-
Has the IRS Already Seized Your Medical Records?
May 20, 2013 | 6 comments
-
The Grand Old Poseurs
May 13, 2013 | 72 comments
-
Obamacare Pimps Smear Lipstick on Another Pig
May 6, 2013 | 58 comments
-
Can One Iraq Vet Stop Obamacare?
April 29, 2013 | 88 comments
-
GOP at Fault for Obamacare Train Wreck?
April 22, 2013 | 106 comments
Breaking News
Supreme Court Wimps Out on Obamacare
In a craven decision written by the Chief Justice, the Court upholds most of PPACA.
The government lawyers who defended the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) before the Supreme Court probably began to fear that its “minimum coverage provision” was headed for the mortuary when Justice Kennedy, from whom they had hoped to receive a reprieve, said the requirement that all Americans buy health insurance “changes the relationship of the federal government to the individual in a very fundamental way.” They must have known it was a goner when Kennedy followed up with this lethal injection of reality: “Do you not have a heavy burden of justification to show authorization under the Constitution?”
The Solicitor General, Donald Verilli, fended off that apparently deadly thrust with the absurd claim that the mandate wouldn’t affect the government’s relationship to the citizen as profoundly as Kennedy had suggested: “[A]ll this minimum coverage provision does is say that, instead of requiring insurance at the point of sale, that Congress has the authority… to ensure that people have insurance in advance of the point of sale.” This argument was so weak and its delivery was so poor that most of the law’s supporters sank into slough of despond. CNN’s Jeffrey Toobin called Verilli’s performance a “train wreck” and all but pronounced the PPACA dead.
But the death of Obamacare and its much-reviled mandate was, as it turns out, greatly exaggerated. In an utterly Orwellian opinion authored by Chief Justice Roberts, the majority held that the mandate was not a tax for purposes of applying the Anti-Injunction Act (AIA), but that it was constitutional because it falls within Congress’ taxing powers: “The Affordable Care Act describes the ‘[s]hared responsibility payment’ as a ‘penalty,’ not a ‘tax.’ That label is fatal to the application of the Anti-Injunction Act.… It does not, however, control whether an exaction is within Congress’s power to tax.” So, sometimes it’s a tax and sometimes it’s not.
Chief Justice Roberts had to use two definitions of “tax” because AIA forbids legal challenges to taxes before they go into effect, and the mandate doesn’t take effect until 2014. For the AIA to apply, then, the mandate had to qualify as a tax. When the first legal challenges to Obamacare were litigated, the government tried to argue that the mandate was indeed a tax, but couldn’t find any buyers because Congress had gone out of its way to avoid characterizing it as such. In all of the many courts that considered the legal implications of “reform,” only a single judge in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals took the tax argument seriously.
And Roberts also rejected that argument — until it came time to deal with the central question of the Obamacare challenges: Is it within the legitimate power of Congress to command individuals to purchase health insurance? To answer this question in the affirmative the Chief Justice had to change his method of defining the word “tax” in midstream. Notwithstanding the contortions Congress went through to avoid associating the “T” word with the mandate, Roberts followed “a functional approach, ‘[d]isregarding the designation of the exaction, and viewing its substance and application.’”
The Court also upheld the rest of the law, except for part of its Medicaid provision. In all, the justices considered four questions to arrive at this ruling. The first involved AIA. The second concerned the mandate. A third question involved severability: Was the Court required to strike down the entire statute if it deemed the mandate unconstitutional? Obviously, the ruling rejected the jurisdictional issue raised by AIA and the severability question was rendered moot when the mandate was upheld. The final question considered was the claim, made in Florida v. HHS and NFIB v. Sebelius, that PPACA’s expansion of Medicaid was unconstitutionally coercive.
On this Medicaid question the majority took a different view than was taken by the lower courts, where the plaintiffs had a tough time selling the coercion argument. Even U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson, who struck down Obamacare in its entirety in early 2011 and started Florida v. HHS on its long road to the Supreme Court, wrote that the states “always have the option, however impractical, to withdraw from Medicaid.” Today, the Court ruled that the federal government cannot withhold all matching funds from a state that does not agree to expand the joint state-federal program as PPACA dictates.
Needless to say, some of the justices disagreed with the majority. Justice Kennedy, whom everyone expected to be the swing vote, was particularly succinct as he read his dissenting opinion from the bench: “In our view, the act before us is invalid in its entirety.” Kennedy went on to point out the glaring inconsistencies between the “reform” law itself and the way it was characterized in the ruling: “What Congress calls a penalty, we call a tax … Congress went to great lengths to say it was a penalty … In short, the court imposes a tax when Congress deliberately rejected a tax.”
Thus Chief Justice Roberts saved Obamacare and its egregious mandate. He cast the deciding vote with the Court’s liberals, justices Kagan, Ginsburg, Breyer and Sotomayor. Then, he wrote a majority opinion containing enormous logical and semantic inconsistencies to justify that vote. He used two conflicting definitions of “tax” and, as Kennedy pointed out, ignored the actual text of the statute. So the country will have to go on living with the the grotesque morass of bad ideas and corrupt bargains that constitutes Obamacare, despite countless surveys showing that Americans wanted the Court to overturn all or part of the monstrosity.
As to the effect of the ruling on the industry Obamacare purports to “reform,” it will be minor. Health providers have been preparing for the advent of Obamacare’s major provisions for two years, in areas ranging from quality of care to information technology to reimbursement to regulatory oversight. Most health care insiders I have talked to never believed that the potential demise of PPACA was going to change our lives very much. The consensus was that most of Obamacare’s provisions would have been imposed on us by government fiat, no matter what the Court decided in Florida v. HHS or NFIB v. Sebelius.
And the patients? They will continue to receive the best health care available on the planet. This law was never about health care. It was about power and money. Today’s ruling just confirms that, in the end, it’s up to the voters. If we want to rid ourselves of this monster, we can’t rely on divine intervention from the Supreme Court. The justices of that august institution let the beast off the hook today. If the voters want to kill it, they will have to do so at the ballot box in November.
About the Author
David Catron is a health care revenue cycle expert who has spent more than twenty years working for and consulting with hospitals and medical practices. He has an MBA from the University of Georgia and blogs at Health Care BS.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (168) | Leave a comment
More Articles by David Catron
More Articles From Breaking News
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/06/28/supreme-court-wimps-out-on-oba
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
ncatty| 6.28.12 @ 3:40PM
Criticize Roberts all you want but he did shove the issue back into the political realm, where it belongs. Except this time it is accurately called a tax - a really big one.
Albertus Magnus| 6.28.12 @ 4:08PM
OK. It is now in the political realm, wherein it originated. I did not vote for this. But my vote is meaningless, as millions of illegal aliens vote Democrat and many more are being passed along to the polls to do more of the same. I have never voted for a successful House candidate in my 38 years of voting. I live in California so my Senators are Boxer the idiotic and Feinstein the corrupt. I am not represented in Congress, period. I have no recourse, politically. I can't ask my Representative or Senators to repeal this garbage because they will not do it. So, now what?
CopyKatnj| 6.28.12 @ 4:48PM
Send money to other candidates in other states to help them win. That's what the liberals in your state have been doing for years. But you'll be sending to conservatives.
Occam's Tool| 6.28.12 @ 5:50PM
Albertus---send money to Chip Cravaack in Minnesota. He's in a close race with a scumbag Liberal, and he's a good guy.
RCV| 6.28.12 @ 8:16PM
Cravaack's opponent, Tarryl Clark, is no "scumbag". I've already sent her several campaign contributions and will continue to do so.
