The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

Special Report

Roberts Too Clever By Half

By on 6.29.12 @ 6:10AM

And his supporters by more than half.

On Thursday morning, in the most anticipated Supreme Court ruling in recent American history, Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the Court’s four liberal Justices to uphold Obamacare’s “individual mandate” as a tax, even while Roberts agreed with the four conservative members of the Court that the mandate would be unconstitutional if considered only based on the Commerce Clause.

The liberal mass media began immediate preening for their president, with the New York Times calling the ruling a “victory for Obama,” the Washington Post proclaiming “a win for Obama today,” and MSNBC announcing “a dramatic victory.”

They may be right, but the decision may equally turn out to be a pyrrhic victory for President Obama, motivating conservatives across the country and pushing independent voters along with skeptical conservatives and libertarians fully into the arms of Mitt Romney.

Since the Court found the mandate constitutional (despite an embarrassing headline by CNN to the contrary), it rendered moot challenges to other important aspects of the Act, including guaranteed issue and community rating (requiring insurance companies to issue insurance to everyone regardless of pre-existing conditions and without considering most factors specific to a given applicant other than age and tobacco use).

The only aspect of Obamacare which was overturned, on a 7-2 vote, was the provision that would strip a state of its existing federal Medicaid funds if the state refused to comply with the law’s provisions to expand Medicaid.

In opening his reading from the conservative Justices’ dissent, Justice Anthony Kennedy, who just relinquished — though perhaps unfairly — the title of most suspect conservative on the Court to Chief Justice Roberts, noted “In our view, the entire Act before us is invalid in its entirety.” I agree entirely.

The Court’s majority found that the mandate is constitutional as a tax, with the implication being that Congress is allowed to impose almost any tax it wants to (other than things like poll taxes which impede fundamental rights of Americans). The dissenters disagreed: “Whatever may be the conceptual limits upon the Commerce Clause and upon the power to tax and spend, they cannot be such as will enable the Federal Government to regulate all private conduct and to compel the States to function as administrators of federal programs.”

Regarding mandating of healthy young people to buy insurance to mask the costs of the rest of Obamacare, the dissenters were not shy: “If Congress can reach out and command even those furthest removed from an interstate market to participate in the market, then the Commerce Clause becomes a font of unlimited power, or in Hamilton’s words, ‘the hideous monster whose devouring jaws… spare neither sex nor age, nor high nor low, nor sacred nor profane.’”

The Court’s dissenters also noted that the law was specifically passed with the mandate as a penalty, not a tax: “We cannot rewrite the statute to be what it is not. Although this court will often strain to construe legislation so as to save it against constitutional attack, it must not and will not carry this to the point of perverting the purpose of a statute … or judicially rewriting it.” Critics of the majority’s decision will say for the foreseeable future that Chief Justice Roberts rewrote Obamacare to save it. Michael Carvin, who argued against Obamacare before the Supreme Court, noted dryly, “I’m glad he rewrote the statute instead of the Constitution.”

Carvin’s summary of the Supreme Court’s ruling was on target: “What the Obama Administration… thought they were doing was completely unconstitutional; what they lied to the American people about was constitutional.… Unfortunately they got away with that bait-and-switch. A fraud has been perpetrated on the American citizenry.”

In oral arguments before the Supreme Court, the administration’s attorneys argued — as they knew they had to — that the mandate was constitutional as a tax. This despite the fact that Democrats passed Obamacare by stating specifically and repeatedly that the mandate was not a tax, including a testy response by President Obama himself to unusually challenging questioning by ABC’s George Stephanopoulos in 2009.

As recently as a few months ago, President Obama’s budget director said in a Congressional hearing that the mandate is not a tax, with Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius saying “it operates as a tax, but it is not per se a tax.”

If the bill had been marketed to members of Congress and the public as a tax, it is unlikely that even the Cornhusker Kickback and the Louisiana Purchase would have been enough to pass the law, despite the large Democrat congressional majorities at the time. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said that “if it had been seen as a tax, they wouldn’t have gotten ten votes, much less sixty.”

As for those Democrats in Congress who have argued, and may continue to argue, that the Obamacare mandate is not a tax, Graham said “they either don’t know what they’re doing, or they lied to us. So this is a huge issue in the fall.” Graham called for every Congressional Republican who is up for election to ask their Democratic opponents whether they support this tax increase; given that Democrats have little choice but to support Obamacare, this is the political equivalent of asking someone if he has stopped beating his wife yet, and a solid political tactic.

Thus, the fact that the Court found the mandate to be a tax offsets some of the political gains for Obama. The question is how much.

Page: 1 2 3  

About the Author

Ross Kaminsky is a self-employed trader and investor and is a senior fellow of the Heartland Institute. He is the host of The Ross Kaminsky Show on Denver’s NewsRadio 850 KOA at 11 AM on most Sundays. You can reach Ross by e-mail at rossputin(at)rossputin(dot)com.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (382) |

btims86| 6.29.12 @ 6:21AM

And so the GOPer's will not send out emails pleasding for money in order to "repeal" Obamacare. Yeah, sure.

The Beltway Class continues to get what they want - more centralizing of power, more central planning. That's why they have such big smiles on their faces this morning. Their hold on power has been enhanced.

Bob From District 9| 6.29.12 @ 9:03PM

"The Beltway Class continues to get what they want"

You are talking about Romney and his supporters, aren't you?

JmsA| 6.29.12 @ 10:18PM

Are you voting for Obama, Bob?

Big Dog | 6.30.12 @ 3:10AM

They don't have to repeal anything. As the SCOTUS has deemed ObamaCare a tax, it is invalid.

You can not use reconciliation to increase taxes. That's illegal. That's why the dems claimed it fell under the Commerce Clause. They couldn't raise taxes, it would have lost.

Can't have it both ways. The only thing that has to happen, is a change in leadership, then deem the law, null and void, as its an invalid law.

TLP| 6.30.12 @ 7:15AM

Just REFUSE to enforce it.

That's what this guy does, all the time.

doramin| 7.1.12 @ 2:02AM

As I've read elsewhere, a President Romney should simply begin by granting every state in the union and all the territories a waiver his first hour in office. THEN he can work to get it properly repealed.

TLP| 7.1.12 @ 9:24PM

I like that.

A LOT.

RCV| 7.2.12 @ 8:04PM

He's already said he would do that.

doramin| 7.1.12 @ 1:59AM

I would love to say Chief Justice Roberts was acting out of firm constitutional principles, really I do, but my cynical gut says otherwise. His supposed concern for the reputation of the SCOTUS gives the game away. The man was quite simply intimidated by the Brown Shirt/axe handle/Chicago thug tactics we've all seen recently.

Yes, dear readers, this supposed rock-ribbed constitutionalist was--in his heart of hearts--afraid of spending the next few years as the hated bete noir of the Left.

He fudged his skivvies at the thought of being treated like... like... Ann Coulter on the Berkeley campus.

His stout heart quailed at the prospect of being denounced and reviled by the MSM and the Dems, of having his limo egged, of being savagely heckled at every public appearance, of being angrily accosted at restaurants, of having to dodge banana cream pies, of having OWS goons camped out on his front lawn, of having to hire bodyguards, of getting obscene phone calls, of having his family threatened... in short, of getting "wisconsined."

You heard it here first, folks, tho' my words doth taste like wormwood in my mouth, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts is a moral and physical coward.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 6.29.12 @ 6:29AM

Since Bush wasn't a conservative I'm surprised anyone found the outcome surprising.

The public has no source left to protect them from becoming serfs except themselves.

The problem now is that so many people believe the government is their savior we have reached the proverbial tipping point.

Whatever comes you will have to endure. Perhaps one day we will get a government that's actually interested in the public as opposed to expanding power while it pretends to be interested in the public.

Ironically, those who are uninsured including many poor may not get access to good health care or any health care. There's a shortage of doctors and even the government can't wave a magic wand and "create" more health care.

Those who currently have insurance may lose it as companies fold and everyone ends up on long ques of waiting lines as Mickey Mouse health care becomes a reality.

The entire plan is a death chamber for the public as new federal agencies will come into being who will only issue thousands of more regulations concerning health care. The process of receiving health care will not be easy as federal bureaucrats create and grab their new turf.

In another twist of irony all those new federal employees will need a place to live which may create a housing shortage in Washington.

If there's anything to be learned from this perhaps it's that Washington never loses the game. Why is that? The game is rigged and even the ballot box may not be enough.

benny havens| 6.29.12 @ 7:15AM

Where is Harriet Miers when you need her?

Russel| 6.29.12 @ 8:32AM

Well Bill , our Founders gave us a few cards we haven't played yet . Roberto whacked the Hornet's nest and now we're REALLy pissed . Let him decide if burning down DC and running all of the crooks out is Constitutional . I have a sneaking suspicion that that is in the cards . The Tea Party is organized now , and not some anomaly Reid likes to wish it was .

TLP| 6.29.12 @ 8:48AM

You are absolutely right. We will have to Endure. It IS a Rigged Game. Insurance Companies will be Driven Out, along with the Doctors, who will not work for Crumbs, after spending Hundreds of Thousands of Dollars, and a third of their lives, on a Medical Degree. So, the Government will Pay for all future Medical Educations, and our Journey BACK IN TIME will continue, as the Heath Care Star Chamber will decide that General Practitioners will become the future Coin of the Realm.

Fairness, above all else!

Businesses that WEREN'T HIRING, will never hire, now. They will leave these Shores for better climes, and roar in to Asia, or wherever, like a Rogue Wave. While any Company who had any kind of a thought about COMING HERE, just Re-thought that other thought, that they were thinking, before Yesterday happened.

Rather, everyone have NOTHING, than to have one man process one more thing than his neighbor.

FORWARD, to Mao's Cultural Revolution.

Sieg Heil, and finish your Soylent Green, or you are not getting up from this table, young man.

Like ROME, the Barbarians are at the Gates, and Collapse is Imminent, and Irreversible. We will soon lose our Super Power Status, and just like the aftermath of ROME, the world will be consumed with War and Pestilence, and a New Dark Ages will descend on us all.

Have a nice day, and Holy Shit.

Von Mises Jr| 6.29.12 @ 9:11AM

As Democrats rejoice, let me explain what they just did. Apparently they are too stupid to understand.
For one-hundred years, the House of Morgan, other Wall Street firms, farm conglomerates, Fortune 500 and now insurance companies have worked in unison with a fascist government to control the people.
Can anyone tell me why Wal-Mart, Big Pharma and others were not in opposition to this law and are quiet as crickets in the ruling? It is because they have been trying to get rid of their health care costs since FDR. Now the crony capitalist can pay a couple thousand dollar fine and YOU IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR MUST PAY FOR IT YOURSELF. OTHERWISE YOU FACE A FINE. AND ONCE EVERYONE IS ON GOVERNMENT HEALTH CARE, YOU WILL PROBABLY PAY ABOUT $500 PER WEEK FOR YOUR PLAN.

The other thing these uneducated bastards did is to allow everything to be taxed. Enumerated Powers is history. DC can tax your 401K, foreign automobiles, religious donations and American Flags. Why hell, we may not need any of these things anyway in our new "sustainable development" smart growth neighborhood.

Bill is spot on that we should not be surprised. Bush 41 was a big proponent of Agenda21, and Bush 43 gave us McCain Feingold (shut up), No Child Left Behind (indoctrination) and Prescription Part D (more socialized medicine).

Perhaps some people need a master. I was doing fine on my own before these dumb SOB's surrendered to DC and the UN.

Grzmlyk| 6.29.12 @ 11:51AM

TLP and von Mises, I agree with both of you.

The game is rigged - the GOP is the Washington Generals to the Democrats' Harlem Globetrotters.

I do wonder how people think we're going to lurch right as a country - certain writers on this site seem to believe we are a center-right nation. On what evidence? Occasional polls?

Who owns the media? Who owns local, state and federal government? Who owns academia? Who owns big business? Who owns science? To whose tune does popular culture dance? Answer to all: Soviet Socialists (i.e., "Socialism for thee, but not for me.").

The Tea Party is a tiny portion of the population. The way Obamacare will be rolled out will be the old boiled frog technique - many people will come to like some of it, and paralysis will take over. I doubt John Bohner would cancel a single appointment at his tanning salon to fight against it.

Romney will "repeal and replace?" Hardy, har har. With what, Mitt, RomneyCare The Sequel? Please. Romney will be Bush III. He won't have a fraction of the political courage that would be necessary to save this country.

And even if he did, he'd be excoriated for his draconian actions - which means a Democrat will be ushered in in 2016 (See Sarkozy, Nicolas).

Ergo, collapse is the inevitable. And the survivors who emerge from the smoldering rubble will, naturally, blame conservatism for the destruction of the country.

As a people, we do not deserve the America that 0nce was.

CJW| 6.29.12 @ 12:10PM

Since the fine is now a tax, Congress will amend the statute to tax every employer subject to the Act, (over 50 employees) the amount necessary to fund the government health insurance.

So an employer will have the choice to either provide the health insurance, or pay the feds the amount necessary to fund. It will operate the same as Medicare, with a government health plan. Basically, everyone will be in Medicare.

For individuals, we will have to show we have a health insurance plan acceptable to the feds. If we do not, we will be taxed an amount necessary for the feds to enroll us in the government plan.

These low "fines" were a smokescreen to shift everyone to a government plan which will be funded by taxes.

Grzmlyk| 6.29.12 @ 12:49PM

That is correct. The endgame in communism is no private property, all the means of production are owned by the government. The intermediate step is this socialism/fascism hybrid that we have now.

The point of all of this isn't to make life better for the downtrodden and oppressed. It isn't to protect those illegal immigrants who "live in the shadows" or "LGBT" outliers or women or minorities or any other balkanized victim group.

The point of all this is POWER. Corrupt power. And the best way to gain and then wield corrupt power is through dictatorship.

Apparently, there are many Americans who are happy to lie prostrate before the State.

If I were the insurance companies, I wouldn't be doing a victory lap right now. Gather ye rosebuds while you may, Blue Cross et al: Your days are numbered. At best all of you will be co-opted as quasi government entities a la the banks and GM - bagmen for the crooks in Washington.

But I guess if you're on the right side of the kleptocracy, your nest is feathered.

CJW| 6.29.12 @ 12:58PM

Agree.
As Dr. Thomas Sowell wrote, the lefties believe they have "The Vision of the Annointed." They know what is best for us whether we like or approve of it, and they will create their vision of heaven on earth.

Grzmlyk| 6.29.12 @ 1:16PM

Funny how lefties are sure that a Utopia can be created where everybody will happily contribute to society from each according to his abilities to each according to his needs.

And yet the sine qua non of implementing this vision is coercion: We can only achieve this blissful Utopia at the point of a gun. Somehow, these intellectual giants never see this irony.

There is no such thing as socialism, and never has been. It is a mirage. Whenever and where ever socialism is forced upon a people, a corrupt tyranny is the real manifestation of the pretty words.

There are four, and only four, kinds of liberals:]
The fools actually believe that Utopia is achievable, and they pat themselves on the back for their part in building it - ignoring the reality that the policies they advocate are institutionalized nihilism.

The crooks are most of the politicians, the banking and business cronies who get into bed with the politicians and exact their pound of flesh from the citizenry with amoral aplomb.

The vandals are those like Obama, who don't really care about creating a utopia and aren't especially driven by greed - they just want to leave their mark by defacing and destroying the edifices and institutions of freedom.

The pawns are the schmucks who are kept poor, ignorant and helpless, and are bought off with ostensible government largesse, in exchange for their perpetual support of the fools, the crooks and the vandals.

CJW| 6.29.12 @ 1:41PM

The commies killed over 100 million people last century in their attempt at Utopia. For some reason, the lefties ignore this history of genocide, and continue to want give more power to the government to run their lives.

Grzmlyk| 6.29.12 @ 2:07PM

At least I understand the crooks - they're just exploiting eternal naivete to line their pockets.

However, they could not do so with impunity if not for the fools, who are legion (and there is, sadly, an unending supply of them), and who never, ever learn the lessons of history.

And that's the crux - it's the fools that I can't understand - they subjugate empirical evidence in favor of their own narcissistic fantasies. I've seen it up close and personal many, many times - with my own friends and loved ones.

They think they are GOOD when, in fact, they are destroying human beings for nothing other than their own vanity. I never cease to be astonished by their ability to rationalize the most evil behavior (Walter Duranty of the NY Times was a famous example of this during Stalin's famines and purges in the USSR).

In the end, it is narcissism that has destroyed this country.

Trinacria| 6.29.12 @ 4:45PM

Beautifully stated and on point. There's nothing - nothing - more dangerous than a self described big-hearted liberal (except, perhaps, a well educated big hearted liberal).

The history of human misery is littered with the tragic and unforeseen (though certainly not unforeseeable) consequences of their inept and misguided attempts to be perceived as enlightened. Ironically, the very antithesis of enlightenment is the failure to learn from the (repeated) mistakes of one's predecessors.

Von Mises Jr| 6.29.12 @ 4:57PM

G & T,
CJW and I posit, from my understanding of his realizations, that they are NOT big-hearted. They are POWER hungry.
They want to freaking control what you eat. They want your blood tests. You shall comply.

Trinacria| 6.29.12 @ 5:46PM

Completely agree; that's why I used the term "self-described" big hearted liberal. I don't for a moment believe them to be big-hearted; indeed, the belief that man has neither the right nor the capacity to be responsible for himself is fundamentally incompatible with a big heart. It is rather the unmistakable mark of a small mind.

CJW| 6.29.12 @ 4:59PM

T
Welcome back, haven't seen your comments for some time.
W

TLP| 6.29.12 @ 5:15PM

Dear Gmzlyk; It's far worse than that.

