-
U.S. News: Obama-Kelley Meeting
May 20, 2013 | 0 comments
-
The SPLC: Big Bucks, the FRC, and Jimmy Carter
May 7, 2013 | 6 comments
-
Mark Levin Talks to the NRA
May 7, 2013 | 0 comments
-
POLITICO: RUSH LIMBAUGH MAY PART WITH CUMULUS
May 5, 2013 | 13 comments
-
The Problematic Frank Luntz’s Stockholm Syndrome
April 25, 2013 | 11 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Forget John Roberts.
It’s done.
The political key here is the word “tax.”
And an unpopular word it is. Obama…who adamantly insisted the individual mandate was not a tax…has now been saddled by the Supreme Court as the taxer-in-chief.
This in fact can be a huge potential victory for — Mitt Romney.
This is Romney’s moment to lead the charge against tax increases, in this case the ultimate insult — a tax for simply drawing a breath. A tax mandated by the Supreme Court and propagated by his opponent.
Today’s Tea Party took its name, of course, from the original Boston Tea Party — in Romney’s Massachusetts. And what was that original Tea Party about?
That’s right. The flat-out refusal of colonists to pay a tax on tea. When it became clear that a moment just like the one today was reached — that the King and his agents (the Royal Governor of the colony) were not going to lift the tax — some 7,000 angry Bostonians gathered inside and outside the Old South Meeting House. Realizing the government would not bend — the crowd headed to Griffin’s Wharf, where three ships containing tea were docked. Dressed as Mohawk Indians to disguise their identities they boarded the ships in the dead of night and tossed the tea into Boston Harbor.
That adamant refusal should be remembered well. The people rule. So finally furious were the people they launched the American Revolution. And Mitt Romney of all people should understand that constitutional or not, this decision has enormous political potential to make him the next president.
A political wildfire has been lit by the Supreme Court. A mammoth political backlash builds instantly. And as Democrats celebrate, they are ironically fueling a political wildfire that can launch a political disaster for Obama and Democrats.
This can be — will be, one guesses — the beginning of a political revolution.
This is Mitt Romney’s moment.
View all comments (44) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Jeffrey Lord
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/06/28/the-tax-is-the-issue-romney-an
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
SSG Baker| 6.28.12 @ 11:32AM
the question is, are there people left that care enough?
Jack of Spades| 6.28.12 @ 11:34AM
One word, Mr. Lord: Romneycare.
This will be a memorable campaign.
JP| 6.28.12 @ 11:43AM
It doesn't matter. Most people could care less about RomneyCare. For, everyone is now subject to ObamaCare. And despite what Nancy Pelosi said 2 years ago, we now know what's in the bill.
This is about the here and now. And the Roberts opinion was quite shrewd. Since this is a tax and not a federal "mandate", he limited future Congress's from abusing the Commerce Clause. Roberts also threw the ball back into Obama's court. We will now be re-fighting ObamaCare, and as I said earlier we now know what's in it.
ggoblue| 6.28.12 @ 11:46AM
Yep...if mitt can lead...if he can show passion...he will be president and have both houses behind him. 131 days to go...
RCV| 6.28.12 @ 11:47AM
Keep telling yourself that, Jeffrey, and maybe you'll really believe it.
And you might actually study up on the original tea party. It wasn't about "No Taxation". It was about "No Taxation Without Representation."
John Robert was smart enough to understand that, and to understand that this enactment was passed by the People's representatives and that his role under the Constitution isn't to judge its wisdom but its legality.
CJW| 6.28.12 @ 12:01PM
Roberts may be smart enough to understand that the Act can be constitutionanl under the taxing power of the feds because the power to tax in unlimited. But, the Act was passed on a party line vote by the Dems and signed by Obama, and argued to the Court, as justified under the Commerce Clause. Obama never justified it as a tax because he knew it woul not have passed as a tax.
I know that judges will uphold a law as constitutional on any basis it finds, but here given the sharp difference between the commerce clause and the taxing power, and that the case was argued by Obama's Solicitor General as a commerce clause, the Court should have stuck to the positions of the parties.
This is not a case where there was an inexperienced attorney arguing who forgot or did not know about the taxing power.
Bottom line is Roberts did the dirty work for Obama by upholding it on the taxing power when Obama did not have the courage to justify it as a tax.
Ryan| 6.28.12 @ 12:15PM
I don't know that SC justices - or judges in general - are limited to the arguments of whoever is making them.
They are limited to the laws, NOT the arguments.
CJW| 6.28.12 @ 12:17PM
They are not limited to the arguments.
CJW| 6.28.12 @ 3:15PM
The Court is not limited to the arguments, but on an important issue like this, the parties prepared their briefs and arguments based on the Government's brief on the commerce clause to uphold the law, and not on the "tax" argument made up by Roberts. The opponents of the law should have had the opportunity to argue the "tax" reasons. I do not believe they argued the tax issue as a basis for the law.
Roberts joins Souter as a weak justice swayed by the liberals.