Quartermaster| 6.29.12 @ 4:00PM
If you're for her, then she is most certainly a scumbag. All Progressives are scumbags.
sandyp| 6.28.12 @ 5:56PM
did it ever occur to you that perhaps you don't belong in California? What are you going to do when they declare bankruptcy? Wimp out again? I am sick and tired of you folks crying foul and yet not doing anything about it.............
Alej| 6.30.12 @ 8:54AM
Unfortunately, many Californians move to Texas and bring their crappy attitudes with them.
Aristocat| 6.28.12 @ 8:46PM
I always thought concentrating on the mandate was a mistake...The entire law was unconstitutional because there is nothing in the Constitution that permits it... Instead of nit-picking whether it was a tax or penalty they should have focused on the articles in the Constitution that all powers not specifically granted to the Federal govt. are reserved to the States...Mr. Roberts you took an oath to UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.
Aristocat| 6.28.12 @ 8:57PM
P.S. Boner and the Republicans could have killed ObamaCare two years ago by cutting off funding for it, but no, that would make the media upset.
JmsA| 6.28.12 @ 10:38PM
Such an attempt would have died in the Senate.
Aristocat| 6.29.12 @ 2:39AM
You don't need the Senate's permission to cut off funding for anything...All revenue bills originate in the House...If the House doesn't fund something, it doesn't get funded.
Aristocat| 6.29.12 @ 2:59AM
Great quote from Rand Paul: "Just because a few judges say something is constitutional, that does not make it constitutional." ObamaCare is unconstitutional because it is too vague, too confusing, too tyrannical, gives power to unelected bureaucrats like Sibelius, was passed by illegally bribing Senators, was not even read by those voting for it, violates the 10th Amendment because its provisions are not granted to the federal government, violates the freedom of association of private citizens, forces doctors to become employees of the state, forces patients to become wards of the state, and changes the United States into a dictatorship.
Other than that, it's fine.
Mimi | 6.29.12 @ 6:24AM
One Judge! And he recently changed his view....HAVOC now insues...Why and who got to him and for what ?
TLP| 6.28.12 @ 4:09PM
The 1st question is obvious.
What did The Chicago Organized Crime Family Administration, and Larry Flynt, have on John Roberts, ala the Senator in The Godfather part 2, who was against the Corlion Family getting a Gaming Liscence, until he woke up, in a Whore House, with a DEAD HOOKER on the floor?
I can't be the only one who was scratching his head, weeks ago, when the Left was constantly saying that "ROBERTS" was the one to watch.
Not, Kennedy, as any sane watcher of the Court, would have expected.
No, no. The so-called Super Conservative - Roberts.
The LAST GUY you would think would go along with a Soviet Style, Cuban Style, Government Health Care System.
How was he Flipped?
The 2nd question is for the Holier than Thou Shitheads ( and they know who they are) who claim that the Guy who promises to REPEAL this Bucket of Puke, on his very 1st Day, is "No Different" than the Son of the Atheist, Communist WHORE, and the Muslim Marxist Whore Chasing DRUNK, who died in a Kenyan gutter, who's out there Spiking the Football, as we speak?
The CHOICE couldn't be clearer.
Now STFU, and do the right thing.
Doctor Right| 6.28.12 @ 4:34PM
...Pause for dramatic effect...
zzzzZZZZZZzzzzzzzz......
TLP| 6.28.12 @ 5:07PM
Will you PLEEEEEZE get your nose outta my ass?
On 2nd thought, don't.
Leave it there.
Let everyone know how Pathetic you are.
And, since you're in there?
Why don't you take a nice Deep Breath.
Doctor Right| 6.28.12 @ 5:47PM
Without me, you're nothing.
Actually, even with me you're nothing, but at least I give you the attention you so desperately seek.
I probably shouldn't, but I know from experience that the one thing that narcissists hate the most is ridicule...
...so I'm here, baby!
Besides, you make it so easy.
TLP| 6.28.12 @ 6:36PM
"Without me, you're nothing."
Now, you're just Psychotic.
Last I looked, it was YOUR nose, up MY ass.
You really need to get help.
Russel| 6.28.12 @ 6:42PM
Tim , the below is a shill and you should know that by now . But I take us to Harry Reid . He may be corrupt but he's not stupid . He's been warning of the Tea Party , or disclaiming , or spouting it's dead . He knows all too well that a Hornet coming and going from a big nest may APPEAR benign , but he is also keenly aware of what is inside . Roberts has whacked that nest with a stick . Fine with me the boob gets his ass stung off along with the others within distance , but he was the one to do it . The Tea Party is now way pissed .
Beppo| 6.28.12 @ 5:26PM
Unfortunately this is all too representative of comments about this outcome. It's not good but it's real. In fact it's over. I'm sure the big guy in the WH can't wait for Romney (who introduced the pilot in his state for godsake) to launch is his repeal (how) campaign and replace (with what?) campaign. He'll crucify him....a small fact that seems to be beyong the imagining of too many.
Kingofthenet| 6.28.12 @ 6:53PM
We are Anonymous. We are Legion. We do not forgive. We do not forget. Expect us.
spike59| 6.29.12 @ 12:19PM
Queen, you are Loons sitting in mommy's basement, scarfing down cheetos. You don't intimidate us, you don't worry us, you merely amuse us much like a drunken squirrel might
LarryinTexas| 6.28.12 @ 7:01PM
ncatty, don't use that as an excuse. There are instances where abuses of power are so egregious that they should not be sustained by even SCOTUS. While this goes back to being a political issue, there is something called fidelity to the Constitution that has to be considered here. Chief Justice Roberts took an oath of office to that effect. He has ignored his oath and justified something that cannot be justified under any "tax" argument. There has to be any REASONABLE reason to save a law from constitutionality. This is far from that.
Anthony| 6.28.12 @ 8:24PM
There were 4 justices who were ready to jettison the ENTIRE bill back into the political arena, so Obozo and the Congress could craft a bill with some degree of saneness.
Robert's made sure that didn't happen. So our victory is that the penalty is finally exposed as a tax.
Gee, somehow I'm not getting that same tingly feeling in my legs that moron Matthews is getting.
C. Vernon Crisler | 6.29.12 @ 2:03AM
In fact, we can criticize the Chief Moron of the Supreme Court. I think in fact Congress should seriously consider impeaching this jerk on the basis that he is clearly insane.
spike59| 6.29.12 @ 6:12AM
Romney has been handed all the ammo he needs for a truly stunning campaign ad-all he need do is quote Roberts in calling this a tax, mention the size of this tax increase, and play clips of jubilant Dem lawmakers shouting their hosannas of joy at the SCOTUS decision-perhaps with a voice-over: "How does Obama and the Democrats feel about the largest tax increase in US history?"
Stephanie| 6.29.12 @ 8:11AM
And he needs to show the conversation between George Stefanopolous and obammy where he wholeheartedly INSISTS that it's NOT a tax. "No, no George. This is not a tax!"
Will Mitt take this gift and get down and dirty with it? We can only pray so.
spike59| 6.29.12 @ 12:21PM
Mitt's not McCain, bent over and holding his ankles , repeating "frensh, we can have shivil dishcoursh..." while the Left pulls a train on him
Bill84728| 6.28.12 @ 3:41PM
If the individual mandate is a tax, as the majority of the Supreme Court has held, isn't it unconstitutional under Article I, Section 7, which provides that revenue-raising bills must originate in the House of Representatives?
Albertus Magnus| 6.28.12 @ 3:52PM
Interesting take. Question: Where did this bill originate? The House? Or the Senate? If the Senate (I really do not remember) then you have a valid point. Whether it will help in the current dispute is questionable.
TLP| 6.28.12 @ 4:16PM
You are absolutely correct.
Thank You.
I've been screaming this from the rooftops, forever.
All Tax Legislation has to ORIGINATE from The House.