According to Chief Justice Benedict Arnold - "The Government can Tax you for NOT BUYING Health Insurance, the same way they Tax FOR BUYING Gasoline, Fuel, or what have you."

I'm paraphrasing.

By that Logic (and, pay attention) they can Tax you for NOT BUYING a House, a Car, a Boat, or anything they wish to ORDER YOU TO BUY.

That's where we are.

I want you to think back to The Godfather II. To the Senator who was adamant about not giving the Corlione Family a Gaming Liscence, until he woke up in a Whore House, with a Dead Hooker on the floor.

It all makes sense now, doesn't it?

Grzmlyk| 6.29.12 @ 6:30PM

Yes, it's all about ultimate, corrupt power. And power and money are fungible entities.

I also agree that the "big hearted" liberals are in fact self-serving in every way. Proof is everywhere, but let's just take minimum wage, which all of them support.

Superficially (and that's as far as any of them look), minimum wage appears to these people to be a compassionate policy - those poor, downtrodden African Americans and Hispanics can't live on sweat-shop wages that evil white business would otherwise pay them, so it only makes sense to force the bad guys to pay more.

Never mind that every credible study ever done shows that minimum wage has a negative impact on low-skill unemployment for a myriad of reasons. Why don't we have movie theater ushers anymore? Why are bank tellers going the way of the do-do bird? Why are checkout personnel at supermarkets disappearing, all in favor of cheaper technology solutions?

But the fact that minimum wage actually HURTS the very people liberals want to believe they are helping has no effect whatsoever on their support for this corrosive policy in which everybody loses (the employer, the employee and the customer).

They WANT to believe that minimum wage is a good thing and facts be damned! And they pat themselves on the back and tell themselves how kind and compassionate they are, and it's ok if maybe they're a little greedy or make a little too much money because they CARE so darn much. It's appalling.

TLP| 6.29.12 @ 6:38PM

I don't get it.

CaptD| 7.1.12 @ 11:55AM

Grzmlyk you are both eloquent and accurate with your comments. I hope you do not mind my sharing parts of them elsewhere.

Oldefarte| 6.29.12 @ 9:46AM

Amen, and possibly anyone having a few extra pennies in their piggy-banks might consider investing same in Asian/Indian stocks and mutual funds instead!!!!

irish19| 6.29.12 @ 11:05AM

I'm thinking more along the lines of food, water, lead, and brass.

Von Mises Jr| 6.29.12 @ 11:26AM

If you have not already, Irish19, you are way behind the curve.
Some of my neighbors and I have food for at least a year, bountiful gardens and brass to protect ourselves and our property. Get with it fellow Celt.

Occam's Tool| 6.29.12 @ 1:37PM

Irish: free water on my property. I an always use another guy who knows how to use a weapon.

Cobalt| 6.29.12 @ 6:15PM

Very wise words, irish19.

Given where we are headed, it might be prudent for people to familiarize themselves with our "just in time delivery system."

Also, look at how our resources were taxed during Hurricane Katrina, a "regional" emergency. What would happen during a "national" emergency. Would certain areas get preferential treatment? Where are the votes located?

Oldefarte| 6.30.12 @ 12:36PM

Agreed BUT always remember that it didn't work out so well for the David Korishes, the protesters of Syria and Egypt, the 1930-40 Jews of Germany etc [since the political powers always control the army, navy, air force, marines etc] okay?

TSD| 6.29.12 @ 11:50AM

The globalist in chief has won petty victory if we are dumb enough to let him. 99% of Americans hate tax's, it is now simple FACT that this goof ball has raised tax's to a level beyond belief. If he and his buddies are not removed in November we do not deserve what was passed on to us!!!

Kwan| 6.29.12 @ 9:47AM

It is believed large numbers of doctors will retire once ObamaCare goes into effect. This is why Obama wanted to take over the student loan program. The left for some time has voiced their concern that there are not enough minority physicians (Asians don't count). Therefore it is expected that with tax-payer dollars we will soon be funding medical school educations for students whose only qualification for acceptance is the color of their skin. These government doctor's allegiance will be to the government not the patient. The left professes great admiration for the Cuban health care system and this is where we are heading.

MikeBee| 6.29.12 @ 10:09AM

Kwan,
This has already occurred. My brother teaches in a community college today, because California's board would not let him into college to be a doctor. Excellent grades, surpassed all the requirements, except for the unwritten one: he is the wrong skin color, and the state of CA was trying to actively promote doctors who were minority status at the time. I think this was in the 1980s?

Kwan| 6.29.12 @ 10:52AM

Mike totally to be expected in the "People's Republic of California". California's academia is controlled by the left.

Occam's Tool| 6.29.12 @ 1:38PM

Mike: He should have applied to Medical School in Texas: almost all the out of staters I knew in the 1980s were from CA at UTMB.

loulou| 6.29.12 @ 11:13AM

I make it a point to avoid "minority" (black, Hispanic) physicians. You never know which ones are affirmative action doctors.

Trinacria| 6.29.12 @ 4:49PM

I work with 'em every day; trust me, they're not difficult to recognize...

CaptD| 7.1.12 @ 11:59AM

We already are financing minority medical educations and have been for some time. The quality of good medical professionals has already suffered for it as well.

Bob From District 9| 6.29.12 @ 9:07PM

"Ironically, those who are uninsured including many poor may not get access to good health care or any health care. There's a shortage of doctors and even the government can't wave a magic wand and "create" more health care."

It did back in the '60s, why not now? Did you ever wonder how Ron Paul got his med school paid for? I do.

Having medical bills paid will encourage more doctors and more hospital beds. It did in Japan, with half our cost/GDP.

"Those who currently have insurance may lose it as companies fold and everyone ends up on long ques of waiting lines as Mickey Mouse health care becomes a reality."

That hasn't happened in any industrialized country that has national health care. It will only happen here if the US gets a republican federal government.

TLP| 6.30.12 @ 7:20AM

Obviously, District 9 is a Ward in Bellevue Hospital, in the City.

Kwan| 6.30.12 @ 9:37AM

It's actually a government holding camp for space aliens (in a movie) outside Johannesburg, South Africa. Seeing how this guy appears to be a zonked-out leftist space cadet the name is somewhat fitting.

TLP| 6.30.12 @ 2:41PM

I know, Kwan.

I saw the Movie.

I'm just playing his game.

Big Dog | 6.30.12 @ 3:12AM

Its an invalid tax. Can't raise taxes, through reconciliation. Its a moot point.

Jack in Wi| 6.29.12 @ 6:39AM

Well: It's all a big game. We had a majority to overturn Roe Vs Wade in the early 1990's until Judas Kennedy went over to the darkside in the Casey case. Then he did it again in states and the regulation of homosexual conduct. I guess he was sick of taking the fall so they got to Roberts. Both parties have wanted an indivigual mandate for a long time. It is a huge tax increase for healthcare, that hits young people with little income and no reason for healthcare to pony up. The insurance companies love it. They get more revenue and the bill opens the door wider to limit healthcare at end stages of life.

Romney gave us Romneycare with it's mandates. Newt Gingrich gave us a similar idea when he had power and he was a richly paid lobbiest for the insurance cartels. The same was true of Rick Santorum. So now after all these decades we have what they want. It is just another step toward bankruptcy. It will all end up like the USSR, with rotten healthcare and an empire that is overstreached, with a destroyed economy. Obama is Lenin redoux. Romney is a bad immitation of Mussolini.

Doctor Right| 6.29.12 @ 7:28AM

...Burp!

More defeatism from Jack in Nuremberg.

Jack in Wi| 6.29.12 @ 7:19PM

I see the lickspittle of the war lobby is back again. Romney is nothing changing and everyone with any sense knows it. Why would he want to change anything? He was always for it before he was against it. He is still is for it, behind his lying eyes. The Surpreme Court was the last chance. It wasn't much of one, but that it folks.

CJW| 6.29.12 @ 9:11AM

You need a constitutional amendment to get rid of abortion. Overturning Roe will mean each state can have its own abortion law, and most states will allow some abortion.

Jack in Wi| 6.29.12 @ 7:30PM

A Constitutional Amendment will never happen. Roe can be overturned by a simple majority of Congress and the signature of the President. Article 3 section 2 of the Constitution gives the Congress to the power to limit the juridiction of the Federal courts. All that would have to be done is for Congress to remove the Courts juridiction on abortion. The limitation of the Courts juridiction has been done many times in this so called war on terror.

5 Republican judges gave us Roe to begin with. Then they left it on the books with the Casey case. Then Kennedy gave us homosexuality as a civil right and took away the states power to regulate this hideous practice. Now we have Bennedict Arnold Roberts. Gay marriage is just around the bend. It will be Republican justices that put it over the top. Tell me again why we should vote for liberal Mitt for conservative justices?

CJW| 6.29.12 @ 8:46PM

You are wrong.
We have gone over this repeatedly.

Jack in Wi| 6.30.12 @ 6:21AM

I am not wrong. Every fact I stated is the truth. The Court's juridiction can be regulated by Congress. It is right in the Constitution, Article 3 Section 2. Republican justices have sold us out repeatedly. Republican Presidents have given us such sweethearts as Brennan, Stewart, Warren, Burger, Blackman, Souter, Kennedy, Powell, O'Connor, and now Roberts. They love to sell out conservatives. Tell me how I am supposed to wait another 50 years for people like that to do any good.

TLP| 6.30.12 @ 7:22AM

Jack is absolutely right.

The CHECK on the Court, is that Congress controls its Jurisdiction.

Period.

TLP| 6.30.12 @ 7:28AM

And, apparently, the PRESIDENT'S CHECK on Congress, is "FCK YOU. Take your POS Constitution, and your MFing Laws, and stick'em up your Ass!"

Right?

Cause, that's what I'm seeing.

It's too bad we don't have an Opposition Party, any more.

Crassus| 6.29.12 @ 9:20AM

If we'd only listened to you and voted for RuPaul......

Ghost of Cicero (NB) | 6.29.12 @ 3:13PM

Yep. So just stay home, Jack. Stay home & bitch incessantly, but don't vote. How typical. You're just like a regressive/liberal. If you don't get your way, you just take your ball & go home. I've come to expect nothing less from you over the years I've been posting here.

CJW| 6.29.12 @ 3:21PM

Welcome back, Ghost. We need you to respond to the statist lefties. Jack is hopeless.

Ghost of Cicero (NB) | 6.29.12 @ 3:33PM

Good to be back. Have the night off. Jack will always BE hopeless. What else would you expect from somone who calls themselves a "proud 4-F?"

Quartermaster| 6.29.12 @ 3:25PM

And voting for the lesser evil has gotten what exactly?

We now have 3 choices as a result of constantly being forced to vote for the lesser evil 1) secession, 2) take up arms, 3) bow the neck to our oppressors. That's really worked well hasn't it.

Ghost of Cicero (NB) | 6.29.12 @ 3:34PM

I don't think that the ballot box has been totally corrupted yet. And I won't go to the ammo box until I DO think that. Until then, I will Charlie Mike (continue mission).

Quartermaster| 6.29.12 @ 4:04PM

You have misunderstood what I wrote.

TLP| 6.29.12 @ 5:24PM

And, what does Occum's Razor say you must do.

When all things are considered. The simplest answer is more often than not, the Correct One.

You vote for THE OTHER GUY, and hope for the best.

You got a better idea?

CJW| 6.29.12 @ 7:15PM

We are in this position because we elected Obama, and not because we voted for McCain. We have the Dept of Education and Energy because we elected Carter, and not because we voted for Ford, but because others voted for a third party or stayed home to prove their principle. We got attacked numeous times from 1993 to 2000 because we elected Clinton who did not take the defense of the USA seriously if at all, and not because we voted for Dole and Bush.
The blame lies with those in control, not those who lost the election.

Jack in Wi| 6.30.12 @ 6:27AM

Bush 1 gave us Clinton. Bush 2 gave us Obama. If Romney is elected he will give us someone worse then Obama. Because Mittens hasn't got a clue on how to get us out of this mess. The elites don't care who is elected because they select the nominees to begin with.

Bob From District 9| 6.29.12 @ 9:14PM

"It is a huge tax increase for healthcare, that hits young people with little income and no reason for healthcare to pony up. The insurance companies love it. They get more revenue and the bill opens the door wider to limit healthcare at end stages of life."

Did you buy every lie the right has told on health care, or are you the salesman? We have had government provided health care for the end stages of life for decades, your fear mongering has proven false all this time.

Young people have one big reason to buy insurance, so there will never be a problem with previously existing conditions, because there will be no previously existing conditions.

"Romney gave us Romneycare with it's mandates. Newt Gingrich gave us a similar idea when he had power and he was a richly paid lobbiest for the insurance cartels. The same was true of Rick Santorum. So now after all these decades we have what they want. It is just another step toward bankruptcy. "

And that demonstrates your ignorance. The most expensive national health care system in the industrialized world would, if applied to the US, would reduce American health care spending by *$1 trillion* each and every year.

That's a big turn away from national bankruptcy.

Jack in Wi| 6.30.12 @ 6:29AM

Bob from district 9. All you are doing is spouting paid propagada from the insurance cartels or the DNC.

Jack in Wi| 6.30.12 @ 6:38AM

Every Socialized medical care system in the world is bankrupt, actuarally. They all give horrible service as the system implodes. The Democrats have never come close to fixing anything, when they have power. They make things worse. This program will add massive expenses for overhead and cut massively needed support of the elderly at the end of life. Only the well connected, like government bureaucrats, will get cadillac heathcare.

TLP| 6.30.12 @ 7:32AM

Like I said.

District 9 is a Ward, somewhere inside of Belluvue Hospital, in the City.

Apparently he's gotten access to a Keypad, somehow.

Oldefarte| 6.30.12 @ 12:45PM

You know your comments are always amazingly one-sided in context. It's always Romney, McCain, Santorum, etc. Do you know who [or have any opinions about] people named [besides the Kennedys who are no longer in power] Schumer, Reid, Pilosi, Durbin, Conyers, Waters, Obama, Holder, Salazar, Sotomayor, Kagan, and the like? Do you and your know what Democrats are and have been throughout history? Who/which political party gave us all The Great Society, War On Poverty, Welfarecare, Non-Stimulus of $billions in payoffs to unions, Affordable Housing that destroyed the housing industry, food stamps, rent subsidation, housing allowances, etc? Do you know or do you care? What political party is Ron Paul affiliated with and has been running for POTUS as a member of? Whose side are you really on? Maybe the answer is Barack Hussein Obama and the Democratic Party ????????????

Ken (Old Texican)| 6.29.12 @ 7:11AM

Well, it is all up to we the voters now. You pundits need to get out your pencil and your calculators and make a bumper sticker of exactly what the tax will be on each American....each year
THEN REPEAT IT ENDLESSLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Harry the Horrible| 6.29.12 @ 8:38AM

You're an optimist. What makes you think that elected officials are going repeal Obamacare regardless of their promises?
More likely they concoct something even worse and pass it in Obamacare's place and then claim to have "repealed" it. .

Ghost of Cicero (NB) | 6.29.12 @ 3:14PM

I find it best when one hopes for the best & plans for the worst. And that's how I'm looking at this.

TLP| 6.29.12 @ 5:28PM

Which, of course, is the right way to approach this, and every Catastrophe.

Romney?

Or the Christian Boy named after Mohammed's Horse?

The Red Pill?

Or the Blue one.

This ain't Quantum Physics, people.

Bob From District 9| 6.29.12 @ 9:17PM

"This ain't Quantum Physics, people."

But it sure sounds like bigotry.

Bob Grant| 6.29.12 @ 10:08PM

Bigotry? What flavor?

Religion?
Race?
Age?
Gender?

Do tell.

TLP| 6.30.12 @ 7:36AM

It's all he's got.

It's all any of them have, especially when a Liberal Black is Elected.

A Conservative Black?

That's easy.

"UNCLE TOM"

Isn't that right, Bob?

Oldefarte| 6.30.12 @ 12:49PM

Bigotry? Shazam, you left out racism, gentrification, discrimination, disenfranchisement, sexism, homophobism, etc didn't you? Did I forget any of you peoples' ONEWORDISMS OF BRANDISEMENT??????????

Andrew P111| 6.29.12 @ 9:48PM

They are not going to repeal anything, even if Romney is elected. Minor tweaks maybe, repeal no. The Supreme Court was our only hope. And he won't be elected anyway, because Obama has the powers of office to hand out goodies that buy off each group he needs. He already bought off the Gays and Hispanics, and he will save the best for last and buy off the underwater mortgage debtors in September or October. That will seal the election by clinching FL and VA.

rightasrain| 6.29.12 @ 7:18AM

If Justice Roberts sees his role as refusing to protect us from the bad judgment of Congress rather than ruling on the constitutionality of statutes without regard to the political repercussions we, and the Constitution, are in huge trouble.

TLP| 6.29.12 @ 5:29PM

We, and the Constitution, are in huge trouble.

Oldefarte| 6.30.12 @ 12:53PM

Andy Griffith once proclaimed when talking about football that THE OBJECT OF THIS GAME IS TO RUN FROM ONE END OF THIS COW PASTURE TO THE OTHER WITHOUT EITHER GETTING KNOCKED DOWN OR STEPPING IN SOMETHING. Well we're on the ground and our shoe soles are beginning to smell!!!!!!!!!

TLP| 6.30.12 @ 2:46PM

Out of the mouth of babes.

Love ya, O.F.

Gary B| 6.29.12 @ 7:30AM

I find it bizarre that the court affirmed the tax argument when it was never requested by the administration. In fact, the administration was running away from the tax argument as fast as it could. Then Roberts reaches out and rather clumsily snatches the tax argument out of thin air.