Occam's Tool| 6.28.12 @ 2:13PM
Well, "John Thomas" Roberts has just guaranteed Willard getting the POTUS if he states: "I will sign the Repeal Bill of ObamaCare the MOMENT it is Presented to me." (RomneyCare was about Massholes in Bluestate---this is about a VASTLY unpopular bill in a Center-Right country)
He can also state: I will appoint Conservative judges who will vote to repeal any form of ObamaCare in the future, as well.
But who would have thought Roberts rather than Kennedy. Wow. Professor Tribe sure knows his shit eating vermin well.
kingsmill| 6.28.12 @ 11:48AM
Can Willard transform from a waffler to the Left into a crusader? Doubt it.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 6.28.12 @ 11:52AM
Ironically, Roberts and the Court have handed conservatives a simple weapon with which to fight back.
If it's a tax, then outlaw or eliminate the tax and the program is finished.
owend| 6.28.12 @ 12:05PM
Agreed Bill. That is why we need to vote Republican in November and get this "tax" eliminated along with the entire bill. Another way it could be done is for President Romney to simply exempt all 50 states from implementing this monstrosity.
RCV| 6.28.12 @ 12:39PM
Bill - that makes no sense. Congress could outlaw or eliminate the program in the same way it has the power to outlaw or eliminate the tax. It's a weapon every Congress has -- the legislative power.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 6.28.12 @ 1:01PM
No, you're making no sense. Since it's a tax and the Supreme Court stated it's a tax any future legislature can simply amend the tax law and the program is finished.
RCV| 6.28.12 @ 1:24PM
But any future legislature could simply amend the Health Care Reform Act no matter how the Supreme Court upheld it.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 6.28.12 @ 3:13PM
That would be like running in a hundred circles to reach the finish line. Just change the tax law and it's finished.
Mimi | 6.28.12 @ 11:58AM
Looks like NOW we have TWO KINGS ! They are both so alike they both led us to believe they were something they were not!
I feel LIVID...and BETRAYED...A TAX comes from the congress...I never knew the Supreme Court could change a law different than it was written in deciding it's constitutionality!
I have to read all the veiws of all the justices...I was afraid Justice Roberts would go with the Libs, after he allowed Kagan to not recuse herself.
owend| 6.28.12 @ 12:03PM
I share your frustration Mimi. Justice Roberts was supposed to be a conservative voice on the SC. Now, it appears, that things may be different than we thought. If this holds true, we may be looking at a truly Liberal SC and there is not much we can do other than elect Republicans and hope for the best in November. I personally, will never vote for another Democrat on any level of Government again.
tonypal| 6.28.12 @ 12:11PM
Mimi, you need to do exactly what you said. Read the opinion, then come back and tell us what you think.
I've been making the case on this site and elsewhere that the Chief Justice has proven why he deserves to be right where he is. His opinion was shrewd, clever and strikes a blow against the idea that Congress has plenary power to regulate the actions of individuals in the marketplace.
Again, you must read through the opinion. Quite often with Supreme Court cases, the ultimate outcome is less important than the fine wording of the opinion. Roberts has rejected the Commerce Clause argument along with the Necessary and Proper Clause argument. He has officially affixed the term "tax" to Obamacare. It's a huge opportunity for Romney, republicans and all of us who oppose tax increases of all types and sizes.
CJW| 6.28.12 @ 12:25PM
The bottom line is that the law remains in effect and has to be repealed by Congress and the President. That means we need 60 in the Senate, a majority in the House, and Romney as president. If the people are really against it then they must vote for senators pledged to repeal.
If it is not repealed, then Obama will not care whether he is labeled a taxer. He won. To feel good that it is a tax instead of the commerce clause is interesing for attorneys, but otherewise it is like saying I would rather get shot than hung.
DRed| 6.28.12 @ 12:34PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?f.....PynMZuQtI#!
And this is the guy you're going to vote for to overturn Obamacare?
CJW| 6.28.12 @ 12:52PM
Better Romney than Obama
bopberrigan| 6.28.12 @ 4:29PM
Guys, I'm afraid the idea of Mitt overseeing the repeal of Obamacare is just wishful thinking. Big government will continue apace. It's going to take a Constitutional Convention to correct the harm done to our country over these last 230, or so, years.
owend| 6.28.12 @ 12:00PM
Romney is going to have to exploit this as much as possible. He cannot sit on his thumbs and play Mr. nice on this one. If he hopes to be elected, he is going to have to get tough, and he had better start doing it pretty soon.
RCV| 6.28.12 @ 12:31PM
Given the fact that he is the author of the concept, he's not exactly the guy to make the argument.
Ken (Old Texican)| 6.28.12 @ 1:08PM
RCV
I shall simply not comply...but it will not be an issue. Obama is now officially toast...as is his Senate majority.
Also
Texas will not comply and we are about the only State with some cash.
Third
If in fact there are Senators who will vote to NOT repeal...their lives are not worth spit.
Some ole' "good ole boy" will cancel their ticket. Yes he will trade his life for theirs in the finest American traditions.