It is my understanding that this Bill, which was put forth in the Reconciliation Process, Originated in the SENATE.
This, in itself, makes it Null and Void.
Bless You.
Now, what do we do?
I don't know about you, but I Cut Grass, for a living, and I know this Shit.
WTF are the Republicans doing, and why don't THEY know this?
Doctor Right| 6.28.12 @ 4:33PM
Yeah, good luck with that!!!
Gee...why doesn't the Republican leadership call you for advice???
Why, all our problems would be solved!
...snicker...
TLP| 6.28.12 @ 5:14PM
I promised someone, a long time ago, that I wouldn't invoke the word - Retarded.
And, up til now, I've kept my word.
But, something is obviously wrong - mentally - with Doctor Nose Up My Ass, that he has to make his Shithead Comments, after everything I say.
At first, I thought it was Homosexual in nature.
Now, I Think it might be a case of Mentally Challenged.
Of course, he could be a Mentally Challenged Homo, as well.
Whatever the case, this guy has a shit load of problems.
Doctor Right| 6.28.12 @ 5:49PM
Perhaps...
But having a point and making a coherent thought isn't one of them.
TLP| 6.28.12 @ 6:38PM
See?
Alej| 6.30.12 @ 9:00AM
Why do you follow TLP around...? Can't come up with original intelligent posts or concepts ?
Beppo| 6.28.12 @ 5:28PM
It's null and void? It's really hard to know how to respond to such a perceptive comment as this.
TLP| 6.28.12 @ 6:39PM
That's because you're not that bright.
RCV| 6.28.12 @ 6:06PM
The bill itself originated in the House.
TLP| 6.28.12 @ 6:41PM
The Bill was Pulled, after the Election of Scott Brown, and re-introduced by The Senate, in the Reconciliation.
Get your Shit, straight.
RCV| 6.28.12 @ 8:18PM
Whether it was "reintroduced" in reconcilliation is irrelevant -- it originated in the House, and that's all it has to have done. learn some law before you open that trap.
Beppo| 6.28.12 @ 3:44PM
The reality is that collectively Americans DON'T get the best healthcare on the planet. If they did at a reasonable price instead of one that's roughly twice what everyone else is paying we wouldn't have a issue would we? Frankly reading this one wonders where Catron is coming from since he says Obamacare was going to happen anyway. It wasn't. Is it just the name he doesn't like?
TLP| 6.28.12 @ 4:19PM
MAYBE, if we allowed people to buy Health Insurance, like they do Every Other Insurance - From anywhere they want - instead of just from Insurance Companies IN THEIR STATE, this shit wouldn't cost so much?
Ya think?
Occam's Tool| 6.28.12 @ 5:49PM
Beppo: ever have to have a really complicated medical issue taken care of abroad? Not a broken bone, etc., but something complex and expensive?
Things are NOT available overseas that are available here. Go visit the Mayo Clinic and note the foreigners there for treatment sometime.
TLP| 6.28.12 @ 6:42PM
Why waste your time, talking to a wall?
RCV| 6.28.12 @ 8:19PM
...and they will still be there at the Mayo Clinic tomorrow and five years from now despite the dire predictions of the right.
TLP| 6.29.12 @ 6:41AM
There just won't be any Doctors.
RCV| 6.29.12 @ 12:30PM
Right, TLP.
Alej| 6.30.12 @ 9:03AM
Actually, there will be, and those of us who can afford to pay them a wage commensurate with their years of hard work will benefit from their abilities. The parasites will stand in line for months for their "free stuff," and hopefully, die in place.
The Big E| 6.28.12 @ 3:45PM
The beast lies not only in Obamcare. Repeal it please, but the precedent set by this case, that the Congress can force private citizens to enter into contracts for services they do not want, will remain, lurking in the shadows, to rear it's ugly head again when next time the government decides that it know better than you what goods and services you should buy.
June 28, 2012. The day the USA ceased to exist as a free country. From this day forward, we are all slaves.
RCV| 6.28.12 @ 8:20PM
You're the free-est, most prosperous, most self-governing "slaves" the world has ever seen.
Albertus Magnus| 6.28.12 @ 3:59PM
"Wimps Out" is putting it mildly. I feel like I've been stabbed in the back. John Roberts is looking more like Earl Warren every minute. One wonders, now that he has screwed this up, will he change his mind the next time unconstitutional gun control comes up? Will he "revisit" that decision and rule differently? It sure looks like Roberts was bought on this one. Some have speculated that Roberts ruled as he did to protect the integrity of the Court from the expected Left Wing Lunatic backlash that would have challenged the Court's integirity in the face of a defeat for "Great Leader" Obama (Heil, Obama!) But when the Court proves that it has no integrity, how does one protect it? By selling out, Roberts has exposed the Court's true nature, which is political, not legal.
Stkman| 6.28.12 @ 4:47PM
Roberts exposed the courts lack of integrity when he din't demand that Justice Kagan recuse herself. It's one thing when a members wife works on an issue, it is completely different when a sitting justice worked directley for the enactment of the bill before the court. Now that the judicial branch of government has decided to be corrupt as the executive and representative branches of government, what will it take for us to show an once of courage and do what the hell we all know needs to be done. DAMNIT people, wake up!! We are being enslaved by the elites and communist. We are surrounded by two political parties working together to enslave us. The ONLY thing we have left are the guns we have under our matresses, in the closet, the guncase or in the attic. It is time to clean them and make them ready. Be ready, and when someone braver than I fires that first shot, don't walk, but run to their aid!
Kingofthenet| 6.29.12 @ 12:14AM
You OBVIOUSLY NEED some Medical MaryJane!
Mender| 6.28.12 @ 4:03PM
David,
Stop whining just because Justice Roberts took away your cushy job as a 'health care revenue cycle expert' working out how to scam your customers and make the US healthcare system the most bloated and inefficient on Earth. I'm a proud conservative, but I've travelled far enough to see what a fraud American healthcare is. It's over, admit it.
TLP| 6.28.12 @ 4:21PM
It's too bad you weren't in Normandy, all those years ago.
We might all be driving Mercedes.
Doctor Right| 6.28.12 @ 5:50PM
Would you mind writing a multi-paragraph diatribe about Hitler and the NAZIs?.
People really need to know just how icky they were...
Russel| 6.28.12 @ 6:55PM
You remind me of a Deerfly . Ever experienced one ? . They buzz about constantly , annoyingly , until they see an opportunity to land , when you are injected with a painfull beak . They are not a welcome guest . The same goes for Horseflies .
The Big E| 6.28.12 @ 4:30PM
This law has nothing to do with healthcare. It is about totalitarian power, the power to control every economic decision you make. You are now a slave Mender, like the rest of us. Admit it.
LarryinTexas| 6.28.12 @ 7:07PM
Mender, don't be a fool. This has implications for things other than health care. And the US health care system, while inefficient in certain respects, will be much worse under the Federal Government. You don't sound like a very proud conservative to me. It's not over, believe me. We have November 6.
spike59| 6.29.12 @ 6:16AM
Mendetr, stop calling yourself a 'proud conservative'; you're about as conservative as Snooki McCain
Occam's Tool| 6.28.12 @ 4:16PM
They will continue to receive the best health care on the planet until 2014.
By the way, WHO is a group of ignorant morons.
Jack London| 6.28.12 @ 7:52PM
Breaking my rule to reply to utter stupidity - but the people who work for the World Health Organization are 'ignorant morons'? And I thought to was just Jeffrey Lord who had early inset dementia...
Jack London| 6.28.12 @ 8:00PM
onset dementia that is... Occam wake up man. I thought you worked in healthcare.
Kingofthenet| 6.29.12 @ 12:19AM
Occam, Physician Heal Thy Self!