He's either off his rocker or he had a broader strategy in mind. We live in strange times. The republic is at risk, so we will see more desperate moves ahead. Nothing surprises me now.

Ryan| 6.29.12 @ 8:13AM

Justices are obliged to follow the laws, not the arguments placed in front of them. The statement you are making is a non-starter about all this and needs to be left alone by conservatives.

Bob From District 9| 6.29.12 @ 9:19PM

My God!

A true statement! In this forum!

Andrew P111| 6.29.12 @ 9:50PM

Just because the Administration is incompetent in defending it does not mean the statute is unconstitutional.

TLP| 6.30.12 @ 2:48PM

He didn't uphold the Constitution.

He REWROTE THE LAW, to make it Constitutional, all by himself.

That is NOT his job.

Kwan| 6.29.12 @ 8:27AM

Mike Savage is promoting the argument that Roberts who is an epileptic (suffers brain seizures) is experiencing mental deterioration due to the strong medication he is taking. I will agree that on this decision his arguments for going along with the four leftist automatons is completely illogical.

loulou| 6.29.12 @ 11:15AM

It makes you wonder: was he having an episode?

Occam's Tool| 6.29.12 @ 1:41PM

No, I don't think so. Savage is a PhD in botany, I'm an MD.

Occam's Razor: Roberts is a Washington Attorney with NO SPINE. That is a far simpler explanation.

TLP| 6.29.12 @ 5:33PM

Godfather II.

Senator denying the Corlione Family a Gaming Liscence in Vegas, until he wakes up in a Whore House, with a Dead Hooker on the floor.

That is a far simpler explanation.

He was FLIPPED, Chicago Crime Family Style.

Of this, I have no doubt.

Bob From District 9| 6.29.12 @ 9:20PM

"He was FLIPPED, Chicago Crime Family Style.

Of this, I have no doubt."

You have flipped out. Of this I have no doubt.

Oldefarte| 6.30.12 @ 12:56PM

You're speaking "BIGOTRY"!!!!!!

PJ| 6.29.12 @ 7:37PM

Savage claimed on his radio broadcast that a neurologist friend told him about the possible affects of the medication Roberts was taking for his seizures, which included cognitive impairment.

Ross Kaminsky| 6.29.12 @ 8:27AM

Gary, I believe the administration did argue that it was a tax. I know they did in lower courts, and pretty sure they made that argument to the Supreme Court as well.

Nancy in NC| 6.29.12 @ 8:39AM

But Obama is on record as saying vehemently it's not a tax, and the MSM never made an issue that the solicitor general argued otherwise at the Supreme Court. The tape of Obama and Stephnoplus needs to be played over and over. Obama can eat his own words...again.

Bob Grant| 6.29.12 @ 9:40AM

Because obama capitalizes on the ignorance of the masses.

The mainstream media ensures a level of ignorance for obama to have his way with the American People.

And, boy did he ever with obamacare!!! Personally, I never got flowers, breakfast, or a callback.

And you can thank GW Bush appointee Roberts for legalizing this fraud.

Bob From District 9| 6.29.12 @ 9:23PM

"Because obama capitalizes on the ignorance of the masses."

As does the right, as demonstrated by the right wingers in this forum.

"And, boy did he ever with obamacare!!!"

A product of the Heritage Foundation, proposed by the republican party, enacted in Massachusetts by Romney, and just what is your complaint again?

Bob Grant| 6.29.12 @ 10:03PM

My complaint is I want GOOD insurance. And if my existing policy is not GOOD according to my standards, I can shop for one that is. I know where this obamacrap will take the country, as do you in your heart-of hearts.

A policy enacted in a STATE is quite different than the same policy enacted NATIONWIDE. I suppose if I did not like what was offered to me (or forced on me) in Massachusetts, I could move to, say, New Hampshire and search for other options.

Now, where, pray tell, do I go if I do not like what obamanationcare forces on me? Mexico? Costa Rica?

This is just one of many, many, many examples of why this bill is just plain evil.

Oldefarte| 6.30.12 @ 1:04PM

The "right wingers in this forum" do not control the Army, Navy, Air Force, Justice Dept and obviously Eric Holder. "A product of the Heritage Foundation, proposed by the republican party, enacted in Massachusetts by Romney, and just what is your complaint again?" is pure BS; since Pig Nancy and Snake-ars Harry [along with SG and now SCOTUS Kagan] were the PRODUCTORS of this piece of welfaric excrement shoved down the taxpayers' throats. Now do you know what my GD complaint is?????????????????????????

irish19| 6.29.12 @ 11:10AM

I agree. This is a gift to the Republicans if they are willing to grow a pair and use it.
The Commerce Clause issue is important, as is the fact that all future such legislation will have to be framed as a tax. Good luck passing more taxes in this environment. The law itself is still bad, however.

canuckistani| 6.29.12 @ 12:33PM

The law is a GOP construct, so it must, by design, be bad law. It is step one to medicare for all.

The problem with the GOP is that they suck at governing and are unwilling to take full measures to reduce the size of government - because they know viscerally that gutting entitlements for real people and not for pseudo people like busnesses is a losing platform.

Americans may be dumb, but they are not stupid.

Truth to Power| 6.29.12 @ 12:42PM

"...The problem with the GOP is that they suck at governing and are unwilling to take full measures to reduce the size of government - ..."

That is only true when not compared the Jackass Party. The government will get smaller one way or the other. The European party is over and so is the American. Lefties are unsustainable and they will continue to reside in a fantasy land where their kick backs and corruption will be much more obvious and will be dealt with.

Bob From District 9| 6.29.12 @ 9:26PM

The federal government grows under republicans, and shrinks under democrats. Don't even think about denying it until you research the numbers.

Under Obama govt employment at all levels has shrunk. In fact, that's the only reason the unemployment rate is not going down.

If Romney wins the only thing that will prevent another expansion of government will be national bankruptcy during the Great Romney Depression.

Oldefarte| 6.30.12 @ 1:09PM

Did you lean yos English usage from Mooch or Valerie and are yos operatings outs of Eric's Justice Dept office in DC? Do yos knows whats the Great Society, War On Poverty, Non-Stimulus To Labor Unions In Govments and Detroits is? Do yos knows what Affordable Housing, rent subsidies, housing allowances etc dos? Dos yous knows hows to spells D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T?????

Andrew P111| 6.29.12 @ 9:54PM

The EU just took a major step toward Fiscal Union. Merkel has blinked. Great Depression II has been taken off the table. The Second Roman Empire is about to be born. Europe is about to reach is greatest glory in over 2000 years.

Drunken Sailor| 6.29.12 @ 12:46PM

The elections of 2008 would prove your theory false.

canuckistani| 6.29.12 @ 1:44PM

How so?
The Compassionate conservative and his Randian accomplice Greenspan managed to run the world economy into the ground.

The voter was ready to give the exotic a try.

There is zero in the GOP's CURRENT platform that suggests they would have avoided Junior's spectacular fails in 07 and 08.

BHO stabilized the economy and has renewed civil discourse on taxes and entitlements. Something this GOP or Junior's never did.

With the wetwork done, we need strong growth policies - with responsibilities to past debts embraced and not ignored like the GOP has done.

JD| 6.29.12 @ 3:00PM

You can't explain how Bush ruined the economy, because he didn't. What happened was far longer in the making.

As for Obama, he has done none of the things you credit him with. There is certainly no civil discourse; heck the defining quotes of ObamaCare were "it's not a tax", "you have to pass the bill to see what's in it", and "we won". And we haven't even gotten to the lie that illegals won't claim its credits, which is absurd because they've managed to get all other forms of social welfare, and Democrats actively resisted enforcement language in ObamaCare.

Perhaps you think "civil discourse" means "liberals get what they want?"

Quartermaster| 6.29.12 @ 3:31PM

Bush was part of the serious financial deterioration. He can not be absolved of his part because he never tried to fix any of the glaring problems he inherited.

Dubya was no conservative, but a moderate Progressive as the GOP has been since its founding. Both parties are progressive and differ only in degree, not kind. Boehner, McConnel and Mittens are making noise about repealing Obama's abortion, but it is quite unlikely they will do so and by not doing so will complete the financial destruction of the US.

Bob From District 9| 6.29.12 @ 9:28PM

Damn! You actually make sense.

Oh, wait a minute, canuckstani? You just may be Canadian. That explains it.

TLP| 6.29.12 @ 5:41PM

As usual, you're an idiot.

They argued that it WASN'T A TAX.

And, when that didn't work?

They argued that it WAS A TAX.

Get it?

Roberts was Flipped, Chicago Crime Family Style.

He re-wrote the Legislation as he went along, without even being prodded to.

WHY?

Are you even paying attention?

GW| 6.29.12 @ 1:09PM

Essentially he gets to have his cake and eat it too.

Roberts's decision was wrong for two reasons. First, it rewrote the law to make it compatible with the constitution. But it is Congress who writes laws, not the judicial branch. What could have happened is the law should have been struck down, while the Supreme Court tells Congress and the White House that if it wants to pass similar legislation it must do so *as a tax*. This way, the representatives, the president, and the American people fully know what is being voted on.

The second error made by Roberts was in assuming Congress's power to tax is absolute. It isn't. As Rand Paul pointed out to CNBC yesterday, Congress's powers are limited according to Article 1 Section 8. The 16th amendment doesn't broaden Congress's legislative powers, all it does is allow Congress to levy a tax to pay for the powers it has. But Congress does not have the power over health care, at least not in Article 1 Section 8.

TLP| 6.29.12 @ 5:43PM

Exactly.

HE REWROTE THE LAW, HIMSELF.

Judicial Activism to the nth degree

Bob From District 9| 6.29.12 @ 10:07PM

"As Rand Paul pointed out "

Rand Paul is a sociopathic fool. No one with any sense believes a word he says.

TLP| 6.30.12 @ 7:41AM

This, from a guy in District 9.

Oldefarte| 6.30.12 @ 1:18PM

Lest he ain't no friggin DEMOCRAT!!!!!!!!

Trinacria| 6.29.12 @ 5:06PM

Ross,

You're correct - they essentially argued it both ways (sometimes it's a tax and sometimes it isn't). They first argued that the states had no standing to bring suit against the federal government because the anti-injunction act precludes the court from ruling on challenges to a tax until it takes effect (2014 in the present case). They then took the opposite position to argue that the individual mandate was justified by the federal governments authority to regulate interstate commerce.

This is what is so profoundly disturbing about Justice Roberts ruling - he essentially ruled that the individual mandate is both a tax and not a tax. It is somehow not a tax when it comes to the anti-injunction act, yet it is a tax when it comes to the individual mandate argument.

Almost makes one long for the days when legal arguments hinged on the definition of "is"...

TLP| 6.29.12 @ 5:40PM

As usual, you're an idiot.

They argued that it WASN'T A TAX.

And, when that didn't work?

They argued that it WAS A TAX.

Get it?

Roberts was Flipped, Chicago Crime Family Style.

He re-wrote the Legislation as he went along, without even being prodded to.

WHY?

Are you even paying attention?

Bob Grant| 6.29.12 @ 8:41AM

So why are judges compelled to have a broader strategy?

I thought his job was simply to measure the constitutional merits of cases.

Of course, I'm just a simple Red Stater and couldn't even spell nuuuuance.

canuckistani| 6.29.12 @ 12:29PM

He did, and as Chief Justice, his job is to be the fair arbitor between ideological divisions. He knew that killing the mandate would only continue the debate, so he found a legitimate rationale to push it back to the voters to decide.

Future courts may address it again, but this is settled law for now.

Drunken Sailor| 6.29.12 @ 12:48PM

Until someone brings up the court case about this originating in the Senate. Taxes, by law, begin in the House. This tax did not follow the legislation process that is required.

canuckistani| 6.29.12 @ 1:47PM

Reconciliation - just like Junior's unfunded mandates that Santorum, Cantor, Boehner and Ryan all voted for.

Drunken Sailor| 6.29.12 @ 3:35PM

Point taken, Dirty political loophole but apprently legal. However if you think the middle class will not hold Obama responsible when they find out about the 12 new taxes that will affect them after he said he wouldn't raise their taxes, your whistleing past the graveyard.

Bob From District 9| 6.29.12 @ 10:10PM

When that is shown to be true it will be considered.

Bob From District 9| 6.29.12 @ 10:09PM

"I thought his job was simply to measure the constitutional merits of cases."

In the real world, that job description is not in the constitution.

Oldefarte| 6.30.12 @ 1:21PM

Then perhaps the THIRD BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT is a GD figment of some domestic terrorist' imagination perhaps????

JayDick| 6.29.12 @ 9:52AM

The tax argument was made in court by the Administration several times. That was really ironic since they had said in conjunction with the law's passing that it was not a tax.

Lower courts almost laughed out loud at the notion that it was a tax, but Roberts used that as his way of avoiding overturning the law. Why he has such an aversion to overturning this monstrosity, I can't fathom.

Bob From District 9| 6.29.12 @ 10:13PM

"Lower courts almost laughed out loud at the notion that it was a tax, but Roberts used that as his way of avoiding overturning the law. Why he has such an aversion to overturning this monstrosity, I can't fathom."

Because the alternative is so much worse.

Look at the way medical costs are going in this country. Look as how the uninsured are growing in number.

Without national health care we are facing a Russian style meltdown. Costs exploding, so many losing their insurance, so many not being able to afford insurance, our medical care system is likely on the verge of a meltdown.

Like it or not, Obamacare may be the only chance it has, the only thing that will save it.

Oldefarte| 6.30.12 @ 1:15PM

"Like it or not, Obamacare may be the only chance it has, the only thing that will save it" ONLY CHANCE? Duh, that's like saying the only chance of exiting a island in a swamp full alligators is to get your toes wet and start wading!!!!

TLP| 6.29.12 @ 10:00AM

Don't find it Bizzare.

Think about The Godfather II, and the Senator who was AGAINST the Corliones getting a Gaming Liscence in Vegas, right up until he woke up in a Whore House, with a Dead Hooker on the Floor.

What did their buddies in the MSM tell us, weeks ago?

"Keep an eye on Chief Justice Roberts."

Not, Saloon Door Kennedy.

Super Conservative - Roberts.

We're talking about the Chicago Organized Crime Family Administration, here.

Or, did everybody forget?

canuckistani| 6.29.12 @ 1:33PM

Pubic hair in the coke again?

TLP| 6.30.12 @ 7:43AM

No.

In your mouth.

Occam's Tool| 6.29.12 @ 1:44PM

"Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer, Santino."

I want the clown in the White House voted out, and THEN convicted of his felonies, and then sentenced to the only punishment appropriate for him: Katorga. 1200 Calories for Hard labor 18 hours a day. And the Wookie, too.

canuckistani| 6.29.12 @ 1:47PM

Who's scruffy looking?

nathan| 6.29.12 @ 3:25PM

Sir:

Ah you wouldn't want to "try" him first? Minor little detail. The Fifth Amendment does talk about due process after all.

But I'll tell you what, when Bush and Cheney are arrested and tried for the many things they did, in direct violation of the law and Constitution, then you can put this guy in the dock. But until then, no. And in truth this was part of the problem wasn't it? Excuse those two for breaking the law/violating their oaths, (yeah I know they did it for the BEST OF INTENTIONS), let them get away with all of it, and of course this guy was going to act just the same and expect to get a pass too. And if you don't do anything to them, he should.

Drunken Sailor| 6.29.12 @ 3:37PM

Name the laws they broke.

CJW| 6.29.12 @ 4:53PM

DS
How dare you ask a question that requires facts instead of opinions.
W

Bob From District 9| 6.29.12 @ 10:15PM

"I want the clown in the White House voted out, and THEN convicted of his felonies, "

I want that for Bush and Romney. Oh, and likely GHW Bush. And Feith and Wolfowitz, and all the rest of that murderous lot.

THEN I'll listen to what you have to say about Obama.

Gary B| 6.29.12 @ 7:33AM

For real change to happen, over-the-top anger among the citizens (at least those of us who work) has to be generated. We're not there yet, but we're making progress. Republicans in Congress had better take notice.

Truncheon| 6.29.12 @ 8:14AM

At this point I think it's pretty clear that no change is ever going to happen in the absence of bullets, fire, and politicians swinging from cherry trees in Washington.

Since that happening is as much a fantasy as the liberal's "Big Rock Candy Mountain Economics", it's really pretty much time to get things in order around a model similar to France.

That is our future.

Alej| 6.29.12 @ 9:10AM

... agreed... a model similar to Fance.

In 1789.

Joan Of Snark | 7.1.12 @ 6:49PM

Which is why President Walking Eagle took da pooch...errr...da Mooch to France for America's Independence Day celebrations. Apparently they'd rather dream of guillotines at the top of the Eiffel Tower than have to look at Old Glory.

nathan| 6.29.12 @ 7:44AM

The writer is hilarious right? Bush had a reputation among conservatives? Only as a stone cold liberal? And that applied to both of them? Again, when Bush junior started talking about "compassionate" conservatism, everyone should run not walked to the exits. Roberts has consistently throughout his time on the bench refused to protect individual rights and deferred to the power of the government so there is nothing new here.

But the lesson here too is that when you elect "liberal" republicans, and the last two republican presidents have been just that, liberals who showed no regard for the Constitution, then they are going to nominate judges like Roberts.

Which means folks that since Romney is a liberal too (or at best a moderate and that's a stretch, look at his RECORD folks) don't expect his supreme judge(s) to be any better than Roberts or Souter.

Just warnin ya . . . Have a safe holiday weekend. Don't drink and drive folks.

canuckistani| 6.29.12 @ 12:41PM

Why do you keep dreaming of a true conservative candidate?