RCV| 6.28.12 @ 1:27PM
No big deal, Ken. If you don't have private insurance, you can simply pay the tax, and if you don't pay it, the IRS can just place a levy on your assets to collect it. Not quite sure how Texas will go about not complying. Your last couple of paragraphs are a reversion to your old bluster about shooting people, which is always your last resort and a not very smart or admirable one.
JP| 6.28.12 @ 1:52PM
Ken could also begin collecting names and addresses of any illegals he comes across and report them to the IRS. According to Justice Roberts, they are now obligated to pay into ObamaCare. Remember the penalties can no longer be deemed fines, but taxes.
Occam's Tool| 6.28.12 @ 2:15PM
Yes, but he may make it anyway. It is a popular argument to make. May I remind you of George Wallace's political career. ALL OF IT. Which Alabama Governor appointed more Blacks to his cabinet than any Alabama Governor before of since?
bopberrigan| 6.28.12 @ 4:31PM
RCV, A true statement if I've ever heard one......
SSG Baker| 6.28.12 @ 12:50PM
He could start with, "I was wrong then, and this is wrong now.' Just saying it would be a start.
Dixon| 6.28.12 @ 12:54PM
EVERY one of the 25 dem senators up for re=election need to be asked if they favor the new middle class tax increase known as BOcare.
I bet Sen. Claire from MO is having a real bad day...she is now toast....dead woman walking.
Ken (Old Texican)| 6.28.12 @ 1:18PM
Dixon,
you may not know just how literal your prediction truly is.
Five bullets can change the Senate vote....and most Senators are cowards.
RCV| 6.28.12 @ 1:29PM
Ken, you are crossing the line again, and if TAS has any intelligent discretion, they will excise your posting and save you the legal difficulty it might get you into.
Ken (Old Texican)| 6.28.12 @ 3:12PM
RCV,
I have simply reminded communist Senators that they are mortal... and .....they probably shouldn't go out for drinks any more.
Have you read my novel yet?
Amazon.com kindle strore "America Alone Said NO"
RCV, I am quite content to be put on trial for my comments here.
In fact,
I would be delighted.
I have a couple of dozen world-class attorneys who are revved up about litigating this case.
Personally, I'm too old and crippled up to pop a couple of scumbag Senators. (well, not really, but I keep telling myself that. I have to walk very slow with a cane).
I personally believe that there are are hundreds of thousands of "good ole boys" who will risk their lives for our constitution.
Write what you want.................we are at the edge.
You DO NOT HAVE THE BALLS to face those ole boys face to face...and neither do your cohorts. You fail!
Dixon| 6.28.12 @ 1:39PM
You cannot advocate violence! Voting career pols out of office like Claire is hurtful enough....and today that likelihood went from probable to very likely.
bopberrigan| 6.28.12 @ 4:33PM
Act in haste, repent at leisure is appropriate for your current state of mind......
Peppermint Tea | 6.28.12 @ 1:36PM
Answer me, if Obamacare rests on taxing authority, could the House simply not provide funding? Would it need/not need to be repealed in the Senate?
If so, maybe Roberts is smarter than first glance.
Dixon| 6.28.12 @ 1:42PM
No, Sandra Day O'Roberts is a big gov statist just like the Bush and the lousy, squishy Gonzalez who vetted Sandy.
vigilant| 6.28.12 @ 3:06PM
Ken, your passion is appreciated, but your words were rash. Don't look now, but you're about to get a knock on the door from some men in black. As for who will save us from this mess, it is and always has been us, not politicians of any stripe, including those disguised in black robes . We conservatives have been naive, wrongly focused, and generally asleep at the wheel as this cancer has slowly but inexorably metastasized. We've looked to the political "doctors" to rescue us instead of practicing sensible, preventative health care of our precious republic. So what are we going to do that will really give us any hope of saving the patient? Enough speculation, pinning our hopes in the wrong places, and game attempts at positive spin on the latest toilet flushing of our liberties. If our voice and power are anywhere politically, it is in Congress, for starters. Romney has yet to say or do anything that convinces me he is anything more than more of the same that we allowed to get us into this mess in the first place. I invite him to change my mind.....yeah, right.
Ken (Old Texican)| 6.28.12 @ 3:16PM
Vigilant,
thank you. Please see my response above.
Hey...theycan't do more than kill me.
Butch| 6.28.12 @ 3:30PM
There is something going around--it is on NR and Rush talked about it. There was initial confusion about the Court's ruling, remember? It was apparently because Scalia's dissent for the minority read like a majority opinion, even referring several times to Ginsburg's opinion as a "dissent."
I've read two possible explanations. One is that Roberts wrote his opinion after Scalia thought he was writing for the majority, and Scalia et. al. just didn't change theirs accordingly. The other is that the dissent for the minority was written as some kind of arcane insider politics that I do not understand (nor was it explained). What I have seen has been very brief. Maybe the minority didn't change theirs (or wrote it to sound like a majority opinion deliberately) to show everyone that Roberts changed his mind?