Gavin Newsome does not belong in the governorship of California. Our electorate is lazy and self Indulgent and corrupt.
I appreciate your explanation. Most of the unlearned (me) saw it as choosing which side of the argument to support or enable. “Which Tribe do you belong to, ours or theirs?”
It’s good to know the bigger picture though.
What was really contained within the penumbra of that law.
With no severability clause, overturning the mandate overturned the whole law. His “gambit” was illegal, per the explicit wording of the law.
There are no contortions involved. There is no law that mandates you purchase health insurance. What there is, is a question on your tax form asking whether you have health insurance, and a reduction of your taxes if your answer is yes. It's no different than not earning the Earned Income Credit, or many other tax provisions and is clearly a tax.
The contortions came from people who wanted to pretend it wasn't a tax because they didn't want to be seen as raising taxes. So they lied.
"THIS IS WHAT DESTROYED OBAMACARE OVER THE PAST 4 YEARS."
Obamacare is still in effect. The mandates may be gone, but there are a lot of rules and regulations in Obamacare that negatively impact health care in this country, and will be operative until there's a full repeal.
I am offended by your silly 3 paragraph boondoggle as to why Roberts was correct in his ruling on obamacare, now I await patiently for your 3 paragraph boondoggle as to why Roberts will be correct in his deciding that the citizenship question is unconstitutional. You and your ilk are the enemy of the people!
Sooooo, how much is Obama paying you for this fairytale?
I don’t care what his rationale was, the bottom line is we got ObamaCare because of his vote.
There are people on this site that understand the bars of gold this ruling gave us.... no more unfunded mandates....no more commerce clause abuse.... there are several other things this ruling gave us.... but to mention them on this site will get you flamed
I’ve read similar explanations over the years and yours is the best and clearest. Thanks.
EVEN when the decisions clearly violate the Constitution and Individual's God-given rights? Legislators are NOT above the U.S. Constitution.
Rather than divining intent or refashioning the hot mess the Left imposed upon Americans, Roberts should have kicked it to the curb.
Mark me down as skeptical. If you believe leftist judges are going to honor that agreement. that is your right. But O-care itself rode in on a wave of dishonest promises.
My own confusion with Roberts is that Roberts took liberties with Obamacare by *declaring* it a “tax”, while the Obama administration itself was mightily trying to avoid that word, but nevertheless the act of calling it so, ended up allowing it to stand. Does that make sense?
Your argument is not foreign. There were some moderate and conservative media-musings and editorials that concluded the very same thing, I recall. Those arguments got very little, or possibly no play at all around here, but I know the argument you’re repeating was entertained in some quarters.
Possibly, that argument was deep sixed since it was not helpful to the wild discourse the Republicans were engaging in at the time, against the Marxist side of the aisle. Roberts was one more pin cushion. The laxity on publishing much on the alternative view favoring Roberts move, left at least a rather enduring and sizable question mark against trusting Roberts and also more than plenty of outright disdain.
Hang right in there. A lot of us publik schule kids are actually trying to learn more about political and judicial chess being played for the win in the end.