Look at the profile pool:
1) Successful bizman: natural pragmatist and consumer-oriented, will deal to move agenda along. See Romney

2) Ex military: orthodox education and government housing, DNA designed to take orders and esprit de corps is important. See Powell and DDE as examples.

3) Utopian blowhard: clown-factor but scares the bejesus out of indies. See Paul

4) Party hack: nuff said. See most of them.

5) GOP elite: cashflow centric. See Bushies.

6) Darkhorse: See RR, but requires extraordinary circumstances, equivalent to conditions that allowed an exotic to win in 2008.

Bob From District 9| 6.29.12 @ 10:20PM

"But the lesson here too is that when you elect "liberal" republicans, and the last two republican presidents have been just that, liberals who showed no regard for the Constitution, then they are going to nominate judges like Roberts."

By the standards of the current crop of Tea Bagger republicans every republican president since WWII has been a liberal.

Don't forget, Reagan was the first president since WWII to double or more the national debt during his term in office, increase the debt to GDP ratio, and he expanded the federal govt more in peacetime than any other, and probably more than any except GW Bush.

Oh, and Reagan had more of his people convicted of crimes in office than any other president I can think of since WWII.

fmm| 6.29.12 @ 7:51AM

How does it feel to wake up for the first morning under a police state where even what you don't do is regualted and penalized?

canuckistani| 6.29.12 @ 12:47PM

How does it feel knowing freeloaders are now being penalized?
How does it feel knowing you can quit a sh!tty job and get coverage again?
How does it feel knowing your wife is not a pre-existing condition by having two x chromosomes?

Wake up and realize this is a necessary evolution of the country. 17% of GDP spent on healthcare, almost double than country #2, with terrible outcomes. That is the tragedy, not this.

Diefledermaus| 6.29.12 @ 6:03PM

You couldn't be a bigger moron if you tried.

Bob From District 9| 6.29.12 @ 10:22PM

I was born into the state where, if you didn't register for the draft, and report when and where ordered, you were subject to arrest. That was waking up a whole lotta mornings for the first 20 years of my life. Then I enlisted so it was the same but it didn't affect me.

Oldefarte| 6.30.12 @ 2:07PM

Duh, shazam! Didn't enlist....subject to arrest? Shiiiiit, I gues so....SINCE THE DRAFT WAS ENACTED BY LAW [so you were a law-breaker, right?]!!!!!!!!

Anthony| 6.29.12 @ 8:04AM

It is exactly what Mark Levin said on Weds before this Rube Goldberg, see how clever I am, decision came down; all three branches of government are dedicated to the growth of the central state.
We have no choice but to elect Romney, as imperfect as he is, and to elect as many conservatives as possible to Congress. It is now a moral imperative to do so!!!
We are running out of time to save America from European socialism. We can no longer trust the ruling class to govern in accordance with the Constitution, not that we have, but we have been way to passive as a people.
Leftists and RINOs need to be watched and told no mas!!! America is on the brink, and the elected class had damn well get the message, that getting voted out of office is the least thing they need to fear from The People.
We're serious, and the politicians, and that includes the judges, had damn well get the message, unless they like spitting feathers from their mouths while covered in tar.
The history of the people rising up has not been a pretty sight to behold. Fair warning.

Big Ern| 6.29.12 @ 9:41AM

I believe it is already too late to save America from a bad end. I'm just glad I'm probably too old to see the finale which is likely decades into the future. One consolation: I'll be able to enjoy seeing all the liberals lament what they've done after seeing all the unintended consequences unfold.

JayDick| 6.29.12 @ 9:54AM

You don't honestly think the liberals will eventually realize they did anything wrong, do you? They're much too arrogant for that.

canuckistani| 6.29.12 @ 12:49PM

This is a GOP bill. The Dems figure they just took a plank from the GOP and actually enacted it - and they paid for it with tax and policy changes. Something the GOP has never done.

Jade12| 6.29.12 @ 10:40AM

You got that right Big Ern. Especially the older ones when they get referred to the death panel.

Bob From District 9| 6.29.12 @ 10:26PM

"We have no choice but to elect Romney, as imperfect as he is, and to elect as many conservatives as possible to Congress. It is now a moral imperative to do so!!!"

You feel a moral imperative to destroy this country?

"Leftists and RINOs need to be watched and told no mas!!! "

Tea Baggers need to be told to get out of the republican party and start their own party, so real republicans can have their party back.

"America is on the brink, and the elected class had damn well get the message, that getting voted out of office is the least thing they need to fear from The People."

You speak like a true terrorist. Fortunately I have a rifle, and was trained to shoot in basic training. The Tea Bagger revolution will face more enemies than just the government, real Americans will fight their hate filled takeover.

Oldefarte| 6.30.12 @ 2:04PM

"real republicans"? you wouldn't know one if same bit you in your ars! You "real Americans" of the Democratic Party are too bush getting a place in line to get your governmental welfare; and your only "fight" is if taxpayers that PAY FOR same attempt to eliminate same. Go back to Acorn and get them to instruct you how to falsely fill out voter registration cards for dead people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Louis Jenkins| 6.29.12 @ 8:19AM

Perhaps it is time. A English observer in the Civil War was appalled by the way both sides killed each other. I do not think killing is the way things should go, but what is left? This coming election, inspite of Robert's possible avenue for the law to be repealed, will be the clincher for America. The law has driven everyone with a distaste for it into the Romney camp, which is a God send for him. But what if he fails in Nov.? We're at a breaking point. No more lickspittle half Republicans, no more RINOs. At least Holder was found in contempt, but it's sour grapes, as Purp said a couple of days ago.

Alej| 6.29.12 @ 9:15AM

There is NO war as brutal as a civil war. A Viet Nam buddy of mine discussed this a few weeks ago... we were scared of the opposition, sometimes, but we didn't hate them. We HATE the people in this country who are tearing its fabric apart. On a very personal level, it is going to be a pleasure to set aside the Geneva Convention when the balloon goes up in America.

canuckistani| 6.29.12 @ 12:53PM

Who's tearing the country apart?

The people that recognize that 17% of GDP spent on healthcare with sh!tty outcomes is not patriotic , but stupid?

The people that recognize our competitiveness has been eroded due to ridiculous healthcare costs?

Is that who, or is it the people that want the status quo, or some other fantasy to replace it? Think.

Quartermaster| 6.29.12 @ 3:38PM

Progressives are tearing the country apart Mr. Canuck. I have as yet to have the bad outcome with medicine you are claiming. I have as yet to see anything but the rising costs which have been driven by defensive medicine inspired by a largely Progressive owned legal "profession" and state level regulation of medical insurance.

Progs have given us the system we have and it has worked in spite of them. But that won't happen much longer with Zero's abortion in force.

Bob From District 9| 6.29.12 @ 10:33PM

" I have as yet to see anything but the rising costs which have been driven by defensive medicine inspired by a largely Progressive owned legal "profession" and state level regulation of medical insurance."

You bought into one of the biggest right wing lies out there. Want proof, just try to tell us how much all that legal profession inspired defensive medicine is actually costing? Don't even try to claim no one knows, the insurance industry has people counting every penny. The actual cost is a few percent of our medical care spending. Nothing near the 30% insurance companies siphon off for their administrative costs. Medicare spends about 2% on administration.

If you oppose state regulation, please explain why, with 50 states, many if not most run by republicans, some by your beloved right wingers, not one does significantly better.

Oldefarte| 6.30.12 @ 1:56PM

"Want proof, just try to tell us how much all that legal profession inspired defensive medicine is actually costing? Don't even try to claim no one knows, the insurance industry has people counting every penny. The actual cost is a few percent of our medical care spending. Nothing near the 30% insurance companies siphon off for their administrative costs. Medicare spends about 2% on administration" First off, lawyers are ambulance chasing scumbags that suck off of insurance companies money. Proof? Google the name J-O-H-N-E-D-W-A-R-D-S dumbars! "Nothing"? Thats a GD lie and you know it. Again, google T-E-X-A-S and T-O-R-T-R-E-F-O-R-M! You GD liberal domestic terrorists will lie about anything. Finally, consider the following:
Q. When is a lawyer lying?
A. When his lips are moving!

Diefledermaus| 6.29.12 @ 6:06PM

We have the best medical care in the entire world you stupid fool.

It would be much cheaper if the government stopped regulating the crap out of it on every level and let us go back to the consumer market.

You are dumber than bacteria on a flea in the bowell of a rabid dog.

Bob From District 9| 6.29.12 @ 10:36PM

"We have the best medical care in the entire world you stupid fool."

Wrong! We have the best medical care technology in the world, tied with pretty much all the other industrialized countries. You don't really think we have a monopoly on that technology do you?

We have the worst medical care delivery system in the industrialize world.

It would be much cheaper if the government stopped regulating the crap out of it on every level and let us go back to the consumer market.

Yet every other industrialized country in the world delivers medical care equal to ours, to 100% of their citizens, at a much lower cost. Damn you must have gone to a strange accounting school.

"You are dumber than bacteria on a flea in the bowell of a rabid dog."

Posting to yourself?

Bob From District 9| 6.29.12 @ 10:28PM

"We HATE the people in this country who are tearing its fabric apart. "

Your self hatred may be affecting your thinking.

"On a very personal level, it is going to be a pleasure to set aside the Geneva Convention when the balloon goes up in America."

You just convicted yourself as a war criminal. By any chance did you work for GW Bush?

Oldefarte| 6.30.12 @ 1:48PM

"You just convicted yourself as a war criminal. By any chance did you work for GW Bush?" Yeah, wasn't he that fellow that COMPLETELY IGNORED numerous worldwide terror attacks upon our embassies, the USS Cole and the Twin Towers and retaliated by missle-destruction of a candle factory in Afganistan [while getting hum-jobs from a WH intern] ??????????????

buckeyeman| 6.29.12 @ 8:24AM

The republicrats are all over the place prancing and preening about how they are going to present a bill to repeal Obamacare. Unfortunately, we all know that the likelihood of repealing Obama care now or after the election is nearly zero.

Like its predecessor in Wickard, Roberts' decision is an exemplar of astonishing jurisprudential incoherence. Roberts has also given Obama and the Marxists cover by declaring something to be a tax which they had said was not. I'm sickened by all the pundits shouting that "now we know it was a tax all along!" Well, bull$hit, says I.

This unconstitutional penalty bears no more resemblance to a tax than does a parking ticket. So is a parking ticket a tax? Of course not, it is a penalty for certain illegal behavior.

The power to levy a tax for an unconstitutional purpose has now been ensconced in constitutional law and will never be reversed. There is absolutely, positively no "pyrrhic" to this victory for the Marxists. Roberts is not too clever by half, he is too evil by half.

Nancy in NC| 6.29.12 @ 8:41AM

How can you tax nothing? A tax for not doing something? What a joke.

MikeBee| 6.29.12 @ 10:23AM

Nancy,
It's not too long from now that, after a Democrat majority exists if both houses, with a Democrat president, that we are charged a tax for NOT voting for a Democrat.

Jade12| 6.29.12 @ 10:42AM

And may the Lord rebuke Roberts for this.

canuckistani| 6.29.12 @ 12:58PM

May the Lord commend him for finding a way to release people from the bondage of fear and anxiety over losing their benefits.

God is on the side of those who ask for help, and the American people have been asking.

Quartermaster| 6.29.12 @ 3:41PM

They aren't going to have any benefits much longer as they won't be able to earn a living because of the oppressive taxes that will come as a result. Zero's bill was not help, it contains nought but destruction and economic death.

Diefledermaus| 6.29.12 @ 6:07PM

They won't have doctors either.

Fiscal| 6.29.12 @ 8:33AM

Tape has been uncovered from 2006 with Romney saying that a federal mandate is constitutional and necessary to provide the benefits required. When this is shown in a political ad, Romney will be in a bind and either say he was wrong (again) then or he is just a flip-flopper. Therefore, this issue will only be used to get money among supporters and he will not use it in the general election or he will lose.

CJW| 6.29.12 @ 12:18PM

The Court has ruled it is constitutional so this tape is not relevant.
Romney said yesterday that the Court ruled on constitutionality of the Act not whether it is a good or wise policy, which is not the Court's job.

The issue is not whether it is constitutuonal or not, but whether it is a wise or bad law that needs repealed.
You are looking for reasons to criticize Romney when the issue is repeal by Congress of the law.

canuckistani| 6.29.12 @ 1:00PM

It's a GOP law. They have zero responses as they already know ending the major sins by insurance companies CANNOT be accomplished without a mandate.

Romney will be the emmissary for minor teaks, but no repeal - and he will be right.

CJW| 6.29.12 @ 3:23PM

If you believe this is a GOP law then I assume you will be voting for the GOP since you favor the law. You should be consistent.

GW| 6.29.12 @ 1:16PM

"When this is shown in a political ad, Romney will be in a bind and either say he was wrong (again) then or he is just a flip-flopper."

This is still better than being a Marxist. If conservatives and libertarians hold Romney's feet to the fire, we can get him to flip (overturn Obamacare) instead of flop (grow the government).

Pecos Pete| 6.29.12 @ 8:34AM

Welcome to hell. Even if Romney is elected.

Stormzeye| 6.29.12 @ 8:52AM

You don't know what you're talking about. There are two clear choices: Obama and Romney. Do you honestly think that with Obama out of office and a Republican legislature, we will still be in "hell"? For years the lazy electorate of this country moaned and groaned that that there was no reason to vote or get involved in politics because "both parties are the same". This apathy is exactly what enabled both parties to become the same. Romney is not any conservative's favorite candidate but when he sees a conservative House and Senate get elected he'll know what to do to stay in office. It's all up to us!

Pecos Pete| 6.29.12 @ 9:06AM

Stormzeye: You are correct that we are now faced with the clear choice of either Romney or Obama. I will vote for Romney and hopefully so will 50.1% of the voters in November. But, what then? If enough anti-ObamaCare legislators are elected and ObamaCare is repealed well and good. But, barring a Constitutional Amendment, we are still faced with the result of the the Supreme Court's decisions that the mandate is a tax thus providing future Congresses with a defined road map to future restrictions on freedom. That's the hell I am referring to.

JayDick| 6.29.12 @ 9:58AM

First, Romney needs much more, 55% or more. Second, it might be possible (???) to overturn Obamacare as part of a budget reconciliation bill which requires only 51 votes in the Senate. If that's not the case, it will be very difficult. A half dozen or more Democratic Senators will have to flip.

irish19| 6.29.12 @ 11:15AM

Agree with the 55%. He will have to win by greater than the margin of fraud.

mfeder| 6.29.12 @ 8:36AM

Obamacare is now deemed a tax. The bill originated in the Senate. All tax bills must originate in the House. So is this a basis for further challenge?

Albertus Magnus| 6.29.12 @ 9:22AM

I hope so, but I'm not holding my breath.

JayDick| 6.29.12 @ 10:00AM

That's easy to circumvent and the Dems did so. They just took a House bill (any old bill), stripped everything out, and substituted the health bill. Slight of hand though it is, it is accepted practice. And, I don't think it is subject to judicial review because it is largely a matter of Senate rules.

OP4| 6.29.12 @ 8:38AM

Roberts just plain chickened out. The rest was tap dancing.

Mimi | 6.29.12 @ 8:38AM

I've been Angry, and worried since ACA was OK'ed! Don't deny it...we lost...and BIG. We still have the Religious Liberty issue and the legal part, that all likely will end up with SCOTUS. It won't happen until long after the Nov. election.
It is essential, that the Romney crew get a viable health care plan out to the public. There is certainly a better way to accomplish all the changes needed to improve HC, without taking it over completely by a big enough , Federal Government.
The rise in health cost already is so severe for seniors and families already right now....What the Dems gave the country is atrocious...It has always been highly suspected they DO NOT know how to Govern...now it is proven for sure. The 2010 election tossed many....now everyone of them are at risk in 2012....!
The walk out yesterday, proved my point!

JP| 6.29.12 @ 8:54AM

Justice Gingsberg wrote that 1st Amedment considerations trump policy considerations (see yesterday's opinion). She just fired a broadside at the WH concerning the so-called Contraception Mandate.

Pecos Pete| 6.29.12 @ 9:12AM

JP: Good point!

JP| 6.29.12 @ 8:49AM

Lost in the melee was the severability issue. Everyone was expecting 2 major opinions: the first was the Mandate; the second whether the rest of the ObamaCare Law was unconstitutional if the IM was struck down.

Personally I agree with the minority opinion. However, the second issue I believed went beyond the court's jurisprudence. The severability could only be solved at the political level. In that respects I believed the best the GOP could hope for was a 5-4 win on the IM, but I fully expected the Court to uphold the rest of the law on a 6-3 decision (Roberts and Kennedy joining the Libs).

Roberts obviously has problems with the deciding contentious cases that are best solved at the political level. He wrote as much in his opinion yesterday. If he struck down the IM the second point concerning severability would have to be ruled on. In either cases the partisan rancour would hit high pitch. The political classes for decades have shifted the political onus from Congress and the Executive to the Judicial. Roberts is putting a stop to this.

Bob Grant| 6.29.12 @ 9:14AM

"Roberts obviously has problems with the deciding contentious cases that are best solved at the political level."

If that' true, then he's turned the Supreme Court into a political body.

This man IS NOT what he claimed to be during his confirmation hearing. He said he was a constructionist, and originalist.

One could argue he's as much a fraud as obama....or the bill on which he decided yesterday.