JayDick| 6.28.12 @ 4:16PM
"And the patients? They will continue to receive the best health care available on the planet."
Are you kidding? The quality of care is not affected by its funding or the controls levied on the providers? What utter nonsense.
If Obamacare goes fully into effect, not only will the nation be bankrupt, our health care system will be in ruins.
TLP| 6.28.12 @ 4:27PM
No it won't.
They already run Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Amtrak, and The Post Office.
And they're all doing just fine.
So, what's the problem?
Albertus Magnus| 6.28.12 @ 4:42PM
Well, let's see. Social security is a Ponzi Scheme that will run out of money in a few years. Medicare and Medicaid? Doctors are threatening to drop out of the system. If they do, what will happen then? Will the Government FORCE them to practice medicine? Amtrak? Are you serious? Amtrak loses money and would fold if not for federal subsidies. Have you priced a train ticket lately? And the Post Office has lost most of their retirement program that Congressional Democrats have stolen for the general fund. Looks like a lot of problems to me.
TLP| 6.28.12 @ 5:17PM
It was SATIRE, Magneto.
For crying out loud.
Obviously, you're new in town.
Albertus Magnus| 6.28.12 @ 5:25PM
Sorry about that, Chief.
TLP| 6.28.12 @ 6:44PM
No problem, buddy.
Doctor Right| 6.28.12 @ 5:51PM
That was satire???
TLP| 6.28.12 @ 5:17PM
It was SATIRE, Magneto.
For crying out loud.
Obviously, you're new in town.
TLP| 6.28.12 @ 6:45PM
I hate this IPad.
Stkman| 6.28.12 @ 4:40PM
Here's what really scary,the Supreme court just told the Federal government thatis they call it a tax, they have absolute power. Here's the next tax thats going to come at us. A gun tax. A gun tax that can only be paid in guns, not money, but guns. Or they'll create a gun tax on existing guns and say the tax is 1 million dollars per firearm or you must turn in your gun. Kind of like saying you must buy health insurance or be fined. Same thing, no difference at all. Now maybe we all understand why homeland security recently purchased 60 million rounds of ammunition.
I think it's time to start loading our guns and be ready. Big brother will be knocking on our doors shortly.
Albertus Magnus| 6.28.12 @ 4:43PM
It opens a can or worms, doesn't it? Freedom died today. Few will mourn I fear.
Stkman| 6.28.12 @ 4:49PM
All will mourn. There will be tears and the gnashing of teeth.
Albertus Magnus| 6.28.12 @ 5:29PM
Back in 2005, the Lefties made a big hullabaloo over a scene in Star Wars III (Revenge of the Sith) wherein Palpatine is granted "extraordinary powers" to cheering throngs. Senator Amidala laments "So this is how freedom dies, to thunderous applause." The Lefties thought this was about Bush. Freedom died today, at the hands of Democrats and one unexpected Republican. It died to thunderous applause from the Left.
JD| 6.28.12 @ 6:54PM
Between that movie and "V for Vendetta", I am so much more than sick of how lefties try to use the entertainment industry for subliminal manipulation, when in fact they parody themselves.
waapiti307| 6.28.12 @ 10:33PM
Can anyone say "Cap and Trade"? The SCOTUS has now empowered the politicians receiving huge amounts of money from the environmental lobby even more. Way to go!
cicero| 6.28.12 @ 5:10PM
As I have said here many times before, our court system has done more damage to the fabric of our society than any other institution we have. In this case, the only thing you can say about it is that, in a democracy, the people deserve whatever they get, because they have to vote for it. Roberts told the people that the people's congress wrote this law, and passed it by a majority vote. That means that the majority of the people wanted it. If they don't, they simply have to change the composition of the boobs they send as their representatives to congress. If they don't, they get to live under what they asked for.
The last time around, the people refused to see what was in front of them. Obama and the Democrats told us exactly what they were going to do. They telegraphed it during the Clinton administration. The voting public was too lazy to listen. Now they have the whole picture, as if on a 56 inch t.v. If they send the Democrats back to the White House, and the Senate, that will tell you that they love the whip and the lash.
Stkman| 6.28.12 @ 5:19PM
If a majority of the people os 30% of the voting population, then no, the majority of us did not want it and a majority of us still don't want it. Your statement that Roberts beleives we got it because our so called representatives voted for it is a myth. Myth founded by the thought that we are "represented" in Congress. We are not and have not been for some time. Washington is doing what Washington wants to do and doing it without the consent of the people. And soon Washington will be hearing from the people. First in November and later, if Congress does not properly respond, in the streets of Washington itself. Live free or die!
Gary B| 6.28.12 @ 6:07PM
"Live free or die." It may come down to that. If there's trouble in the streets, it'll be Republican wimps who cause it.
TLP| 6.28.12 @ 6:49PM
I don't remember who it was.
Jefferson, or Madison.
But one of them insisted that THE COURT was the most DANGEROUS of the Three Branches of Government.
Shame on us, for not listening.
RCV| 6.28.12 @ 8:22PM
So I guess it's not the "Marxist Muslim" any more?
wombat1| 6.28.12 @ 5:13PM
To borrow a line from Pitt the Younger:
'Roll up that Constitution, it will not be wanted these ten years'.
Gary B| 6.28.12 @ 6:04PM
I'm trying like hell to see some good in this. A few days ago Obama's team was anticipating a defeat. There were planning on using that defeat to raise money for the campaign. Instead, Obama's people are overjoyed and Romney's followers are digging into their wallets.
If Obamacare was defeated, Obama would be out there today rallying the troops for a second term to fix it. That's been taken away from him.
Isn't this the main issue: The greatest threat to the republic isn't Obamacare; it's a second term for Obama. If we eliminate that, we can exhale and get down to work on fixing everything. I choose to see Robert's vote as enabling and encouraging a huge activation in the Republican base. The Tea Party will be a beehive of activity. Romney has inherited a key campaign issue.
Robert's vote and opinion is so off the wall I wonder if it was intentional. I also wonder if he swapped votes with Kennedy to set this up. I'm probably reading too much into it but the result is the same.
Jack London| 6.28.12 @ 8:06PM
"If we eliminate that, we can exhale and get down to work on fixing everything."
Gary - be honest . Do you see a return to the GW Bush years - 9/11, Iraq , Afghanistan, massive tax cuts for the rich, the huge crash of 2008 - as fixing things? That's GOP policy - unless you have something else in mind?
Gary B| 6.28.12 @ 9:11PM
Yes, I do. Dump Republican establishment types and get back to the Constitution. In other words reform the ruling elites. With them there, it'll always be business as usual.
JD| 6.28.12 @ 9:15PM
Bush didn't cause 9/11, he inherited terrorists in a country that wouldn't have standed for efforts to find and remove them.
Afghanistan harbored bin Laden. Iraq violated UN resolutions that mandated a war response.
The rich got their Clinton tax hikes halved, which is far less swag than the poor got in their big cuts. Yet federal revenue is up 40% since 2001, well over CBO projections (through 2007).
The crash of 2008 was decades in the making, and started with HUD policies of ~1992.
Why don't you let us decide what our policy is instead of crowning yourself emperor of what everyone else gets to think?
spike59| 6.29.12 @ 12:29PM
you mean 9/11-which was planned by the people Clinton repeatedly refused to go after-the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which the CONGRESS authorized and supported until it got 'hard'- tax cuts for ALL taxpayers-the huge crash that came about only after the Democrats won both houses of Congress in the 2006 mid-terms, and was fueled by reckless Democrat budgets that were significantly larger than even the money tossing Bush wanted?
