I’m surprised that none of the source article commenters have ripped Tyrrell for buying Roberts’ dicta re: the Commerce Clause as binding precedent.
1. The case before the Supreme Court was probably brought prematurely, since the most destructive provisions of ObamaCare aren't even in force yet (and therefore can't legally be contested).
2. The Court's ruling is actually problematic for ObamaCare in other areas. The ruling is filled with landmines that can be exploited by individuals or groups in future legal challenges. For one thing, if ObamaCare is a "tax" then by definition there are enormous loopholes that would likely apply to tax-exempt organizations (religious or not).
3. As more and more provisions of ObamaCare are implemented, there will be additional legal disputes related to specific provisions (First Amendment grounds, the ability of HHS to grant waivers in an arbitraty fashion, etc.).
4. ObamaCare is not likely to remain in its current form by 2014 anyway, since the financial numbers aren't going to work and too many members of Congress are going to be running away from it.
"Only".
Your mere existence may now be taxed. As a "tax", ObamaCare's "individual mandate" now demands ~$3000 of you just for breathing. That the tax is curtailed in light of low income is a matter of the whim of the state; once computed, inability to pay a tax is never grounds for non-payment, a transgression where your freedom - or your life - is demanded in lieu thereof.
Bravo for limiting the Commerce Clause and General Welfare Clause.
Fie upon those who open the door to unlimited power through other means.
Spare us the exotic words, Bob. That’s Buckley’s schtick.
The nice thing about rap lyrics is that the vocabularies are small and there is much repitition.
Romney is now saying that this is a tax. Because it was decreed by the Supreme Court to be a tax.
I think he’s right to say this because it being revealed (or decreed) as a tax will hurt Obama.
However, one wonders if the Supreme Court says grass is red, is it red? Or is it still green?
When he states we did not come out to badly, he is simply in denial.
1) John Roberts gave THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THE POWER TO “TAX” US FOR SOMETHING WE DID NOT DO.
2)THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN FORCE US TO BUY A PRODUCT FROM A PRIVATE COMPANY.
This law was unconstitutional from the day is was jammed down our throat. The only thing good about this decision is that it'll force conservatives into action. I will go door-to-door if I have to in order to register and turnout voters for the Senate and President.
Let's face the facts. We face an uphill battle. We have to get control of the senate and the presidency. THEN we have to force them to repeal this monstrosity. This is no small feat, given the GOP’s propensity for spending when holding all the legislature and presidency....
How art thou fallen, Tyrrell. You got somebody fluent in Yalese to explain it to you, and now you tie it up with a ribbon and an unsplit infinitive and pass it along to the great unwashed brains.
No, it didn't.
It disallowed the application of the commerce clause for THIS particular piece of legislation. Expansion of the misuse of the commerce clause may continue.
R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr., now officially a moron.
so its all a “cunning plan”!
Brilliant!
What John Roberts did was to take some duct tape, construction paper and some third grade creativity to make the Obamcare "Bill the Cat" look like a dog (from a very great distance) thus declaring the abomination a constituional "dog".
"Ashamed" is one of the many things John Roberts should be.
Fox???? BS -——Weasel is more like it.
Another normally intelligent conservative acts stupidly. Mark Levin is THE authority on this. Listen to his every podcast since last Thursday to understand why this is a complete disaster.
It astounds me how many conservatives keep trying to polish that turd.
The title should actually read "J. Emmett Tyrrell, Chief Justice Roberts Outfoxed You!"
J. Emmett is generally not this stupid. But he had stupid with him, if I read the article correctly, because he wrote, "I had Yale Professor E. Donald Elliott at my side as my translator (of Robert's decision)".
'Nuff said. Stupid is as stupid translates.
Besides, who can trust a Yale law professor these days? Or who can ever trust anyone named "E. Donald Elliott" or "J. Emmett Tyrrell?
I guess I'll just have to consult with Professor E. Pluribus Unum translating at my side on all the burning questions about the Chief Justice. Prof. Unum is with the College Of Hard Knocks.....and is an expert at translating BS articles and analysis.
Leni
Oh look, another stupid blithering moron republican.
How shocking.
“two earlier holdings of the Court that ended the expansion of the commerce clause”
Oh, it ended the expansion, did it? So the commerce clause grants only almost unlimited power. Hooray!
After toiling through Tyrell’s own “anfractious” verbiage (usually entertaining) to his conclusion:
“This time around might Chief Justice Roberts have curtailed the pernicious commerce clause and pared back the federal government’s ability to coerce the states? Might he have returned Obamacare to another round of democratic process?”
Who cares about obiter dictum? He signed on to the socialists’ agenda.
So I am again drawn to my own inescapable conclusion:
Instead of all this fancy, foxy footwork—hopping the stream, backtracking, wading so the hounds lose his scent—might Roberts simply have ruled with the three and half conservatives and skipped all the bollocks?
And worth mentioning (again and again), did he ever take Kagan aside and ask, “Butch, you know by not recusing yourself, you are in violation of federal statute. It makes us look bad. We’re supreme court justices, you know, and expected to, um, adhere to the law and, oh, you don’t care. And do what with my gavel? Well, never mind ..... “.