Albertus Magnus| 6.29.12 @ 9:21AM

I agree. I feel like I have been stabbed in the back. One is left to wonder if some of his previous decisions will be revisited and altered. Since the Constitution as a whole is now meaningless, I guess the 2nd Amendment will be next on the chopping block. The 4th Amendment is already toothless, and this Obozocare crap will only foster more violations as we are required to document everything about our lives to the government, like tax forms on steroids.

Anthony| 6.29.12 @ 9:42AM

If Roberts caved to the political pressure of the Left, that siding with the minority would have proved once and for all this Court was a right wing, reactionary, hyper-partisan court, Robert's was made a total and complete fool by them.
Nothing Roberts did "saved" this Court, or his precious historical reputation, from the partisan distain of the Left.
And if indeed this was Roberts' motivation, SHAME ON YOU, you fell victim to oldest trick in the leftist's playbook, that leftism's hegemony is de rigueur and that conservativism is fringe politics.
It's time to stop playing nice with the ruling class folks, in fact, it's way long past time.

rightasrain| 6.29.12 @ 9:45AM

Also, if that's true then what's he doing on the Supreme Court which is supposed to decide the hard cases regardless of the political repercussions. A Supreme Court justice is not supposed to be a political tactician.

Mike G| 6.29.12 @ 8:53AM

I went to bed last night very concerned about the direction of our country. I awoke this morning with a sense that our financial troubles will be behind us soon. The healthcare ruling provides a solution to the massive amount of debt we now carry. Think about it. The government can now command huge amounts of revenue simply by taxing what we DON'T do.:
Don't purchase an electric car? pay a finetax;
Don't purchase an American made car? pay a finetax;
Don't spend at least 20% of your grocery bill on fresh fruits and vegetables? pay a finetax.
Congressional authority to finetax what you don't do is limited only by their imagination. Huge amounts of revenue can now be raised to pay off the massive debt we carry...Oh wait a minute... they'll only create more programs to spend this new money on--never mind.

Albertus Magnus| 6.29.12 @ 9:17AM

This could spur an entire new field of accounting and tax preparation jobs as everyone will have to document everything they buy and don't buy for tax purposes. Keep your receipts!

John Navratil| 6.29.12 @ 11:12AM

Albert Magnus,

But wait, wait, you can't tax me. I grow my own organic Brocolli with composted copies of "Mother Jones".

irish19| 6.29.12 @ 11:19AM

You can't grow your own. Think Wickard (sp?).

Occam's Tool| 6.29.12 @ 1:47PM

"Wickard V. Filburn," Irish19. Correct, as usual, my favorite Irishman.

Mike G| 6.29.12 @ 2:07PM

Well, maybe the SCOTUS won't let them prevent you from growing your own, but it will let them make you buy fresh fruits and veggies. It will all be part of the yet-to-be written health bill regulations.

JP| 6.29.12 @ 8:56AM

Read the oppinion. Taxes have to be voted seperately. And Congress in 2009-10 never would have gotten ObamaCare through if they called the IM a tax. And the Senate cannot filibuster tax bills.

Bob Grant| 6.29.12 @ 8:59AM

My prediction is the law will gain in popularity because the mush head, low information masses are tired and want resolution and certainty, which obamacare certainly provides to anyone WHO WANTS TO BELIEVE IT.

Never mind that it's unsustainable, will suffocate economic growth, will increase unemployment, is an assault on the constitution, and will cause massive health care rationing in the long term.

Get ready for a massive PR blitz by obama, dems, hollywood, and the mainstream media on how this constitutionally-sound legislation will fulfill your wildest healthcare dreams.

It will be alot like how the Nazis talked those poor souls onto the trains for that long ride to Poland.

Mr. Roberts, don't fool yourself. You are no better than Kagan, Ginsberg, or the rest. Is popularity at Washington cocktail parties worth shredding the Constitution? A disgrace!!

Enchanted| 6.29.12 @ 9:02AM

Let's not talk about being forced to buy insurance or face a hefty fine now, let's talk about the new TWENTY-ONE (21) taxes that will be heaped on those middle class Americans that pay over 45% of the taxes. The taxes on the health care for a family that makes $30,000 a year will be a hefty $2200. (that is after some of the decrements). When you sell your house you will now be TAXES. what % I am unsure, but 3.5% is being bantered about - whether that is on the total sale or the proceeds will make a huge difference. READ THE LAW

The health care 'plan'. If you have no productive life (cancer, MS, downs syndrome) you are in jeopardy of losing any health care. If you are over 75, just like barry said - take that pill and die quietly because you will not get the care you require. That money so says the supporters on the hill need to go to the younger generation. Abortion? Not only will it be condoned, but encouraged. As one democrat congressmen said, we have to have abortion in the plan because babies being born place a burden on the health care system.

For those supporting this deathcare law - you were as my dearly departed Grandmother used to say - bamboozled. The bottom line though for this goes far beyond health care, it delves into liberties. It delves into the government now being able to force you to buy anything such as the explosive ( no pun intended) volt. Our way of life as a free nation is at risk. Thank God we have November to look forward to. ABO

squalis| 6.29.12 @ 9:04AM

Why can't it be believed that Romney's position on the individual mandate has "evolved" since his days as Governor. He continually asserts from his first day in office he will work to have Obamacare repealed. To all the skeptics, I ask: What choice is there but to vote for him in November?

GW| 6.29.12 @ 1:20PM

I agree completely. People deride Romney for being a flip-flopper, but they need to understand this cuts both ways. If Romney can be duped into being a useful idiot for the left, as he was in Massachusetts, why can't he be a useful idiot for the right?

If conservatives in Congress demand that Romney maintains a conservative cabinet and don't go along with moderate bills Romney wants, Romney can be persuaded to govern toward the right. But he won't do it voluntarily, which is why conservatives need to stay active and demand their representatives work for the interests of the voters who elected them, i.e. the conservative wing of America.

Joan Of Snark | 7.1.12 @ 6:41PM

Romney has stated multiple times that MA did what it wanted to do as a state. He does not believe this is something that falls under the responsibility of the federal government.

The most important thing is to elect courageous Constitutional conservatives to every available House & Senate seat in November. The stronger and more formidable our representatives in Congress, the better they can "manage" whoever ends up sitting in the Oval Office. If nothing else, thwarting President Walking Eagle at every turn should he manage to steal a second term.

Albertus Magnus| 6.29.12 @ 9:13AM

I have watched all my adult life as something bad happens (and this is bad) and the pundits come out and say "this will motivate the voters to throw the bums out!" I'm still waiting for that to happen. I am still not representated in Congress. My voice is not heard. My vote is meaningless. The wrong people keep winning. My money keeps being taken away. My rights keep vanishing, slowly but surely. The Vandals are no longer at the Roman gates threatening the government. The Vandals ARE the government.

Big Ern| 6.29.12 @ 9:22AM

The chief justice has shown himself to be an unreliable, ethically challenged, coward. It is especially egregious in his case because he is fully aware that he violated his oath, but he did it anyway. This will gain him few friends on the left and alienate many on the right. His reputation and that of the court are diminished, not enhanced by what he's done. He's achieved the opposite of what he intended.

Albertus Magnus| 6.29.12 @ 9:26AM

One is left to wonder if Roberts was bought or threatened "Chicago-Style." This is out of character, a brazenly political decision, a convoluted mass of faulty reasoning to justify a preconceived outcome. Roberts has not demonstrated a penchant for this before. I am frankly, shocked.

Kwan| 6.29.12 @ 9:23AM

ObamaCare has yet to be implemented and already 60% of the population want it thrown out. Wait until 2014 when citizens start to experience this regressive health care system given to us by the Democrat Party. Democrats will be lucky to get elected as dog-catcher once voters begin to experience the sub-standard care and the death panels begin denying care to the elderly. I once heard an old Argentinian describe Juan and Eva Peron's socialized medicine as "cattle car healthcare". Once you were able to get an appointment if you were lucky, you were shuffled into a stall examined, then shuffled into another stall and given a prescription, then shuffled into another stall for an injection or to be given a vial of medication (probably APC's or all purpose capsules), then shuffled out the door. It was the illusion of having health care.

Oldefarte| 6.29.12 @ 9:42AM

Ross' statement of "The problem is that between voter ignorance and apathy, and the bias of much of the media, sustainable better election outcomes is a thin reed on which to hang our nation's liberty" just about says it all; but it's not "ignorance" but rather STUPIDITY [that allowed this POTUS to be elected on 11/4/08]. Drilling down further from terming it a "tax" would produce the possibly more aprapo GOVERNMENTAL HEALTH INSURANCE WELFARE instead. The only solution again is for people/voters to do their duty on 11/6/12 and vote their entire Republican ticket. Otherwise it and this administration [aka dictatorship] will destroy this country!!!!!!!!

Marie| 6.29.12 @ 10:19AM

First, we got conned by the Democrats. Obamacare is squarely on the shoulders of them. Then, we got conned by "a conservative". We have some big problems to solve, America.

Oldefarte| 6.30.12 @ 1:42PM

Don't know who precisely you're referring to but no "conservative" that I'm aware of legislated the Great Society, War On Poverty, Welfarecare, Affordable Homes, CRA of 1977, rent subsidies, housing allowances, etc!!!!!!!

Hardcard| 6.29.12 @ 10:22AM

What a revoltin' developement!!!! Chester A. Riley. We are doomed !!!

rightasrain| 6.29.12 @ 11:09AM

Sufferin' succotash!

irish19| 6.29.12 @ 11:23AM

Thanks for the references, Hardcard & rar. Although Hardcard is really dating him/herself unless he/she is a fan of old time radio as I am. In any case, I needed the smile today.

MikeBee| 6.29.12 @ 10:33AM

What we have received with Obamacare is a permanent solution to a temporary problem. The temporary problem? Boomers outnumbering everyone else, and causing a temporary hike in the cost of healthcare for everyone.

But, just as in the real world, when you make a permanent fix to a temporary problem, you will not be able to overturn the fix easily. Most likely, you will have to take the entire thing apart (government), and rebuild.

Real world example? Sometimes stupid people try to fix plumbing problems using permanent solutions. Small leak? Here. This "permo-seal" stuff will work. But, when the next small leak springs out, the permo-seal is impossible to remove, causing one to take the entire sink and drain out to replace, and costing much more.

This healthcare thing will be impossible to remove without taking out the entire Congress, Senate, and Presidency. Roberts stupidly applied the "Permo-Seal." Now, we must tear the entire thing out and replace.

MikeBee| 6.29.12 @ 10:39AM

Now there is absolutely NO EXCUSE for not voting this Fall. Far too often on these pages I have read someone stating that they will "sit out" the election, just because the candidate was not their ideal person. THESE DAYS MUST BE OVER.

It's time for every Paul supporter, every conservative, and every moderate to join together and elect Mitt Romney, booting Obummer's butt out. No more sitting on the sidelines or trying to create havoc in state or national primaries. Get your head out of your xss, and defeat Obama and the Democrats this November! Later, we'll go to work with laser precision, knocking off any remaining Democrats and any RINO Republicans. But, this Fall, we need to win, no matter what.

Jade12| 6.29.12 @ 10:51AM

Could not agree more MikeBee

irish19| 6.29.12 @ 11:25AM

Hell yes!!

CJW| 6.29.12 @ 12:22PM

Agree, but do not underestimate the stupidity of voters. You will still read comments that this is all Romney's fault, and to prove how principled they are they will stay home, or vote for a third party candidate, or else hold their breath and turn blue.

canuckistani| 6.29.12 @ 1:04PM

It is not Romney's fault. The policy is a GOP construct that the dems actually enacted.

The only healthcare laws a GOP congress has ever enacted are unfunded entitlements. Wake up.

If the healthcare bill moves our spending from 17% to 16% of GDP, it will be a win.

CJW| 6.29.12 @ 1:13PM

You must still be sleeping and do not understand the meaning of funded. Do you still think there is the Algore lockbox?
Medicare is partially funded through payroll taxes and will be funded from the general taxes if there is not enough money. The feds can tax you for anything to pay for what you consider entitlements.
Do you think there is a separate fund to cover Obamacare?

canuckistani| 6.29.12 @ 1:25PM

Nope, because the one thing that Americans don't understand about finance is that there is no free lunch. Unless you are a big bank or insurance company......or a petroleum producer.

We already pay 17% of GDP on healthcare with sh!tty outcomes and labyrinthine bureaucracies at the providers. Medicare is an efficient program compared to Humana or Blue Cross, but it must be paid for. Wake up.

CJW| 6.29.12 @ 1:46PM

If you believe Medicare is efficient compared to BC or any other company, then you must be employed by Medicare, and you have no credibility.
What country has better outcomes than the USA?
What country do you live in?

canuckistani| 6.29.12 @ 1:58PM

2010 OECD stats (17 countries)
US rank Overall 16
Life expect 17
Premature mortality 16
Mortality due to cancer 8
Mortality due to circulatory disease 13
Mortality due to respiratory disease 14
Mortality due to diabetes 15
Mortality due to musculoskeletal 13
Mortlaity due to metal disorders 9
Infant mortality 17
Malpractice 10

But facts are a nuisance on this site.

canuckistani| 6.29.12 @ 2:09PM

Now, knowing the outcomes, how much are we being hosed?
GDP on Healthcare, 2010

# 1 United States: 17.1%
# 4 Switzerland: 11.2%
# 6 Monaco: 11%
# 7 Germany: 10.9%
= 13 France: 9.7%
= 15 Norway: 9.6%
= 15 Canada: 9.6%
= 18 Australia: 9.5%
= 18 Greece: 9.5%
= 20 Portugal: 9.3%
= 23 Sweden: 9.2%
= 25 Belgium: 9.1%
= 25 Israel: 9.1%
= 28 Panama: 8.9%
= 30 Netherlands: 8.8%
= 30 Denmark: 8.8%
= 34 New Zealand: 8.5%
= 34 Italy: 8.5%
# 37 Slovenia: 8.3%
= 43 Japan: 7.9%
= 47 Austria: 7.7%
= 47 United Kingdom: 7.7%
= 56 Finland: 7.3%
= 56 Ireland: 7.3%
= 60 Czech Republic: 7%

canuckistani| 6.29.12 @ 2:15PM

For the Dr. Rights on here, the NHIL appears to be working. If all things Israel are kosher, why not the NHIL?

Ghost of Cicero (NB) | 6.29.12 @ 3:38PM

Just because we think that Israel is our ally doesn't mean we want their government, idiot. We're good allies with the British, too. And we don't want the NHS. We're allies with Canada. We like some of the stuff THEY do. We don't WANT their healthcare.

Makes me wonder why its always Israel that's the ally that gets brought up buy folks like you. Actually, no, I don't have to wonder.

CJW| 6.29.12 @ 3:25PM

Your figures must explain why there is a stampede of immigrants to those countries, including you?

JP| 6.29.12 @ 4:29PM

58% of all medical costs in the US come from women. Do you propose we cut benefits to women?

JD| 6.29.12 @ 2:37PM

And you continue to insist that these things are our fault and that your idea fixes it all. Neither is true.

canuckistani| 6.29.12 @ 2:43PM

You are correct. The system we have now is an accident. As leaders, we have a duty to act. This is just step one to recognizing we are being hosed by an accident.

JD| 6.29.12 @ 2:53PM

"Act" does not mean throw darts at a wall. It means understand the problem and take specific steps to solve it.

Drunken Sailor| 6.29.12 @ 3:47PM

Yep, especially when the OECD Factbook leads the graphs with the following details:

Each country calculates life expectancy at birth according to
methodologies that can vary somewhat from country to
country.

So please explain, if each country is using different methodology to compute and report their figures, why should we believe that it is even worth the paper it was printed on?

Quartermaster| 6.29.12 @ 4:07PM

Much of what you have named are the result of personal choices the individual victims have made. They are *NOT* the "outcome" of the medical system.

Fiscal| 6.30.12 @ 8:13AM

There are a couple of factual issues here. First, most of our problem is due to obesity -- we are number 1 in the world in obesity. Secondly, half of all Medicare is paid in the last year of life. The public should not fund using extraordinary means to keep people alive for a few months. If you want that type of expensive coverage, you should pay for it yourself.

JP| 6.29.12 @ 3:46PM

Medicare is efficient only in the sense that it refuses to pay market prices for medical services (Medicare reimbursement are 60% of market). And, Medicare is not immune from political calculations.The only reason that ObamaCare could be scored neutral was because the Dems in the Senate moved a half trillion dollars from Medicare to ObamaCare. Have you paid attention at all to what has gone on?

Quartermaster| 6.29.12 @ 4:12PM

Like all Progtards he pays attention to what he wants to pay attention to, not what he should pay attention to.

Apropos his handle, the best medical care in Canada is found in the United States. Those in Canuckistan with serious conditions and money come to the states. It happens in the UK as well.

Germany's system was about to bankrupt them and they had to make some pretty big changes to be able to keep things going. Canada's and the UK NHS are on the ropes. UK's system is pathetic, and Canuckistan's system isn't very far behind.

Diefledermaus| 6.29.12 @ 6:10PM

You must have been the reason Jonah Goldberg wrote "Tyranny of Cliches".

Let me guess, you are 18 and got indocrinated in public schools. Go F yourself you OWS fool.

Lil Nemo| 6.29.12 @ 1:00PM

I disagree - it is time to re-elect Obama and put the Democrats back into power. Once the country is totally socialistic and people are wondering what happened, maybe they will realize the follies of Socialism. But, unfortunately, no country that has gone down this road has ever recovered. Until then, there will be the elitists and hangers on (read that as those described by Hillery Clinton as "the mob") who will keep striving for this Utopia.

Quartermaster| 6.29.12 @ 4:13PM

The Soviet Union was accurately described as a third World country with Nuclear weapons. The successor states are still pretty much basket cases.

