Posted on 06/28/2012 1:11:02 PM PDT by DYngbld
I just got back from the Supreme Court. It was an interesting experience sitting in the Courtroom as the opinion in the Obamacare case was read. And, by now, if you’re like me, you’ve gotten37 million pre-written press releases from every elected official in Virginia and most nationally either celebrating the individual mandate’s survival, or decrying this as the darkest day in the union’s history.
The truth lies, as it usually does with Supreme Court decisions, somewhere in the middle. In my opinion, however, the bulk of the victory lays with those of us on the right.
While we may have lost the battle on the individual mandate itself, we won two arguably bigger, more long-term critical fights – the fight about the breadth of the federal government’s regulatory power under the commerce clause, and the fight about the use of the federal spending power to coerce states into doing the federal government’s bidding. Those are both huge issues for small government conservatives and we won both – even getting a large majority, 7-2, on the spending power issue.
(Excerpt) Read more at bearingdrift.com ...
It is not judicial activism - the Administration argued before the court this was a tax and that is what the court ruled on.
The court just declared Obama and the Democrat controlled (at the time) Congress to all be liars.
I don’t mince words.
In my opinion, however, the bulk of the victory lays with those of us on the right.
Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.
This was probably the worst ruling to come down since Roe vs Wade, and look how long we have been fighting to overturn it?
Roberts has just wiped out our constitutional right to freedom. Under the guise of a tax, we can now be forced to do what ever the federal government demands.
In essence, we have just become slaves to the state! Karl Marx and every communist/fascist/nazi/totalitarian who has ever hated America and capitalism is dancing in the streets today. Even the ones who have died and went to hell are dancing the jig with Satan over this ruling!
Even if we get a super majority of republicans in the house senate and Romney in, we will have to wait to change the court to fix this. On the average, it takes an average of 40 to 50 years to overturn a bad a SC decision.
Tell your children you are sorry for them now, because it will be a cold day in Hell before this ever gets fixed.
I’m sorry, but exchanging a limitation on the commerce clause for full-blown socialism is not a win.
If Roberts wanted to challenge the commerce clause, it would have been wiser to do so on a case that doesn’t involve 1/6 of the economy of the United States. He’s taking a very big risk, if that was indeed his intent.
They took a baby step in the direction of correcting a wrong done by SCOTUS in Wickard v. filburn. It still wasn't enough.
But, but, what about the commerce clause lip service?
A label. Yeah, that'll show 'em who's boss. I bet they are quaking in their slippers.
I would like to wait till the smoke settles a bit.
I honestly don't see how Obamacare got this far in the first place. The branches of government have been withering into one mess for the last several years.
We are going to continue down this dead end road, until we actually get enough people pissed off enough to do something about it. This ruling may have been the required catalyst, it may not. Watch the spin over the next few days with caution.
This is like arguing that the French Young Guard Division reported 96 percent casualties at the Battle of Waterloo, but this is mostly good news because 4% survived.
Seriously? Who cares where anyone was when it was read, this was horrible decision, and there is absolutely nothing good about this. Nothing good at all, unless, of course, one is rooting for America’s demise.
I am sick about this..
We are going to continue down this dead end road, until we actually get enough people pissed off enough to do something about it. This ruling may have been the required catalyst, it may not.
You nailed it. The political cost of the law being labeled a tax during the legislative process may have prevented it from passing. Roberts plays this word game, and this author pretends like the political liability of it now being declared a tax will play it’s original legitimate role after the fact. It can’t. Even then I don’t see any limiting principle even if you call it a tax. The government can compel you do anything as long as it has some negative label attached to it such as “tax” because that is politically limiting? Close the court. They no longer have any purpose if the only check on the legislative branch is the voting booth.
If he was a leader, he would have already adopted the correct nomenclature of Obama Tax Hikes on the middle class.
Well, yeah it did.
They lied for years and said it wasn't a tax. And Roberts just smacked them down.
The bonus is that campaign ads can now be unleashed showing Obama promising over and over and over again that he wouldn't tax the middle class.
That's pretty good fodder for Nov. '12.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that the Court was supposed to act upon what Congress actually passed. If you can show me where in that 2,700 monstrosity it was referred to as a tax, then I will agree with you. Otherwise, Roberts was ruling on what the ACA’a lawyers argued, not what was in the bill. And that, my friend, is judicial activism.
No, Roberts rubber-stamped what was improper if it was a tax—as it originated in the Senate. He allowed them to go ahead with it by relabeling it as a tax even though they had positioned it otherwise.
The net effect of his ruling is that Congress can micromanage everything just like an expanded commerce clause—as long as they do it technically by the coercion of taxes rather than the fig leaf of the commerce clause.
This is a hugely bad deal for the country.
It is beyond question that the Administration case was, when it was convenient, that it WAS a tax, and when it was convenient, that it was NOT a tax.
May I suggest these observations from the vaunted "oral argument" phase of the case:
U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli used the phrase “tax penalty” multiple times to describe the individual mandate’s backstop. He portrayed the fee as a penalty by design, but one that functions as a tax because it’s collected through the tax code.
“General Verrilli, today you are arguing that the penalty is not a tax. Tomorrow you are going to be back and you will be arguing that the penalty is a tax,” said Justice Samuel Alito, in one of the few laugh lines throughout the 90 minutes of argument Monday.
And, as proof enough to me (now) that "oral arguments" are just a bunch of pretty words for us yokels:
The justices, particularly the four Democratic-appointees, and Justice Antonin Scalia, appeared skeptical that the fine constitutes a tax.
http://www.therightscoop.com/day-1-listen-to-the-supreme-courts-oral-arguments-on-obamacare/
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec7
Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto
All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives...
You need to take a break from Rush Limbaugh’s happy-talk once in a while.
I don't listen to Rush.
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.