Hayseed| 6.28.12 @ 6:08PM
At first I was disappointed with the ruling but the more I read about it and other peoples thoughts on it the more I am beginning to believe the CJ set a bomb against the democrats.
In the ruling he restricted the use of the commerce clause.
The democrats now have to defend the ocare TAX bill.
It fired up the right. Read the republicans have collected over a million dollars after the ruling.
Made it clear it's up to us to defend our rights and not depend on others.
Gary B| 6.28.12 @ 6:22PM
Hayseed,
I'm thinking this will apply huge pressure to Congressional Republicans to knock off the BS and do what's right. They need to know the people with pitchforks will be coming for them, not Democrats. I hope 2012 turns out to be 2010 on steroids.
Dixon| 6.28.12 @ 7:28PM
No...this is a disaster as it enshrines leviathan to force you to act in a certain way.
Instead of a "mandate" they will call it a "tax" citing the Sandra Bad-day O'Roberts liberal court as precedent and bleed (tax you) into submission.
Future congresses will now have the cover to tax the makers to the hilt for any and all redistribution schemes libs/prog/statist dream up.
Lipstick on that sow will not make the kiss enjoyable.
spike59| 6.29.12 @ 12:33PM
not really; had they called it a 'tax' from the start, not even schemes like the Cornhusker Kickback and Louisiana Purchase would have saved it...as it was, utter bribery was needed to make the Dems vote for their own bill; with the additional pressure against tax increases, there's no way it could have passed both houses
Bob Grant| 6.28.12 @ 7:32PM
Hayseed,
Is it Roberts job to play politics with this disastrous bill and fish for reasons to uphold it? ...
You DO realize his decision set Supreme Court precedence? Don't you?
Screw the politics of it!!
Hayseed| 6.28.12 @ 7:55PM
Congress had the right to tax us. If I remember correctly at the time of the passing of this pig there was discussion about the penalty being a tax or not. What Roberts did was wipe the lipstick off of this pig and called it what it was. At the same time he removed the supreme court out of the upcoming discussion. Its going to be all about the ocare tax now.
Bob Grant| 6.28.12 @ 8:19PM
This is idiocy (with all due respect).
All he had to was be the strict constructionist he claimed to be during his conformation and judge on the constitutional merits and the case as presented by the parties.
Instead, he went on a fishing expedition and rewrote the law from his bench.
The idea that this is good because we can win the battle down the road in the future is like forgoing an easy game winning extra point kick in regulation time in order to win it overtime.
This is a pathetic consolation prize.
Roberts is a disgrace!!
Hayseed| 6.28.12 @ 10:41PM
Maybe my view of this is idiocy. Lets say Roberts did vote to strike it down. Obama would be running a campaign against the evil right wing court/ republicans want to deny healthcare. I can see him doing a Andy Jackson and give the court the middle finger and keep right on installing ocare as fast as he can. The left base would be fired up the right not so much. Zero wins in November all restraints are off of him and he finishes the job. We're screwed.
Hayseed| 6.28.12 @ 6:37PM
Yes I believe that Roberts today injected the steroids.
Appleby| 6.28.12 @ 6:49PM
I read the decision, and I swear there were so many pirouettes in that thing that the Sugar Plum Fairy would have screwed herself into the ground before she got to the end. If Daddy had read this -- he knew the Constitution up, down, back, forth and sideways, not to mention inside out--he would have bust a gusset.
What this thing is saying is that the government cannot force us to buy things, it can only make your life a living hell until you do. Wait for the same kind of "tax" to apply to those light bulbs we don't want to buy, and gradually upon the Prius and Volt we aren't driving, the Energy Star refrigerator we didn't buy, the solar panels we don't have on our roof, and the other products and services made by government cronies that we do not patronize.
Dixon| 6.28.12 @ 7:16PM
Sandra Badday O'Roberts either wittingly or unwittingly has now opened the door for leviathan to "tax" you into submission vs just "mandating" it.
And shorten the timeline until O'Roberts is a useless former head of a non existent branch of government for a country that no longer exists as it is bankrupted onto the ash heap other other failed republics who vote themselves benefits using other people's money that eventually runs out.
We now know we have a liberal court intent to let the central government tax and spend to destroy what the founders so painstakingly worked to prevent.
That Gonzales and GW wanted this statist as CJ makes me almost as disappointed and angry at them as I am at O'Roberts.
But Sandra Badday O'Roberts has his legacy. Even if BOcare is overturned...this attack on freedom and liberty will always lurk, awaiting future attacks.
Congrats Sandy O'Roberts..you killer of liberty and freedom.
JD| 6.28.12 @ 7:41PM
Guys, help me out on this one. I'm trying to figure out which of my concise definitions of conservative vs liberal works best. Yes, I understand that today's "liberal" means the opposite of classical liberal, but that's the word we know, so we use it:
JD| 6.28.12 @ 7:42PM
Definition 1: Conservatives are people who understand that the largest corporation in America is the federal government.
Explanation 1: Liberals insist that corporations are unique forces of evil, and that they confer a special susceptibility to corruption and the evil "profit motive" that government does not share. They do not see complexity or concentration of power as problems, let alone the biggest problems, so they add to them instead of simplifying and distributing. The reality is that government is as prone to downsides of size and concentration of power as any other entity, and inevitably shows this.
JD| 6.28.12 @ 7:42PM
Definition 2: Conservatives are people who think that no one has any standing to prevent two other people from trading willingly with each other, and that government exists only to prevent people from being forced into unwilling trades.
Explanation 2: Of course, today's government actually DOES the forcing. Nevertheless, one can define all forms of crime as unwilling trades - life, liberty, dignity, or property are taken from an unwilling victim by means of force or swindle. So government prevents those. Liberals, meanwhile, mandate unwilling trades as a mechanism for righting supposed wrongs. Unwilling trades are their only mechanism for doing so.
JD| 6.28.12 @ 7:50PM
I think I like this one the best because of its completeness. Liberals will find quibbles with #3, insisting that there's an area where they do treat causes (probably because they misunderstand causes). #1 is too tied to the concept of the corporation; I'd prefer something broader. But it is extra pithy and concise. #3 is also bumper-sticker concise.
But #2 covers everything. The more you think about it, the more it does. Name a liberal action of any sort that isn't an unwilling trade for someone? Sure, they might argue that taxes that pay for law enforcement are unwilling things conservatives do, or that incarceration for crimes is unwilling, but these are refuted easily enough. The taxes are the cost of avoiding anarchy, without paying for any more than that, and people "buy" consequences when they commit crimes.
Which actually leads back to definition 1 - government is a corporation that provides protection as a service, for a fee. We are all both shareholders and customers.
JD| 6.28.12 @ 7:42PM
Definition 3: Conservatives treat causes. Liberals treat symptoms.
Explanation 3: Liberals see that the poor have little money, so they give them money. But the reason that the poor have little money is that they are unproductive. Giving them money doesn't make them more productive; in fact, it has been shown to discourage them from being more productive, making their income worse. Income disparity isn't impacted in any positive way by post-income redistribution, unless one believes in trickle-wherever, which the Left decries (except when using it to justify "stimulus"). In general, liberals paper over symptoms of problems and condemn conservatives for not doing so. Conservatives, by contrast, see the liberal policies as the causes of problems, and know that removing the policies will remove the need to deal with the symptoms.
Jack London| 6.28.12 @ 7:43PM
Let me ask a simple question. What, exactly, is so terrible about a system where all Americans have adequate health care insurance?
Bob Grant| 6.28.12 @ 7:49PM
We had it several decades ago until Washington made unaffordable for all but the most fortunate.
Jack London| 6.28.12 @ 7:58PM
So you think the vast majority of older people could have self-insured without Medicare? Please provide evidence. Otherwise this is just utter BS and betrays infantile thinking.