Who Knows?| 6.29.12 @ 11:22AM

It’s the taxes, stupid!

Ignore all the psychoanalyzing of Roberts, or the reasons why, or the future possibilities of the SCOTUS, or GWB’s legacy, etc.

Currently, over 50% of working Americans pay no payroll tax. Still, leviathan has already ramped up its take, to about 25% federal and 15% state and local SPENDING, which is perilously close to a total of 50% of the economy.

So, I expect a new equation to be blasted across this land---

Obamacare = higher taxes.

Most voters, in particular those in the bottom half of the economy, think they are mostly immune from any change in their “happy” tax situation. But, when Romney and friends spread the TRUTH wealth about how Obamacare will raise THEIR taxes, well—Kiss Obama’s ass goodbye.

Self interest rules!

Nobody has a lower opinion than I of the intelligence and knowledge of most Americans---so many fools---but even someone beyond insane can get it, when threatened by the taxman. If only they find out---and, I think they will.

Whatever the reasons, Roberts did the country a great favor. I think he weighed all the options, and decided to do as he did---to fall on his sword, and forever ruin his reputation---to give Americans at least a chance to wake up, and violently expel Obama and his pack of thieves.

David| 6.29.12 @ 11:45AM

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.

BackToBasics| 6.30.12 @ 4:36AM

I think a better way to get back at Obam would have been to side with the 4 justices on dissent and overturn the entire law. It's a lot easier and less risky if this was his intent and I do not think it was.

In overturning, such a victory may have also MOTIVATED the right to want a further victory in November. What's with all this roundabout victory talk? It was totally unnecessary and actually dangerous to do it this way if that was his "plan." Sure, if we can get a win in November we'll take it but it will be a phyrric victory with this ruling and the judicial precedent it sets in place.

Derek Leaberry| 6.29.12 @ 11:49AM

Mr. Kaminsky makes a good point in that half the Republican picks for the Supreme Court end up being disasters yet all the Democratic picks end up being faithful, full-blown leftists. Kind of puts to bed the argument to vote Romney so he can make good Supreme Court picks.

On another tangent, having Lindsey Graham ride to the rescue with political advice is like an anemic getting advice from Dracula on getting blood counts up. Graham himself already plans to sell out conservatives next year on the immigration question, if Romney is elected. In fact, it is the traitorous ways of Graham, McCain and the Bush family that got us millions of Third World Democratic voters who, in turn, dutifully voted for Obama and the other Democrats. Graham is part of the problem and not of any solution.

canuckistani| 6.29.12 @ 2:41PM

Perhaps the correct view of the law and the constitution is a liberal humanist one after all.

Jefferson was prescient in this thinking, and thankfully he was right.

JD| 6.29.12 @ 3:32PM

Can you explain what the Constitution prevents the federal government from doing?

Quartermaster| 6.29.12 @ 4:15PM

He needs to define his terms first. I'd bet a dollar to a donut that he can't explain it in a way that preclude Stalin from doing anything he did as Red Tsar if he were to be POTUS instead.

BackToBasics| 6.30.12 @ 4:53PM

DL - Well said and I agree but I still must vote for Romney. I no longer believe a ballot-box solution is possible to save America. Romney will buy some time and I think keep more people working. With Obam I think we will be in a full-blown depression before 2016.

Jack London| 6.29.12 @ 11:58AM

Grow up you people. The world has not ended. Rest assured - we will still have the most inequitable healthcare system in the developed world, which will please you greatly.

CJW| 6.29.12 @ 12:23PM

How is it inequitable?

canuckistani| 6.29.12 @ 1:06PM

17% of GDP with sh!tty outcomes. Period.

It's just dumb for us to accept that fact of life.

CJW| 6.29.12 @ 1:14PM

I assume you get your medical care in Canada or somewhere else?

canuckistani| 6.29.12 @ 1:22PM

I get it here with Blue Cross, and I pay a supplement on my own. My employer pays over $12,000 for my family annually.

I worked in Canada, my employer paid $2800, and I paid about $1000 out of payroll taxes.

I had a Family doctor, a first class hospital and cancer center two miles from my home and had three hospital stays - two minor surgeries and a major one. Received an invoice for the TV service. That was it. No complications and no pressure to leave before doctor signed off on it. My family doctor even came in to see us.

My local hospital will not even see me until my insurance file is preapproved. Dumb that we have to live this way.

CJW| 6.29.12 @ 1:47PM

Move back to Canada.

Occam's Tool| 6.29.12 @ 1:50PM

For elective treatment. Yes. You are fortunate in Canada that your suregeries were straightforward and required no higher level specialists. Or that you didn't have a Mental Illness. I work about 2 hours drive time from the border.

canuckistani| 6.29.12 @ 2:32PM

My surgery was not minor and had several specialists involved. It took some time, yes, but my family doctor was part of the process all the way along. The longest delay was diagnostics like MRI's, but seeing the specialist was as I experienced at home.
For mental illness, the school, work and at home services were provided as part of single payer programs. Family leave is also more liberal, and maternity leave is 1 year with job guarantees.

JD| 6.29.12 @ 2:34PM

And you're really going to pontificate about all that without mention of its true costs?

canuckistani| 6.29.12 @ 2:38PM

Costs to my family? They were high as I am the breadwinner.
True costs? I know they were lower than what it would cost in my backyard, and the outcome was what I and my doctor expected.

There is no pontification, just facts. You can infer what you want.

JD| 6.29.12 @ 2:45PM

Unbelievable. You're just going to sit there and pretend that the only costs are the ones presented to you on a bill at the time of service?

If that's the standard, then I guess all health insurance is free, and we only pay the copays!

Drunken Sailor| 6.29.12 @ 3:55PM

I notice you do not mention how the goverment there finances health care so you could get such reasonable rates.

Health care in Canada is funded at both the provincial and federal levels. The financing of health care is provided via taxation both from personal and corporate income taxes. Additional funds from other financial sources like sales tax and lottery proceeds are also used by some provinces.

http://www.canadian-healthcare.org/page8.html

Oh and can't forget this little tidbit of info.

The shortage of doctors and nurses in Canada: Some feel that Canada's health care system does not adequately compensate health care providers. This has led to a "brain drain" of Canadian doctors and nurses, which have left Canada to pursue careers in the United States. Attracting and keeping skilled medical workers is a priority if Canada is to be able to provide proper medical services.

Quartermaster| 6.29.12 @ 4:18PM

Plus, the sorry outcomes he listed above are mostly the result of poor personal choices, not of the medical system. But, expecting him to realize that is equivalent to expecting a hog not return to the mire.

RCV| 6.29.12 @ 12:28PM

Jack, this group is determined to see Armageddon no matter how much sense you try to talk to them. They live in the freest, most prosperous civilization the world has ever seen, they have the freedom to instantly communicate their thoughts to millions of people, to choose their own leaders and representatives, to travel anywhere they choose, etc. etc., and yet they think themselves "slaves" in some gulag. Talk about delusions!

CJW| 6.29.12 @ 1:09PM

We do live in the most free and prosperous country in the world. But that is not a reason to not question a single payor plan which seems the goal of Obama. You do believe that if we move to a single payor plan that we will lose some of our freedom, namely the freedom to choose the type of plan we want, and probably the treatment we want. If there will be a government bureacrat involved in the decisions about health care then there will be a loss of freedom.

Look at the lawsuits filed by the Catholic hospitals and other religious groups over the abortion and contraception issues. That is evidence of a loss of freedom for those groups.
There should be a much simpler way to force people who do not buy insurance to pay for insurance or healt care instead of creating this massive intrusion in the private sector.

JD| 6.29.12 @ 1:49PM

You are free in the same way that Southern whites were free in the early 19th Century.

You don't address our points at all. You just say "that's crazy talk." Of course, switch issues and suddenly you're the ones saying the sky will fall if you don't get your way.

canuckistani| 6.29.12 @ 2:29PM

Don't even start. It is impossible to get reason through to people.

The law forces insurance companies to not make arbitrary decisions when a person is in peril. I believe that gives us back liberty.

JD| 6.29.12 @ 2:39PM

"The law forces... that gives us back liberty."

What a sentence!

"arbitrary decisions" - now you're calling reality arbitrary.

Quartermaster| 6.29.12 @ 4:20PM

And Canuckistani admits that he's obtuse.

Derek Leaberry| 6.29.12 @ 12:36PM

Just a bone to throw at liberals like Jack London and RCV. Could the left and right have some sort of grand bargain? The Right would allow a Single-Payer Health Plan and cut defense spending in accordance a nation no longer in a Cold War struggle with the USSR. The Left would allow privatization of almost everything else in government from the Post Office to Amtrak and Education and would pare down other government programs from HUD to road building to pointless departments like Energy and Commerce.

Jack London| 6.29.12 @ 5:15PM

No need to bargain - single payer for all will be inevitable at some point as we can't go on throwing away money on overhead and waste, but we will still of course have a mixed national/private insurance market, as we do now anyway.

And please - who wants to start stuffing dollars in the pockets or private educators, while the Post Office is still one of our great treasures. And I expect you have no clue how many vital research programs are federally funded across many departments.

Bob From District 9| 6.29.12 @ 12:32PM

It is incredibly offensive when the extreme right, the most anti-liberty group in the country, even mentions libertarians.

Real conservatives and libertarians would chose Obama over Romney. At the least Obama is the lesser evil. In reality Romney is a pure deal making fraud, a man who will truly disgrace the Whitehouse.

You will disagree, but you are neither truly conservaitve, nor libertarian.

Oldefarte| 6.30.12 @ 1:37PM

The only "disgrace" most of us here are aware of is Mooch's and Barry's using AF1 to fly Bo to Hawaii, returning a statue of Churchill to England, giving England's Queen cassettes of their speeches as a present, bowing to Arab Muslim terrorist-funders, giving the middle fingered salute on camera to audiences, proclaiming NBFG, etc. It beyond disgraceful, it humilating and insulting to the American public, but IT will be gone in November!!!!!!

Conservative Bob| 6.29.12 @ 12:32PM

Damn.. I do not seem to be able to post again....

Conservative Bob| 6.29.12 @ 12:37PM

When I woke up this morning I read again the Declaration of Independence and was stricken by how well it applies today.

In a few short days we celebrate the adoption of these timeless words by our forefathers as they bravely risked everything to establish this great country.

The time is at hand when we must look at their sacrifice and the precious gifts they bequeathed to us and ask are we worthy? What will we do for our children and our grand children and OUR posterity 200+ years hence?

Yes we have an election in November and it may be possible to turn this law back, and it may be possible to undo the vile outrage that Roberts, Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsburg and Breyer have done to our constitution and the deathblow they have inflicted on individual liberty and limited government. Or we may not.

The time for half measures is rapidly passing, and the question again comes to the fore, are we worthy of their sacrifice, or we will be remembered as the generation that stood by and watched Liberty's flame go dark.

Today in the eyes of our government and affirmed by our highest court we are all subjects, servants of the state.

Are we going to adjust and accommodate, kissing the ring of our benefactors as we kneel before them or will we choose to be free.

canuckistani| 6.29.12 @ 1:15PM

Read Madison and Hamilton's reasoning and support of the Commerce clause and how we went to war to shove the post-bellum laws down redneck throats in order to move the country forward.

Try focusing on real limits to your fiscal liberty.We spend over $750B on defense - 50% of the world's expenditures.
We possess over 30% of the world's fat people.
We have zero top ten measures of aptitudes, skills or education.
We have zero top ten measures on upward mobility - the American dream stuff - and are hamstrung by benefits considerations when seeking new employment.

We kill eachother at a rate higher than the OECD combined and getting close to third-world pacing.

You can either kneel to these facts, or stand up and lead. Roberts recognized this.

GW| 6.29.12 @ 1:28PM

We also have a population of nearly 90 million NAMs. NAMs score lower on tests measuring intelligence, aptitude, or skills. NAMs have less-than-healthy eating habits, and combined with subsidies like food stamps and unemployment benefits, are able to sustain a sedentary lifestyle at expense of the rest. NAMs are also largely to blame for the high murder rates in the country.

canuckistani| 6.29.12 @ 2:25PM

What is a NAM?
Are they the toothless whities from the entire bible belt or the "them" that are targeted because they are black, brown or asian?

Are the "them" not Americans in your special world?

JD| 6.29.12 @ 2:53PM

Are they in yours? Yours is the party eager to give our jobs to Mexicans who illegally enter our country but furious when jobs end up in the hands of poor, hardworking Chinese who haven't violated any of our laws.

I know what our standard is. It's "obey the rules." Apparently yours is "whoever's standing on the right soil is our friend"?

Conservative Bob| 6.29.12 @ 1:37PM

So your answer to all things is more government and less liberty.. OK, just say so it takes much less effort to type.. Oh yes and let us not forget to take those evil guns.

What complete and utter bull shit! Can't respond on point to the substance change the subject and scream louder...

JD| 6.29.12 @ 2:04PM

So "change for the sake of change", then, huh?

You list all those problems and act like their our fault, but they're yours.

canuckistani| 6.29.12 @ 2:22PM

No, they are ours. If you choose to live in a cave somewhere, then you can ignore them.

We have people right here at home that are suffering, and we banter about "liberty or death".

Sad.

JD| 6.29.12 @ 2:41PM

Yet again we see your infuriating practice of avoiding the issue.

WE THINK YOUR IDEA WON'T WORK!

Do you understand that? CAN you understand that? Apparently not. All you do is condemn us for not embracing your idea as if it's merit isn't even on the table for discussion.

That's quite the common liberal tactic, actually - presuming you've won the debate before it starts.

Quartermaster| 6.29.12 @ 4:24PM

You want to blame the world for personal choices. The only way you will end much of what you list as sorry outcomes is the use of concentration camps. Those are not the fault of the medical system, and to end them you would have us become a Stalinist country. I think you will find that even a good many your fellow libtards will resist that.

Russel| 6.29.12 @ 5:53PM

Tell me Mr. Know It All , just when did the Commerce Clause become law ? . Madison and Hamilton were there to witness it ? . Boob

RCV| 7.2.12 @ 6:09PM

1789

JP| 6.29.12 @ 3:51PM

In our $3.8 trillion budget, only 20% is defence spending. And defence is clearly spelled out as a Constitutional duty of our government. One of the reasons we spend so much is to protect other nations (such as Canada).

JP| 6.29.12 @ 3:53PM

We provide 25% of the world's GDP. Our armed forces protect nations such as Canada. We provide 35% of the world's working capital. Canada could disappear from the world and no one would blink. If the US disappeared, the entire global market would collapse forever.

Russel| 6.29.12 @ 5:58PM

Defense is 11 % of the federal budget . Upwards of 45% goes to welfare . Boob

JP| 6.30.12 @ 10:47AM

$760 billion divided by $3.8 trillion equates to 20%. So I was off by 5% points. Your 11% is way off mark

David| 6.29.12 @ 12:49PM

Yesterday on Mark Levin's show, or maybe it was Hannity, I heard a guest say we should all refer to yesterday, June 28, 2012, as the "Declaration of Dependence Day".

Lil Nemo| 6.29.12 @ 12:53PM

Please. John Roberts has set a precedent that will be used ad-infinitum. From this day forward, the government has been given unlimited power over our lives and full control over what we buy or sell. Three historic dates - July 4, 1776 (Independence Day), December 7, 1941 (Day that will live in infamy), and June 28, 2012 (Dependence Day). Please stop trying to cover the butt of John Roberts - the law is totally unconstitutional so he rewrote it to be a tax. He stated that it is not the role of the court to protect the electorate from their decisions BUT IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE COURT TO PROTECT AND DEFEND THE U.S. CONSTITUTION - and he totally failed his responsibility. We now have one of the greatest subversions of law as well as the greatest tax increase in history.

hpcooperjon| 6.29.12 @ 12:54PM

Michael Savage is wrong. Rush Limbaugh is wrong, and you are wrong. Roberts was told what he had to do. Romney may be the next president but he has been vetted by the Bilderbergers. Don't get your hopes up. Your vote does not matter.

owend| 6.29.12 @ 12:59PM

Your cynicism does nothing to help the situation. If you feel so hopeless, don't bother to vote. Don't go to the polls and let the rest of us do our duty as citizens and vote Obama out of office.

GW| 6.29.12 @ 1:29PM

Savage was just as pessimistic as you were. How was he wrong?

owend| 6.29.12 @ 12:58PM

One thing that Roberts ruling does is throw it into the tax arena. Thus, making it easier for Congress to repeal. The Senate only needs a simple majority for it to be repealed. Because The Bill is now a tax issue, it is also exempt from Senate Filibuster. Simple majority rules. All Romney has to do when he is elected President is to issue an Executive Order exempting all 50 States from implementation. Then, he and the Republicans can focus on repeal.

texpatriate| 6.29.12 @ 1:08PM

Roberts' comment about protecting the voters from themselves has merit, but if the court doesn't overturn laws that go outside the Constitution's enumerated limits and powers, what's the point of judicial review?

It's not too dramatic to say that we woke up this morning in a United States that effectively does not have a Constitution.

A mordant joke: The UK does not have a written constitution or Bill of Rights, so it's been said that the British Parliament can do anything but turn a man into a woman. Now that this healthcare bill passed judicial muster, has the US Congress finally acquired a capability the British Parliament lacks?

chips| 6.29.12 @ 1:17PM

Ladies and Gentlemen, our beloved country, its Constitution, and the separation of powers within, has just been trampled by this decision. Apparently, we now have three legislative bodies rather than the one named by the founders. CJR, in rewriting the bill, has essentially become a legislator. We have already seen the potus expand and abuse his executive office, becoming legislator, executor, and judicial all in one. To whom to we entrust our country at this point?
Shocking, shameful, sad indeed. It's now up to us, we the people. We cannot let this continue unabated.

canuckistani| 6.29.12 @ 1:28PM

Roberts has finally redeemed himself from the debacle of citizens united. Wake up.

