Posted on 06/28/2012 1:47:53 PM PDT by Meet the New Boss
It’s the judiciary’s Nixon-to-China: Chief Justice John Roberts joins the liberal wing of the Supreme Court and upholds the constitutionality of Obamacare. How? By pulling off one of the great constitutional finesses of all time. He managed to uphold the central conservative argument against Obamacare, while at the same time finding a narrow definitional dodge to uphold the law — and thus prevented the Court from being seen as having overturned, presumably on political grounds, the signature legislation of this administration.
snip
Whatever one thinks of the substance of Bush v. Gore, it did affect the reputation of the Court. Roberts seems determined that there be no recurrence with Obamacare. Hence his straining in his Obamacare ruling to avoid a similar result — a 5–4 decision split along ideological lines that might be perceived as partisan and political.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Since the mandated expansion of Medicare by the States was held to be unconstitutional, ....,
WHAT HAPPENED TO THE LACK OF THE SEVERABILITY CLAUSE?
Was that discussed in the opinion? [I haven’t read all 183 pages yet].
Obamacare is now essentially upheld. There’s only one way it can be overturned. The same way it was passed — elect a new president and a new Congress.
Well to overcome filibusters in the Senate we’d need 60 Senators willing to vote to repeal. Right now we have 47, right.
Anyone think we can get to 60? Anyone? Mr. Bueller?
OK, I didn’t think so. Anyone think Mitch McConnel with end the filibuster rule? Anyone??
********************************************************************
Sorry Dude, the liberal Dems are going to learn that “you live by the sword, you die by the sword”. They DID NOT pass obamacare by overcoming a filibuster—they couldn’t! So they passed it under “Reconciliation” where they didn’t need the 60 votes, simply a majority.
And believe me, turn-about is fair play. If we have someone leading the Senate other than the gutless McConnell, just about anything that has budgetary impact can be passed under reconciliation. Republicans can largely dismantle the Democrats’ welfare infrastructure and programs under reconciliation. They can abolish Agencies and programs to end the deficit, begin to pay down the national debt and save/modify programs such as Medicare—ALL under reconciliation.
There’s not a reason in the world that leeches and parasites such as NPR and public television should EVER get another penny from the national treasury. Our funding to the anti-American United Nations could be cut to the bone.
January 2013 is a time we must finally get serious about preserving our Republic and our nation! We will not survive as the nation we grew up in if we do not get serious.
Work very hard leading up to this November’s election, folks! We only have 3 or 4 justices on the Supreme Court who still defend the US Constitution. They are BADLY in need of reinforcements!
What a ridiculous statement.
George Bush wanted Harriet Miers. Everyone made fun of that choice.
Everyone applauded the choice of Roberts. I’ll bet if we went back on this site to when this choice was made, it would be universally approved.
Even Reagan was fooled by a court appointment.
I have no idea why Roberts made the decision he did. I’m very disappointed. But I think it’s grasping at straws to believe that he was threatened or bullied into it.
He didn't miss the point. Were you bothered to read the whole article?
That’s not how I would have ruled. I think the “mandate is merely a tax” argument is a dodge, and a flimsy one at that. (The “tax” is obviously punitive, regulatory, and intended to compel.)
Krauthammer's trying to explain Roberts's decision -- not agree with it.
That was my exact point, I am more of an Occam’s razor type thinker. The guy is simply not as conservative as people thought, myself included.
AND I think the gwb legacy of making conservative court appointments is null and void.
“You could say that a tax on having more than one child would now be constitutional.”
Taxing people trying to raise families with the healthcare costs of illegal aliens and the permanent underclass is already done, so what is the difference? Taxpaying Americans are contracepting themselves into extinction, blaming the costs of those non-taxpayers who do breed (and are inheriting the earth in the process). Until Americans are willing to sacrifice to bear families, they may as well get accustomed to providing the freebies for the foreign invaders who do.
It's political theatre but maybe a powerful symbol to say, "We mean what we say if you reelect us and push us into majorities and the White House."
Whether it was part of his calculation or not, Roberts punted this beyond the election and since the law hasn't gone into full effect it can and likely will be revisited in the future if it isn't repealed after the election.
Roberts took running against the Supreme Court out of Obama's playbook for reelection and that's important for success in Nov.
Oh for the love of God- Dr. K is as contorted in his defense of this insane ruling as John Roberts was in writing it..
I haven't seen this many people contort themselves since the last time I played Twister.
I read Roberts is on some serious medications, maybe it is time to stop apologizing for him, elect Romney and impeach the SOB!
You can electa new POTUS and a new Congess and you can even overturn ObamaRobertsCare but the precedent is here to stay. When they write a law taxing you for buying a pickup truck rather than a GM battery operated pos you’ll get the drift.
Well, MY point is why blame Bush when everyone, including him I’m sure, thought that it was a conservative appointment?
Unless you just want to join Obama in blaming Bush for everything.
He’s od’ing on megalomania pills. That is the only explanation for his originating a tax bill in the SCOTUS rather than in the House.
Eternal vigilance ....and all that.
That might be why Roberts did it, but it’s a stupid justification. The libs would certainly never worry about how the court is perceived. And that should never be a worry for a supreme court justice. An item is either constitutional or unconstitutional. Feelings don’t enter into it.
In the same month that the landing on Omaha Beach occured where we Got Courage and heroism on a Massive and super human scale I still ask myself where does this country get such men? Where do such Giants come from? Today I Now ask myself where have all the scumbags come from?What a Bunch of no account ego inflated pompous asses we have produced ,one of the saddest days of my life
Anyone who isn’t listening to Mark Levin should be...if you want a thorough explanation of the assault on our Constitution that happened today.
NONSENSE.
It won't take that much at all. This decision is the death nell for Obama, as 60% of the American public DON'T WANT THIS LAW! They are now galvanized on one issue to defeat him. This is a war that will be won.
We also need just a net gain of 4 senators, and we already have a majority in the House.
The only way we lose the ability to repeal is if we keep talking the way you speak and stay home instead of voting.
I have never missed an election since turning 18; in some cases I’ve voted for obscure 3rd party candidates so they know somebody bothered to get off the couch but didn’t pick either the Republican liberal or the Democrat liberal.
This law won’t hurt Obama as badly as people are hoping because they won’t see actual effects until after the election; as you can see by the initial election of Obama, American voters aren’t the most analytical types.
What are the chances of Romney (if he wins) having filibuster-proof majorities?
Don’t give up; do everything you can to “go Galt”. Hold your loved ones close.
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.