JD| 6.28.12 @ 8:04PM
If not for all that Democrats do to deprive people of their earnings over time, then yes, a lot of people could have a lot more than they can pay for as we are. And things would be cheaper, too!
Jack London| 6.28.12 @ 8:15PM
So - you really do think older people - no matter who they are - could self-insure without Medicare? Tell me - is this before or after Fleming discovered penicillin?
JD| 6.28.12 @ 8:23PM
First, you unnecessarily constrain the question by invoking "insurance", which is not a necessary model for health care. Second, you act as if I must come up with a model superior to the perfection which you but certainly not I think your idea would achieve.
No one will get everything they want under any plan. But yours is definitely not the way to get as close as humanly possible, nor will the outcome be fair. You people have decided, in your infinite wisdom, that what you label "health care" is special, and that specialness makes it immune to the laws of supply and demand, or even the need to be produced before it can be consumed! Thus we can mandate that everyone gets it, and it shall be so! Is Harry Potter involved in this wizardry?
This doesn't actually happen ANYWHERE! Every system has costs, and every system limits care. Yours will too, and you won't like it nearly as much as you think you will.
Jack London| 6.28.12 @ 9:00PM
JD, as I've said you are behaving like a simpleton. Maybe you are a genius who has worked out how a shelf stacker can afford a quadruple bypass without insurance, but your proof is about as threadbare as my old grandmaw's carpet.
JD| 6.28.12 @ 9:11PM
You are demonstrating an inability to comprehend what I'm writing.
You continue to restrict the scope of argument to "ObamaCare or the status quo", even though we on the right believe the status quo is already littered with things that make health care too expensive.
And you laughably condemn my "proof", when I haven't even begun to argue (I've only been trying to convince you to HAVE the argument instead of declaring victory before we start). You don't even recognize whether something is an attempt at proof!
And what about you? You have no proof that ObamaCare will do any of the things it promises to do, particularly lower costs. Heck, it still promises not to cover illegals, despite Democratic refusal to include ID checks!
Apparently your side gets to theorize that every cop in Arizona will be a flaming racist, but we're not allowed to suppose that people who enter the country illegally might also scam meds?
Kingofthenet| 6.29.12 @ 12:34AM
Jack. The elderly are uninsurable health-wise obviously, otherwise considering the AVERAGE Senior uses approx. $10,000 in services a year, what would the Premium be? Oh and the LAST 12 months of life? like a $100,000 EASY
JD| 6.28.12 @ 8:03PM
Let me ask a simple question: Why are you so dishonest?
Do you honestly think that ANYONE here who opposes ObamaCare actually thinks that it will achieve its stated objective? I know you people CONSTANTLY tell voters that conservatives are evil people with evil motives who oppose good, noble liberal ideas because we don't want good things to happen, but do you actually BELIEVE your own bile?
WE THINK IT WON'T WORK. THAT'S WHY WE OPPOSE IT!!!
Yet I've not met a liberal with whom I can even engage in conversation about whether it will work or not, because all I ever encounter are locked into the presupposition that it will work, together with the supremely arrogant assumption that no one short of a total moron could possibly think it might not work, such that the only reason left to oppose it is not wanting it to work.
Jack London| 6.28.12 @ 8:23PM
As you well know, a single payer system like Medicare for all would eliminate any problems. Obamacare was always a compromise for the right, as it was the right's idea.
Your problem is to convince us that as we move further into the 21st century we should carry on being the only developed nation without universal healthcare. Why do you want that? What advantage do we have to have millions with health insecurity? Do tell.
JD| 6.28.12 @ 8:28PM
Oh, I don't know, maybe because of Europe's current problems with it? "Insecurity?" What does that mean? Do we all have food insecurity since we're not all guaranteed unlimited food?
Again, you're unable to argue without STARTING with the premise that you have already won the argument - that your plan is better than any alternative. ALL you want to do is berate me for not supporting the BEST PLAN EVER THAT NO ONE CAN DOUBT. You still seem incapable of engaging on issues. You can't explain how your plan actually compares to an alternative; you can't even seem to grasp the concept of doing so. You think stating your good intentions equates to achieving them!
And of course, as seems mandatory for the Left, you have to tell me that I believe things that I don't believe. ObamaCare was never "the Right's idea". That you got some token member of the Republican party to talk about it as an alternative to complete nationalization 20 years ago doesn't bind me in any way at all.
Jack London| 6.28.12 @ 8:39PM
Sorry - but you've not said why there is advantage to us as an nation by not having universal healthcare. I want to know what that is. Please explain. The alternative is what we have had - millions in health insecurity.
The healthcare mandate was mainstream GOP thinking and is in place in in MA, thanks to Romney.
JD| 6.28.12 @ 8:49PM
No, no, a thousand times no. It is not your way or the highway. You ask me to choose between two systems that your side created - the regulatory mess that inflated prices or that same mess plus ObamaCare. I don't do false choices!
Obama's Big Lie is that those are the two choices, and none of us have ever bought it.
And once again, you think you have standing to tell me what I and those like me think, in spite of our objections! My thinking has not changed; it was what it remains.
Jack London| 6.28.12 @ 8:55PM
JD, you don't have the intellectual equipment to talk about this. If you want to engage, go do some homework on healthcare costs say under the GW Bush years. Otherwise you're just like a fish out of water.
JD| 6.28.12 @ 9:01PM
Strange, your left-wing elite universities thought a lot of my intellectual equipment when they offered me full scholarships back in the day.
But of course, we're back to another liberal fallacy - that the counter to any criticism of Obama is to blame everything on Bush, and that all problems began with Bush. As if electing a statue in 2000 would have meant today would be utopia!
Or that conservatives love Bush. Another lie.
Why can't you argue with non-straw men?
The health care boondoggle has been building since the invention of "health insurance", and government was involved even then.
Kingofthenet| 6.29.12 @ 12:49AM
JD, I sort of understand what your feeling, and I am a liberal, let me explain it MY way. I see Govt. Sponsored Health Insurance as a FLOOR, YOU as a Conservative see it as a CEILING, the BEST you will ever get. I see it as poor people might have to wait a few months for that Non-Vital MRI on their Bum Knee, before they can get their 'Free' Surgery. I like this, it means I will ALWAYS be OK, no matter WHAT my financial situation. But I hear you saying, I DON"T WANT TO WAIT...well than either have a Health care plan that is good and won't make you wait, or do as others do in ALL govt. Health Care plans, go to some private pay place for quick access. Your choice! Wait and it's FREE or pay for Speed? Ain't that real life?
JD| 6.28.12 @ 8:31PM
I have yet to understand the Left's infatuation with monopoly, so long as they administer the monopoly.
This in spite of their hatred of any business not run by them that gets "too big", even if it doesn't nearly approach monopoly. In fact, they often rail against abuses in government even as they seek to give it more power!
Jack London| 6.28.12 @ 8:42PM
Obamacare is deliberately designed for individual private insurance - you do understand that, don't you? I think not.
JD| 6.28.12 @ 8:46PM
You just said " a single payer system like Medicare for all would eliminate any problems". That's monopoly. Period.
When government defines the product and all of the rules that govern it, is that any different than government administering it directly?
Of course it is. You need the "private" part to stick around so you can blame it when costs go up.
Albertus Magnus| 6.28.12 @ 8:07PM
Answer: Corruption, Waste, Fraud, and MONEY! MONEY! MONEY! The Feds are constitutionally prohibited from operating health insurance (in spite of today's ruling) because centralized governmental control of such things is inherently corrupt. Health Insurance is a private matter. The Feds need only set up a legal framework for private business transactions, which IS constitutional. Otherwise it can and should be regulated at the State level.