Quartermaster| 6.29.12 @ 4:26PM

Citizens United was not decided improperly. It is a debacle only to a progtard.

nathan| 6.29.12 @ 1:34PM

I have a question for the assembled multitudes here. Fast forward two years. Has ACA been repealed or not and why or why not?

We note that Romney leads the popular vote polls but a story earlier this week pointed out that in the electoral college BHO has a strong edge especially since some of the swing states have lower than average unemployment numbers. BHO could lose the popular vote and still win the election and please if that happens no screams of outrage. "Conservatives" by and large support the electoral college, winner take all, the whole of it so complaining about it in that scenario would be unduly hypocritical.

So, two years from now before the midterms, is ACA still with us, or consigned to as they say the "dustbin of history" and why or why not?

We live in interesting times right?

JD| 6.29.12 @ 3:31PM

Entitlements are never undone without revolutions. Barring the collapse of the US government, ObamaCare is here to stay, until the next move left.

Kingofthenet| 6.29.12 @ 1:40PM

Long story short, A Win is a Win, it doesn't have to be pretty. This decision 'might' fire up the Conservative base, but who REALLY in that base is gung ho for Mittens? This will ALSO fire up a NEW base for Obama, EVERYONE who has a Pre-Existing Condition irrespective of party, and some other groups as well.

Vic| 6.29.12 @ 2:10PM

Alas, you are right. We were duly warned by Gingrich, Perry and Santorum that Romney will be hamstrung by Romneyare in Massacheusets

Vic| 6.29.12 @ 1:58PM

Very dissapointing verdict by John Roberts. He can call it whatever he wants, a tax/penalty/fee/fine/charge/levy or whatever...but ultimately it is his signature that has put the stamp of approval on Obozocare and turned it into the undisputed law of the land. I for one was just the little skeptical of Justice Kennedy, but he seems to have turned into a new leaf authorizing Citizen's united, dissenting on Obozocare and hopefully will continue to render affirmative action null and void. Roberts in turn will have the full weight of his conscience will lie heavy on him for as long as he lives

canuckistani| 6.29.12 @ 2:35PM

He will sleep well knowing consumer liberty has been improved. The dodgers and cheats will have problems, however.

JD| 6.29.12 @ 2:43PM

You have a strange definition of "liberty". You seem to think it means "free stuff that other people are forced to pay for."

Vic| 6.29.12 @ 3:37PM

Exactly, Liberty for some means a free ride. Personal responsibility seems too burdensome for them.

Bob Grant| 6.29.12 @ 3:48PM

Hey Canknucklehead,

Go to your favorite online European newspaper and read about all the these socialist/soon-to-be bankrupt countries are having massive problems with people NOT PAYING THEIR TAXES!!!!

Young, old, rich, poor, beautiful, ugly, white, brown....no one is paying their taxes.

Too broke
Too corrupt
Too used to working the system

But clowns like you think it will be different here in the U.S.

But don't listen to me. Go to Stockton California's newspaper and see what real life bankruptcy is all about.

I'm sick and tired of naifs ruining this country.

Ghost of Cicero (NB) | 6.29.12 @ 3:49PM

"Consumer liberty" would be to deregulate the health insurance industry & allow it to be bought like car insurance. Meaning acoss state lines. Watch prices DROP IMMEDIATELY if that were to happen. It would create more competition, which reduces costs. The states also bear some responsibility for this problem as well, by limiting the number of insurers that can operate in their states.

ChuckL| 6.29.12 @ 4:51PM

Just be careful if you are moving to Nevada. The Nevada DMV only accepts Insurance purchased from in state agents. The extortion fee is $250.00.

Ghost of Cicero (NB) | 6.29.12 @ 5:11PM

WOW! What a screw job!

JP| 6.30.12 @ 10:44AM

Half of all health care costs are incurred by adult women (between the ages of 18 and 50). It's great that you just called American women dodgers and cheats.

chips| 6.29.12 @ 2:45PM

Perhaps CJR will now enjoy the liberal cocktail circuit (having just lost a number of conservative friends), but I imagine he will end up regretting this horrible decision 'til his dying day. There is no integrity once you've sold it out.

JD| 6.29.12 @ 2:50PM

No one can receive something without paying for it without someone else producing something without paying for it. If the receiving is required by law, then so must be the producing. Being forced to produce without being paid is slavery. Period.

JD| 6.29.12 @ 2:54PM

Typo above; restating:

No one can receive something without paying for it without someone else producing something without being paid for it. If the receiving is required by law, then so must be the producing. Being forced to produce without being paid is slavery. Period.

mmilesll| 6.29.12 @ 3:09PM

Roberts is a pos and yet another reason for me to dislike the "Bush Clan". Both gave us bad Supreme Court Justices, Sr fired the Reagan people and gave us Clinton, Jr. spent money like a drunken sailor and gave us nobama

Ghost of Cicero (NB) | 6.29.12 @ 3:09PM

From the Article:

"They may be right, but the decision may equally turn out to be a pyrrhic victory for President Obama, motivating conservatives across the country and pushing independent voters along with skeptical conservatives and libertarians fully into the arms of Mitt Romney."

The Mitt Machine had better not shit the bed with this golden opportunity to now bash Obama relentlessly over the head about this issue. In MY opinion, this will re-invigorate the fury we witnessed at the outset of the Tea Party movement. I think that this decision will again infuriate people with the idea that a select few can dictate to our Republic what they think is good for us. WE DON'T WANT THIS DAMNED THING! Not from the beginning, not when they jammed it through (while delaying the seating of Scott Brown & using reconciliation), not when it was being litigated at every judicial stage & certainly not NOW. The beauty of our system is that we can still get rid of this thing at the ballot box. And I think that in November, people will say good riddance to bad rubbish by voting out the marginally documented "president" & increasing Repub numbers in the House & Senate, thereby enabling a repeal of this debacle.

While I agree with Mr. Kaminsky's point, I HIGHLY doubt that many of the Paulistinians will vote for Mitt, regardless of the ruling yesterday.

soljerblue| 6.29.12 @ 3:26PM

"Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius saying "it operates as a tax, but it is not per se a tax." "

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

As a senior citizen, I wanted as much as anyone and perhaps more than many to see the law entirely thrown out. Failing that, I think Roberts did the right thing. The entire issue is now back in the public domain, the electoral process, and with the people -- with whom, constitutionally, we supposedly believe the true power lies. Roberts' ruling reaffirms that, and basically says the court will not do the people's, and the voters'
job for them.

So quit bellyaching, y'all, and let's get to it. November is coming, and the future is in our hands.

Galatians 5:1

JD| 6.29.12 @ 3:29PM

As always, liberalism thrives by depriving words of their meanings.

A speeding ticket is a tax, now.

Vic| 6.29.12 @ 3:41PM

Yes sir, they are all taxes. Taking a dime out of your hard earned money, call it by whatever name, a tax/penalty/fee/fine/charge/levy is a tax!!

ChuckL| 6.29.12 @ 4:47PM

The problem is that in this case the justice's reasoning should have been presented on a line by line basis corresponding to the lines of the PPACA. Of course as many of the problems would have required more than one line per line, this would have most likely resulted in a 10,000 page document. Of course this means that the justices would have to actually do research into the law, and the Constitution. They could not just repeat cliches.

HorseWoman| 6.29.12 @ 4:05PM

How is the hope and changie thing working out for ya?

RCV| 6.30.12 @ 12:19PM

Pretty well, actually. Thanks for asking.

BrianDees| 6.29.12 @ 4:22PM

I agree that Republicans have not done a good job articulating the very convincing reasons we should not keep Obamacare. But that is only half of the equation. What is needed is the ability to articulate an alternative. While people may be opposed to the Affordable Care Act, they also know that the current system is broken. The rising cost of healthcare is one reason States and municipalities are increasingly unable to fund their retirees' pension and healthcare costs.

Quartermaster| 6.29.12 @ 4:33PM

Without doing something about the plantiff's bar, nothing will be accomplished. Much medicine is defensive medicine and the courts are incompetent to deal with issues of malpractice. The Lawyers see the opportunity and milk it for all it's worth.

Some of it is the insurance plans themselves, often requiring half measures when full measures are clearly indicated. One example I've seen is an MRI showing a ruptured disk and the insurance plan requiring a spinal injection of cortisone first (usually two) and those being shown to ineffective and only then approving surgical intervention. One man I knew had lost the ability to walk before they would allow surgical intervention.

JP| 6.29.12 @ 4:40PM

Perhaps the GOP should remind the voters in uncertain terms what is coming their way in about 18 months:

Medicare funding will be cut by $500 billion to "pay for ObamaCare"

A $1.76 trillion additional defecit will be dropped on our public coffers due to ObamaCare (that figure will be corrected upward).

No matter what Obama promises, people's health plans will change radically. Coverage for a entire slew of services will be cut due to funding and reimbursement shortages.

Due to the SCOTUS ruling yesterday, states will not be obligated to expand Medicaid coverage. In other words, the uninsured will be unable to get their "free insurance".

People laid off from work will be unable to purchase insurance, and consequently they will find themselves on the wrong side of the IRS. There is no exemption if one cannot afford to buy insurance. And we know bureaucracies.

Illegal aliens will be subjected to the ObamaCare tax. There will no longer be able to walk in to a hospital and demand free health care. If the President decides to exempt them, look forward to a very, very dangerous period of civil unrest.

Look for an entire slew of HHS invasions into privacy (in the UK, health care officials now can install video monitors into people's houses to ensure dietary mandates for the "obsese")

I don't think anyone realizes what is coming down the pike.

Jack London| 6.30.12 @ 7:08AM

"A $1.76 trillion additional defecit will be dropped on our public coffers due to ObamaCare"

This is a lie that's based on not understanding how things work. In fact the CBO is projecting a net cut in the deficit from Obamacare.

As for the rest of your rant it's also all fase of course - you're just cutting and pasting lies you like to hear. As for

'in the UK, health care officials now can install video monitors into people's houses to ensure dietary mandates for the "obsese"'

Oh yeah? Where the reference JP. In fact, where's the evidence for anything you regurgitate.

JP| 6.30.12 @ 10:36AM

Jack,
Here's the CBO link of the revised ObamaCare numbers as of March 2012:

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/defau.....3-Coverage Estimates.pdf

There is no "net" savings if the cost doubles from $900 billion to $1.76 trillion.

It took all of 30 seconds to find a reference link.

JP| 6.30.12 @ 10:43AM

Another thing, the $900 billion cost of ObamaCare was the result of raiding $500 billion from Medicare (ie retirees). Even with that taken in consideration, the CBO has doubled the cost of ObamaCare. And ObamaCare hasn't even been implemented.

As PJ O'Rourke wrote,"If you think Health Care is expensive now, wait until you see what it will cost when it is free.

Jack, you guys won. But I should add that you are entited to your opinion; but you are not entitled to your facts. People like you will bankrupt this nation. But, you don't mind as long as you get yours and someone else foots the bill. But, as Margret Thatcher once said, "The problem with Socialism is that some day you run out of other people's money". Enjoy the Gravy Train while you can, for it is about to leave the station.

DRed| 6.30.12 @ 1:54PM

Your link isn't working, JP. You might want to run it through tinyurl before posting.

DRed| 6.30.12 @ 1:59PM

http://tinyurl.com/84wzdzl

This CBO post says (from March 2012-so I assume it's what you're talking about) the net cost will be 1.1 trillion over 10 years. What am I missing?

Jack London| 6.30.12 @ 2:00PM

The cost didn't 'double' JP - you are just fooled as usual by sites such as AmSpec. The period over which costs are measured changed. This article will explain it you.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonath.....-price-fox

'When the Affordable Care Act became law, CBO estimated that the net result of all these changes, taken together, would be to reduce the deficit. Now, with this revised estimate, CBO has decided the law will reduce the deficit by even more money.'

DRed| 6.30.12 @ 2:06PM

Also, JP, I thought Conservatives wanted to reduce federal spending. Wouldn't reducing Medicare spending be a good thing? Or are you one of those conservatives who thinks it's absolutely imperative that we slash the budget but without touching defense spending, Medicare/Medicaid & Social Security? Just getting rid of NPR isn't going to get the job done, you know.

JP| 7.2.12 @ 1:11PM

This is straight from the CBO piece I linked to. It is in the summation. Note that the $1.76 trillion summarized is the gross of all estimated costs.

Estimates Through Fiscal Year 2022

"This report also presents estimates through fiscal year 2022, because the baseline projection period now extends through that additional year. The ACA’s provisions related to insurance coverage are now projected to have a net cost of $1,252 billion over the 2012-2022 period; that amount represents a gross cost to the federal government of $1,762 billion, offset in part by $510 billion in receipts and other budgetary effects (primarily revenues from penalties and other sources)."

And that includes a half trillion stolen from Medicare.

ChuckL| 6.29.12 @ 4:38PM

If the Constitution was used as the reference for this question rather than the bad precedents, the PPACA would have been found totally unconstitutional. The list of reasons is more than 2 pages long when explanations are not included.

Diefledermaus| 6.29.12 @ 6:12PM

You are a lying POS. Go rot in hell.

Then if Canada is so great why are they now passing bills that are doing more to privatized their system? Huh? Genius?

Bob From District 9| 6.29.12 @ 7:36PM

"Regarding mandating of healthy young people to buy insurance to mask the costs of the rest of Obamacare, the dissenters were not shy:"

That part is both irrelevant and nonsense. Mandating even healthy young people to buy insurance has little to do with masking the cost, and everything to do with making coverage of pre-existing conditions irrelevant to the cost of medical care. If everyone covered from the beginning there are *NO* pre-existing conditions.

Further, today's healthy young people may be tomorrow's accident victims, cancer diagnosis, or fall victim to some other illness. Without insurance they become what the *REPUBLICAN* party called "free riders". We all pay their bills.

"If Congress can reach out and command even those furthest removed from an interstate market to participate in the market, ..."

More nonsense and, in this case, error. No one is removed from the interstate market in medical care. Sooner or later we all get into it unless you were born at home, with no medical attendant, live your whole life with no medical care, and die without any medical intervention. So rare as to be irrelevant.

The right wing likes to pretend it's about insurance, it's not, it's about medical care.

Oldefarte| 6.30.12 @ 1:30PM

"Further, today's healthy young people may be tomorrow's accident victims, cancer diagnosis, or fall victim to some other illness. Without insurance they become what the *REPUBLICAN* party called "free riders". We all pay their bills"W/O coverage? Why don't these snotnosers go get a job either w/insurance or then pay for same themselves then? Why aren't hospitals etc that medically treat these snotnosers either required to demand from them a CREDIT CARD or either the hospital eats the cost themselves and not transfer same onto my [and all other insurance covered patients] insurance bill? "No one is removed from the interstate market in medical care" There is no INTERSTATE MARKET in insurance, since it is instead INTRASTATE and therein lies the reason why it is so expensive. Why don't you liberal pukes aka domestic terrorists learn of what you ignorantly speak???????????

BackToBasics| 6.30.12 @ 1:08AM

Robert's so-called logic has all the earmarks of Clinton's, "it depends on what the meaning of is, is."

As for the idea that his medication affected him, the medicine would have had to have the effect of causing him to go leftist on only the 2 most important rulings he's faced regarding America's future, Arizona's immigration law and upholding Obamacare.

Why didn't the medication cause him to write conservative decisions instead if it could have had such a potent effect? If there was such a medicine, prescribe it to the top democrats so they will start passing conservative laws instead of leftist laws.

No, it's more of an excuse than anything really and in hindsight, that a Bush II appointee should be immediately promoted to Chief Justice is suspect in itself. I suspect we will see more of the leftist decisions from Roberts in the future in the MOST IMPORTANT cases. Unless his medicine is named Hubris it had nothing to do with his decision. He is who he is and he's proving not to be not a conservative in the most important issues.

Big Dog | 6.30.12 @ 3:05AM

To get ObamaCare passed, the dems claimed it fell under the Commerce Clause. This allowed 2 different versions to exist. The House had forced one through and the Senate another. To avoid sending their bill to the Senate and then having to take it back to the House and vote AGAIN, the House reconciled the two bills into one and deemed it law.

They claim its NOT a tax. Fast forward to argument before the SCOTUS. The WH claims its not Commerce Clause, but a tax (they know the court will throw it out as unconstitutional if they use the clause). Since the bill does not claim any usage of the Commerce Clause... the court agrees. Its a TAX. A tax, is NOT under juridiction of the SCOTUS. Roberts does the smart thing and agrees, its a tax.

The dems rejoice, OBAMACARE LIVES! Party, Party, Party! All night long. Next morning dems wake up and realize, "Oh @#$%! The SCOTUS just saddled us and Obama with the largest tax increase in the history of the WORLD (not the US... the WORLD).

The dems also realize that you can NOT raise taxes, through reconciliation, thus making ObamaCare and INVALID tax. Null and void. No repeal needed... just a change of who's driving the car and ObamaCare goes, *POOF*.

Now the dems claim, the SCOTUS made the right decision, but for the wrong reasons... "its not a TAX". ROFL!

VOTE ANYONE BUT OBAMA (Romney), this November, get rid of this vile liar.