Remember when interstate branch banking was illegal? Since it was made legal, we have seen lots of corruption and ultimately TARP bailouts.
The answer is that it needn't and shouldn't be a single system run by a corrupt government. It is axiomatic that the more centralized something becomes, the more corrupt it becomes (especially anything political). Jefferson was right in that such things should be decentralized and local.
Jack London| 6.28.12 @ 8:32PM
"It is axiomatic that the more centralized something becomes, the more corrupt it becomes"
Well this is fine rhetoric Albertus. But sadly for you there is no proof, is there? The reason why we 'centralize' things is to regulate against corruption. When we fail to regulate we get the crash of 2008 and today's massive fine against Barclays.
JD| 6.28.12 @ 8:39PM
So monopolies are the consumer's best protection against abuse?
Jack London| 6.28.12 @ 8:45PM
You're missing the point as always - we're not bringing banks and other types of company into state ownership (unless we have to). But we do need rules. Do you think we don't need rules?
JD| 6.28.12 @ 8:50PM
STRAW. MAN.
You sound like one of the pigs in Animal Farm saying that.
JD| 6.28.12 @ 8:51PM
There is no difference between your concept of rules and state ownership besides the ability to lie to the public. Read Sowell's "Socialism or Fascism" again.
Albertus Magnus| 6.29.12 @ 1:01PM
No one said we don't need rules. Straw man argument.
Also, what more proof do you need? Open a history book. Don't just read it, think about what you read. All of recorded history proves my assertion. Ancient Rome was a working model of the axiom.
JD| 6.28.12 @ 8:42PM
The crash of 2008 was caused, almost in its entirety, by federal regulators. They mandated that subprime mortgages start getting federal backing, and that Fannie make subprimes a certain percentage (eventually 51%) of its portfolio.
Before this, no one issues subprime, because without federal backing, it couldn't be sold, and of course bankers didn't want to hold that risk themselves. Federal backing was the license to issue, bundle, and sell. The ENTIRE license. And Fannie was the eager (mandated) buyer.
But of course, others got into the game. It's only natural when a big new market appears out of thin air for people to jump in fast. But they were all safe, because the federal government claimed to back their securities, all in the name of helping poor people get into houses!
You own this. All of it. Glass-Steagall had nothing to do with it - it only magnified the consequences.
Jack London| 6.28.12 @ 8:51PM
So - let's get this straight. You are saying that even though the fact that the vast majority of subprime lending was nothing to do with Fannie and Freddie the loans were government backed? I think you're mad.
JD| 6.28.12 @ 9:06PM
Federal backing is more than just "bought by Fannie". It's loans that meet federal criteria.
As is true of all things free market, the free market apparatus dries up when the government provides "free" competition. By this point, ratings agencies didn't do the work of evaluating mortgages or mortgage-backed securities anymore. They just judged by whether federal guidelines were met or not. The federal guidelines became irresponsible, and we were all taken along for the ride!
spike59| 6.29.12 @ 12:36PM
nothing at all...the problem is, instead of THAT, we have ObaMaoScare, the largest tax increase in history, aimed SQUARELY at the middle class
nice work, Dems; the campaign ads will write themselves
Oldefarte| 6.28.12 @ 7:45PM
As a play on the words of Andy Griffith's comedy record WHAT IT WAS, WAS FOOTBALL of the 1950's; Roberts and the SCOTUS should have opined that the purpose of [The Affordable Care Act] was to ......RUN FROM ONE END OF THE LEGAL ENCYCLOPEDIA [in Griiffith's description of a football field as a cow pasture] TO THE OTHER, WITHOUT EITHER GETTIN KNOCKED DOWN [POLITICALLY SPEAKING].....OR STEPPIN IN SOMETHING! Me thinks that possible he/they STEPPED IN SOMETHING BIG TIME!!!!!!!!!!
Who Knows?| 6.28.12 @ 8:10PM
Roberts is wise like a fox.
Remember when Mondale said he would raise taxes, in that debate with Reagan?
It sealed his fate.
I think Roberts WANTED to “call it like it is”, that is, do congress’s dirty work, and admit that they---the Democrats and Obama---WANTED to call it a tax, but were afraid to.
From now until November, we now have it on good authority, the SCOTUS, that Obama and the liberal Democrats are the TAXMAN.
Finally, some total clarity!
If the vast majority of American voters don’t throw out Obama, knowing this, well, they are beyond saving, and deserve the horrible malaise to come.
I’m cautiously optimistic, and think the shock of this TAXMAN cometh decision should lead Romney to a landslide victory.
Yes, Roberts essentially got revenge on Obama, IMHO, and The One has no clothes, from now on.
RCV| 6.28.12 @ 8:24PM
I love these silly convoluted theories. What a fox, that Roberts!
Gary B| 6.28.12 @ 9:19PM
Who Knows,
You may be right. Robert's writing on the tax issue seemed convoluted and wrong, almost a blatant stab at Obama. Everyone is upset over short term tactics. He's thinking strategically. He robbed Obama of his most important campaign issue and handed it to Romney on a silver platter and addressed the commerce clause along the way. It may turn out to be a master stroke. Time will tell.
waapiti307| 6.28.12 @ 10:21PM
What? The PPACA is not free? There is no such thing as free health care? I always thought every government program that came down the pike was funded with faerie dust. Oh wait, it will be funded with digitized money. Oh wait again, the "rich" will pay for it *chortle* *chortle*. One thing is for sure there will be social fairness if "ObamaCare" comes into force and taxes are raised next year - we will all equally feel the effects of hyperinflation!
JD| 6.28.12 @ 8:32PM
Democrats condemn Voter ID laws as "imposing an undue burden to vote". What undue burden is this new tax? After all, not paying taxes can be a felony, and felons can't vote!
Anthony| 6.28.12 @ 8:35PM
Once again defeat was snatched from the jaws of victory by a so called conservative.
Well folks, the Rubicon has been crossed.
America was created by patriots in the face of tyranny by patriots.
American patriots had to defend America over the centuries from other forms of tyranny.
American patriots are once again called upon to defend America from tryanny, this time the enemy is us.
If we do not take back this country in November, America is finished.
bluecollarbytes| 6.28.12 @ 8:37PM
What have we got now, a Roberts court for the next 20-30 years? Now that his cherry's been broken, I look forward to more decisions 'that are not his to make', but that he enables anyway.
How will the republican party, which does not follow its politically-correct dictates, or clearly demonstrate Its political philosophy, influence the unfolding obamagenda?
I'm only looking for 'influence' because leading is still foreign to them.
bluecollarbytes| 6.28.12 @ 8:45PM
and,
if republicans refuse to oppose, then there is no rational reason to support 'two party politics'.
i'm blessed in that I have no vested interest in 'republicanism'. I have no loyalty, regardless that every vote I've cast goes for a republican. But unless this one voter is convinced republicans intend on killing obamacare, I will not bother. I've got better things to do than rubber stamp front door/back door govt takeover of health (for starters).
Kingofthenet| 6.29.12 @ 12:54AM
Should G.W Bush have implanted a 'chip' in Roberts? Or can he STILL use his own mind?
JD| 6.28.12 @ 8:38PM
Health care is a "right", they say. Let's think about this.
Did people who died of diseases before we invented the cures for them have their rights violated? Or did the right to a cure only materialize the moment the cure was invented? Does this mean that if a new million-dollar cure for cancer is invented, that our society instantaneously incurs an obligation to provide tens of trillions of dollars worth of it?
But what about cure research? Undoubtedly if we doubled the funding for research towards some cure, the cure might arrive faster. And that timing could be the difference between life and death for some people! So in order to ensure that no one dies from anything preventable, we need to authorize infinite funding for all forms of cure research conceivable. Immediately!
But why is "health care" special? Is dying from cancer worse than dying in an accident? What about the impacts of diet, lifestyle, environment, and psychological factors on lifespan? In how many other ways are people dying sooner than they could have?
We must authorize unlimited everything for everyone (with government regulators to make sure we use it all in ways that extend our lives as much as possible)!
I mean, what kind of barbaric society lets people DIE just to save some money?
bluecollarbytes| 6.28.12 @ 8:52PM
You raise natural questions, and the kind that politicians won't touch.
There is nothing govt can't takeover using the same rationale Roberts used. I hope Roberts feels that the laudatory opeds he's now receiving from leftists and good liberals, was worth the verbal gymnastics, and ultimate costs to our freedoms and wallets.
waapiti307| 6.28.12 @ 10:07PM
JD, your comments are laced with the very logic that escapes the psyche of most politicians in the good ole U.S. of A.
Kingofthenet| 6.29.12 @ 12:56AM
But yet you call it 'Death Panels' if we don't want to spend money for a Hip Replacement on a Bed-Ridden 90yo Bone cancer patient?
JD| 6.29.12 @ 12:52PM
Your extreme example is not representative. Far younger people face far less justifiable restrictions in places that have implemented socialized medicine, and they lack a reasonable method of paying for it themselves under such systems.
A person who earns the wealth to pay for expensive ways of preserving himself should be allowed to use it, and a person who does not is not entitled to it. This is the same whether the product is so-called "health care", choice real-estate in an ideal climate, or a better diet.
waapiti307| 6.30.12 @ 1:25AM
They're not Death Panels when those who perform "End of Life Counseling" do so with tender compassion. When they tell granny that she should feel good about her long life and that her hip replacement is going to be denied because she is considered a waste of valuable government time and money, she should be lucky she has lived so long. It has been determined by the health care bureaucracy that someone more deserving will get his/her surgery. Hey, but granny can chill out and take a pain pill as her hip continues to degenerate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-dQfb8WQvo
David| 6.28.12 @ 8:53PM
Could this have been Roberts's way of getting back at Bam Bam for all of his slights, criticisms, and threats against the Sup Ct? For Bam Bam dictating to the Court what it cannot and cannot do, and for telling the Court WHAT THE LAW IS?
If repubs were luke-warm about Romney, this decision will certainly light a fire under a lot of them. Not to just replace Bam Bam, but all of the dems in the House and the 23 dem senators that are up for re-election this time around to ensure it will be repealed.
Either Roberts knows exactly what he is doing in that regard, or as some have suggested, someone has uncovered a very big skeleton in his closet.
That said, something does need to be done to make sure that everyone is contributing into the medical care system. It is simply wrong for millions to pay no insurance premiums and then to get free medical care when they are sick, while many millions pay exorbitant ins premiums and then pay out-of-pocket, too.
As I have said here before, two of my daughters have had 5 children between them, had no health insurance, and gave birth to all 5 basically for free. At the same time, a co-worker paid right at 1,000 dollars per month to cover his wife and children, and when he wife had another child, he had to come up with almost 2,ooo out-of-pocket.
waapiti307| 6.28.12 @ 10:10PM
Could this have been a calculated move by Roberts to see if "ObamaCare" sticks after it is thrown against the wall (the "wall" being the good citizens of America)? Pure conjecture, though. I'm almost tempted to break out my tin foil hat.
David| 6.28.12 @ 8:57PM
Hey Who Knows, didn't see your comments on Roberts before I posted mine.
bluecollarbytes| 6.28.12 @ 9:19PM
Roberts is not calculating in service to a Romney-win in November. It is what it seems to be right on the surface. One question I'd like the answer to though is- did Roberts change his mind at the last minute, as is implied elsewhere? Did all the leftist browbeatings over the last weeks push Mr. Roberts the other way? Or was it in him all along?
If he ruled as he did because of factors other than the constitutional questions, as again is implied in numerous articles just today, then the decision is as corrupted as any other that makes law rather than interpreting it.
but i shant rant here anymore today. sorry
David| 6.28.12 @ 9:43PM
I agree bluecollar IF he did it. I just can't believe Roberts is stupid enough to blatantly show his liberal side by stating it was a TAX when the law as written said it is a PENALTY. Just doesn't make sense. How does he explain himself to the other conservative justices? Or to the American public who want strict constructionists on the COurt?
waapiti307| 6.28.12 @ 9:58PM
Remember, the POTUS BHO said this before he ran for President:
youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE
Then he changed his mind while he was running for President to make it appear he was more moderate in his views:
youtube.com/watch?v=aDAPLb-HVcM
Here's what he said after he became President:
youtube.com/watch?v=-hsqzSKuC44
youtube.com/watch?v=bauPmy3gSjs
Congressman Barney Frank on the "Public Option" (what the PPACA bill and the POTUS BHO touts):
youtube.com/watch?v=f3BS4C9el98
"ObamaCare" unconstitutional? Not in the President's mind. The POTUS BHO's view on the U.S. Constitution and the court system in the U.S.:
youtube.com/watch?v=a_xNyrzB0xI
youtube.com/watch?v=OkpdNtTgQNM
This would explain why the President was subdued, but pleased with the SCOTUS decision.
This brings to mind what Ronald Reagan said about socialized medicine a year before he switched political parties:
youtube.com/watch?v=fRdLpem-AAs
The intention of the PPACA bill was not primarily about reforming the American health care system, since many of those who reluctantly passed the bill didn't think it was good enough - the primary focus of the bill was/is social justice and/or fairness (health care for all) and income redistribution (the "rich" need to pay their fair share for it, although they can afford to pay out-of-pocket for their health care)...tenets of socialism.
owend| 6.28.12 @ 10:16PM
I don't know if the court wimped out or if we may just be stuck with a liberal leaning court. Chief Justice Roberts may not be the conservative everyone thought he was. By using such convoluted logic as he did in upholding Obamacare, he has put an entire nation, its people, and their well-being at risk. I am stunned by his decision and the opinion he offered. But, it is what it is. If we are to stand a chance to rid the country of this monstrosity, we will have to do it at the ballot box this November. To all who are disappointed as I am, please vote for Romney this November and every Republican on the ballot. Its the only chance we have now.
Timely Renewed | 6.28.12 @ 10:41PM
We can not count on the Supreme Court to defend the Constitution. Even if Obamacare is repealed, that will still leave in place 75 years of Supreme Court decisions which have allowed the federal government to expand far beyond its original constitutional limits. We must now resort to the ultimate power the Framers left us - amendment. Only constitutional amendments restating and re-affirming those original limits will save our Republic. Of course, Congress will never initiate such amendments. Therefore, we must first reform the amendment process to enable the states to initiate and enact amendments without having to go through either Congress or the unworkable and dangerous mechanism of a convention. See http://www.timelyrenewed.com
RCV| 6.29.12 @ 12:33PM
Your logic seems a little flawed to me. It will still be the same Court interpreting those amendments, unless you want to scuttle the system the Framers left us.
waapiti307| 6.30.12 @ 1:36AM
They're called precedents. Once they've been set, they open the door for politicians and bureaucrats to pass any law and write any policy they want to because if their law is taken to the SCOTUS, they can use a previous ruling to point out a particular precedent and justify why their law should stand. The past comes back to bite us at times. We must continue to pay for past decisions until there is a ruling that acts as a counter to a previous decision. The past ruling will not become null and void, but now there is a caveat resulting from another ruling.
waapiti307| 6.30.12 @ 1:40AM
I should say a "caveat lector". As a side note, it is very difficult to overturn a Supreme Court ruling. It has been done, but again it is very difficult. Good information at this site:
http://money.howstuffworks.com.....-cases.htm