Fiscal| 6.30.12 @ 8:23AM

For many of you who have imbibed the Koolaid, the fact is that this is NOT the largest tax increase. Here is the real data from Politifact:

http://www.politifact.com/trut.....us-histor/

I sure wish we had a public that actually looked at the facts -- on both sides of the political spectrum. That said, Obamacare is still bad law because it isn't honest about how to lower health care costs. No one wants to fact the fact that the major reasons health care costs so much in this country is because of obesity and the fact that we don't ration care at the end of life. There is a solution to this. Government coverage for emergencies and preventative care because you can't predict emergencies and preventative care is the only way to attack obesity. And secondly, to let people ration their own care by not covering end of life procedures in Medicare and forcing people to buy insurance to get the level of coverage they desire. Death panels are a good thing -- not a bad thing. No one is preventing you from buying insurance on your own.

CLearbrook | 6.30.12 @ 10:32AM

You know, although the statement is true that an attempt to repeal ObamaCare is doomed to swift death in the Senate, one thing is certain, *if* Eric Cantor only attempts to repeal the "tax", (and yes, I would specifically call it that in the text of the bill, referring to it by the section of the law that it resides in) which is a *regressive* tax by its very nature, (what rich person would not carry health insurance anyway -- and the penalty for them would be high enough that all would avoid it) it becomes a *very* bitter pill for the Democrats in the Senate to swallow, and they may not choose to shoot it down. Better yet, should such a bill pass the Senate, Obama himself would have to Veto it, which would be political suicide, or sign it off, and Doom his "signature" achievement down the road.

CLearbrook | 6.30.12 @ 10:40AM

As an aside, the same logic that was just used to change this "Mandate" (which is not not constitutional under this ruling) into a "tax" can also be argued to turn any "tax" (both existing ones and future ones) into a "mandate" that is unconstitutional!

Dixon| 6.30.12 @ 2:44PM

"Critics of the majority's decision will say for the foreseeable future that Chief Justice Roberts rewrote Obamacare to save it. Michael Carvin, who argued against Obamacare before the Supreme Court, noted dryly, "I'm glad he rewrote the statute instead of the Constitution."

But is seems Sandra Badday O'Roberts did rewrite the Constitution.

As the BOcare was floating in the toilet, with 4 justices ready to pull the handle to flush it....Roberts not only lovingly pulled it out, but served it up to Americans on a silver platter.

In the process by saving BOcare by calling it a tax...Roberts also rewrote Article 7 of the US Constitution. His new BOcare tax bill originated and was passed in the senate on Christmas Eve, then sent to the House for approval...bassackward. Article 7 states ALL revenue/tax bills SHALL originate in the House.

Roberts has created precedent and case law that the senate can now orginate tax bills.

Thanks, Sandy...now we have a double barreled taxing congress.

Roberts is perhaps the most activist/statist/liberal supporting justice in US history....the justice that has opened the door to a faster plunge into the abyss of hopeless debt.

Sandra Badday O'Roberts the Destroyer.

RCV| 6.30.12 @ 5:33PM

Sorry, but the bill originated in the House. That's all the Constitution requires.

Dixon| 6.30.12 @ 7:03PM

RCV, I do not agree. The house obamacare bill was never passed nor sent to the senate for amendments or approval. It was eventually abandoned and the house adopted the Senate's original bill for BOcare that became law.

Last Thursday, the activist, statist legislating judge Roberts declared the senate originated bill a taxing bill, not a forced commerce clause mandate...and one of the largest tax/revenue bills in history.

It most certainly fits the requirements of Article 7. BOcare originated in the Senate.

RCV| 6.30.12 @ 11:20PM

Wouldn't matter anyway for the reason addressed below. This was a healthcare bill with incidental revenue consequences and thus not subject to Article 7.

RCV| 6.30.12 @ 5:42PM

Furthermore, as Justice Story noted in his authoritative 1833 Commentar on the Constitution, the provision only means that bills whose primary purpose is raising revenue must originate in the House. Legislation whose primary purpose is something else, but which incidentally raise revenue in the process, are not subject to this limitation.

BackToBasics| 7.1.12 @ 2:55AM

RCV, from Justice Story's commentary - "In a general sense, all contributions imposed by the government upon individuals for the service of the state, are called taxes, by whatever name they may be known, whether by the name of tribute, tythe, talliage, impost, duty, gabel, custom, subsidy, aid, supply, excise, or other name.1 In this sense, they are usually divided into two great classes, those, which are direct, and those, which are indirect"

To me the key phrase here is, "THE SERVICE OF THE STATE." Healthcare insurance goes beyond a state service and so does not apply.

Also, in all of this list there is no reference to indirect or incidental punitive revenue as a tax although all these other names are considered taxes as either direct or indirect. What Obamacare did was essentially call those who do not want to purchase healthcare a class of petty thieves.

Robert's improperly redefined this imposition of a criminal fine as a tax. There are no charges laid, no court appearances, no due process, just the assumption of guilt and the fine now mislabeled as a tax.

Because of this incorrect and improper definition of the criminal fine as a tax for which the revenues are not really in the "SERVICE OF THE STATE" and also because the ruling cements the improper creation in Obamacare of a new criminal class, which in and of itself goes against previous rulings regarding anti-discrimination, the entire ruling should be null and void.

RCV| 7.1.12 @ 12:51PM

The rationale of the assessment on individuals who do no self-insure is to reimburse the state for the resulting increased health care costs. Clearly a benefit to the state.

BackToBasics| 7.1.12 @ 3:24PM

All money collected can be called a benefit to the state but the quote speaks of service, not a benefit and I think there's distinction. But whether it's a service or a benefit a line has to be drawn somewhere otherwise using that argument the state could collect 100% of all income and disperse it as it sees fit which we all know it not in the Constitution.

BackToBasics| 7.1.12 @ 3:25PM

corr - know is

RCV| 7.1.12 @ 12:53PM

The bill also specifically provides that no criminal or civil judgment can be exacted. All the IRS can do is offset the increased tax owed against any refund due.

BackToBasics| 7.1.12 @ 3:13PM

Then it is still a fine and that without any infraction incurred. How can it be called a mandate if there are no penalities for not participating? The IRS withholding is a penalty, not a tax.

BackToBasics| 7.1.12 @ 3:34PM

Also, if no refund is due, how does the IRS withhold it? Since most people who are owed refunds are in the lower income brackets and you want to call it a tax, then it is a tax increase more on the poor than the rich.

RCV| 7.1.12 @ 5:04PM

The tax is graduated, depending on your income, but it can never exceed the cost of a basic health policy. Not many people with significant income are without health care insurance, so it is unlikely to affect them. The IRS doesn't withhold it, and can't enforce it with a judgment or lien, so you would simply owe it and if you choose not to pay, the IRS can't do much until the government owes you some money to set it off against.

BackToBasics| 7.1.12 @ 8:08PM

Since it has now been ruled a TAX, the IRS may deem the healthcare portion of the tax as part of the taxes already withheld from a person's pay. That would mean that the IRS could then say you owe additional taxes, equal to the heathcare burden, as part of your "income tax" due for that year and ask for payment and if payment is not made place a lien on your assets or your future pay for that "income tax" amount. Money and taxes are fungible and since it now called a tax, the IRS will want it collected.

I do not for a minute believe everyone can OPT OUT of a mandate without a penalty or to be generous an IRS workaround, otherwise few will pay into it.

Pelosi herself said we cannot know what is in the law until we pass it. I will clarify her remark further saying we cannot know what is in the law until we IMPLEMENT it and ENFORCE it.

To repeat my question from above, how can it be called a mandate if there are no penalities for not participating? The IRS involvement and withholding is a penalty, not a tax."

RCV| 7.1.12 @ 9:57PM

The health care law itself specifically prevents the IRS from placing liens on anyone for failure to pay the assessment.

BackToBasics| 7.1.12 @ 11:51PM

The workaround I cited, "the IRS may deem the healthcare portion of the tax as part of the taxes already withheld from a person's pay." as an example would allow them to collect this new TAX as well as income and other taxes. Technically they would not be breaking the law although tye'd be collecting all of it.

Besides I do not believe you've read the entire bill nor can you forsee all the changes the "tweeking" that even liberals have said would be needed for implementation and enforcement. Laws are ammended often in susequent bills.

It's bad law and a bad ruling and I don't think you even honestly believe that anyone can opt out without penalty. I ask again how can it truly be called a mandate if there are no penalties that can be exacted?

RCV| 7.2.12 @ 11:42AM

There ARE penalties to be exacted. I'm simply talking about what remedies the IRS was given to enforce them. Most of our tax system is an honor system, and most Americans pay the taxes due without enforcement actions. Wealthy people who can easily self-insure will simply add the penalty to the bottom line and pay it, or conclude it's simply easier and cheaper to buy a policy.

BackToBasics| 7.2.12 @ 10:44PM

Therefore you know that there are penalties. Your previous posts quibbles about something you knew not to be true for argument's sake.

The federal goverment is now large enough to coerce a new "honor system" through intimidation to the vast majority. "Honor Systems" do not work in a vacuum. True they only work if the large majority are involved but they also need an emitional mechanism to trigger mass participation. It could be mercy, love, pariotism, guilt, fear, etc. In the case of the federal government it is fear of, fines, litigation, arrests or worse with some guilt thrown in through the media that is used to invoke mass participation in Obamacare.

This "honor system" for Obamacare will work ONLY because a bad law was passed followed by a terrible ruling by SCOTUS and the goverment has the power to invoke a new "honor-system" by the majority. We on the right are saying this is the next step in the government ignoring the letter AND spirit of the Constittuion and this is leading to more abuse and will lead to ultimate tyranny from the government. I see nothing in your posts that gives assurances to the contrary.

BackToBasics| 7.1.12 @ 8:35PM

One more point is that the law was written before the mandate was deemed a tax. This ruling gives the IRS even more power. I've already heard liberals themselves say parts of the law will have to be tweeked (amended) and rewritten as they work out the "bugs" during implementation. That will definitely be true now.

Albertus Magnus| 7.2.12 @ 6:27PM

"All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills." (Art. 1, Sec.7).

I do not see any exemptions to the requirement. The Law says "all bills for raising revenue..." Not "some of them" or "except those which are incidental to another purpose." Justice Story seems to have made this "provision" up out of thin air.

Bob K| 6.30.12 @ 10:17PM

Well, after 350 posts or so the only people not getting any blame here are Lawyers!

Hell, they wrote the bill! Over 1/2 of Congress are Lawyers. All of the Supreme Court is. Obamy is a "Constitutional" Lawyer but he has more in common with "Blaine, Blaine, James G. Blaine! The continental liar from the State of Maine!"

But we can't kill them all like Dick the Butcher wanted to do in Shakespeare's Henry the 6th. There are lawyers fighting against it and Lawyers who voted against it.

It is a puzzlement! Maybe they are looking for contingent fees?

ReaganConservative4ever| 7.1.12 @ 1:11AM

I have read many great posts here, and agree with all or most of you.

This is the ultimate question- Do we let this injustice and govt tyranny just happen and capitulate to it all because it is somehow rigged, and the people will always be the victims of tyrants and despots in the world.

Or do we fight back in every conceivable way, politically, socially, legally, etc., by whatever means necessary whether it's at the ballot box, or openly defy the govt's threats and actions of tyranny via, their oppressive unconstitutional laws, as We the People under one Nation and never relent in restoring the Nation that once was a Constitutional Republic.

This is a difficult situation for the very core of our US Constitutional Republic is at stake, and nothing less.

Regardless of the what and how much we face, in the face of the overwhelming odds and the insidious and evil forces that are against us, we must resolute and determined with absolute conviction, to oust any and all of these liberal progressive despots on both sides of the political fence in Congress.

This problem started with politics and must be resolved and ended with politics. One George Washington, and one Ronald Reagan can change the world, where a million Boehner's and McCain's would not do, and refuse to do.

This is why we must oust them all from office and power, and then as Reagan said, always be vigilant in the fight for Freedom, Liberty, and Democracy, as Freedom is not Free.

Buzz| 7.1.12 @ 11:32AM

I wonder how much money it took to get Roberts to violate his oath?

Beppo| 7.1.12 @ 12:44PM

Not by much. Anyone where this was the pivotal voting decision isn't going to be moved much by whether it's called a tax or a penalty. What did Romney call his? You see the problem. Really it's time for conservatives to get control of their anger management when you have people claiming Roberts arrived at his decision because of epilesy medication, bribery or blackmail. At worst this is a wash for Obama in political terms but at best it's a huge victory and I suspect the latter because legally Roberts has legitimised it and the administrative machine continues to roll which means the entire medical industry by choice or inclination will get behind it. And let's not kid ourselves it's mainly by choice. If the mandate had failed but the rest of the act stood it would have been a disaster for insurers and now the industry, insurers and providers, gets 30-50 million new consumers who one way or another are going to be able to pay their bills. The impact of this is not to underestimated. The industry will be leaning on Republicans to back off the whole issue and many are going to take the hint. Also despite the bluster most of the states are going to take the Medicaid monies or they going to be facing electoral problems instate. Remember it took about 15 years before Medicaid/Medicare was implemented across all states. Personally, I think it's all over and given the candidate we've nominated we've put ourselves in a singularly weak position to argue against this legislation.

wisentime| 7.1.12 @ 2:15PM

I looked at the poll being taken by fox news over this weeks Supreme Court vote to uphold the Obamacare law based on it's status as a tax law. What could the white house say but deny it's a tax but Roberts basically made it quite clear Obama is Lying and this tax will effect everyone.
The poll showed most people SCARED. I'm a 56 y/o disabled woman and I'm ready to fight. I don't care if I have drag my body to a battlefield but I'm there. Your scared because you don't want to give up your rights. Well we have never had to fight for them. Maybe it's our Time and our ERA is calling for us to do just that. Not sit back, not feel defeated or out of control. Stand and Fight or eat pig swill the rest of your life. Think of our next generation are you so selfish you would burden your grandchildren with this. Be Proud, Be American. Do what needs to be done. WAKE UP. Down with this Lying, Controlling Administration.

AcePilot101| 7.1.12 @ 4:37PM

GOD BLESS AMERICA - WITH LOVE FROM CANADA - THERE IS A HIGHER LAW THAN THE FOOLISH LAWS OF MAN!
Michael Savage claims Roberts is on drugs, and that's the best argument I've heard so far.
Having said that, there are basically two choices for voters in November - please vote AGAINST Obama. I lived in the USA for 10 years and was a liberal before Reagan (God bless him) and I've been fighting Canadian socialists ever since.
Thank God for Prime Minister Stephen Harper because he turned the Reform Party into the Canadian Alliance by recruiting conservatives to oust the "red Tories" from the so-called Progressive Party and re-branded it the CONSERVATIVE PARTY.
Today is Canada Day (July 1) and we are 145 years old today. The truth shall set us free.

AcePilot101| 7.1.12 @ 4:43PM

Note: I meant "Progressive Conservative" of course, kinda like the RINO Republicans.

Patrick| 7.1.12 @ 10:33PM

I was absolutely horrified at Roberts betrayal of America. Instead of saving the reputation of the court he has absolutely destroyed it. I hope and pray that if we are not able to get rid of barry and his minions in order to repeal this hell of a law that when Roberts becomes ill one day that he is forced to use the same health care as everyone else and suffers greatly at the hands of a rationing board. Then he may actually see the stupidity of his ruling. Healthcare is an extremely important issue for me and what Roberts did by allowing Barry to destroy the healthcare system is unforgivable........I hope he is haunted by this decision for the rest of his miserable pathetic life.

More Articles by Ross Kaminsky

More Articles From Special Report

Can Liturgical Music Be Saved?

June 17, 2013 | Patrick O'Hannigan

The Grey Lady’s Grudging Abortion Admission

June 14, 2013 | George Neumayr

Game of Thrones on Overkill?

June 13, 2013 | Anne Hobson

Curbing the IRS

June 12, 2013 | Peter Ferrara

When Art Overwhelmed Dance

June 7, 2013 | Laura Genero

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/06/29/roberts-too-clever-by-half

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

Back in the Fray

Kyle Peterson|92 comments

The IRS Immigration Fraud Scandal

Jeffrey Lord|97 comments

Obama’s Climate of Intimidation

Matthew Sheffield|55 comments

Whither Suburbia?

Steven Greenhut|24 comments

The Woman Who Wrote Liberty Valance

Bill Croke|29 comments

Not Super, But Pretty Good

Aaron Goldstein|17 comments

The Loss of Trust

Thomas Sowell|32 comments

Foreign Policy as Farce

Jed Babbin|88 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Thoughts on New U.S.-Taliban Peace Talks

Aaron Goldstein | 6:34PM

Thank You, Bobby Jindal

Matt Purple | 6:01PM

Buzzfeed Faces $3.6 Million Lawsuit for Copyright Infringement

Kaylin Bugos | 4:55PM

Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder

Robert Stacy McCain | 4:12PM

Pro-Life is Smart Politics

Rich Lizardo | 4:01PM

Gerson, Wehner, and the Losing Old Ways Crowd

Jeffrey Lord | 2:46PM

Are Young People Souring on Obama?

Matt Purple | 2:24PM

Boehner to Enforce Hastert Rule with Immigration Reform

Jordan Gonzalez | 1:10PM

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

The IRS Immigration Fraud Scandal

Jeffrey Lord | 6.18.13

Foreign Policy as Farce

Jed Babbin | 6.17.13

The Biggest Fool of All

Doug Bandow | 6.17.13

Can Liturgical Music Be Saved?

Patrick O'Hannigan | 6.17.13

Revenge of the Fruitcakes

Peter Hitchens | 6.17.13

Obama's Climate of Intimidation

Matthew Sheffield | 6.18.13

The Mole in Don Draper

James Bowman | 6.17.13

Whither Suburbia?

Steven Greenhut | 6.18.13

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.