Before mandate was a tax: 60 votes in Senate required for repeal.
Now that mandate is a tax: 51 votes in Senate required for repeal.
That’s what I’m thinking.:)
imasoulman on June 28, 2012 at 8:36 PM

Do we know this for sure? I think it might be more complicated than that, but I don’t know.

For all the mewling from the progressive nursery about partisanship and politicization on the Court, it was only conservative votes that were ever in play. The four leftist hacks on the bench were take-it-to-the-bank votes to uphold from day one despite the constitutional novelty of the mandate.

Well said.

First, that we got in this place because the health insurers couldn’t hack it. End of story. No context of the environment health insurers have been operating in and the role government had in that. Nope, health insurers screwed up, end of story.

IOW: The health insurers screwed up, so let’s pass a law that forces Americans to pay “taxes” to them. That’ll show ‘em!

**eyeroll**

So which thread gives me some kind of idea what today means for me? I had always consider the chance that we wouldn’t win but this sounds crazy to me. Courts can determine taxes now?

Cindy Munford on June 28, 2012 at 7:38 PM

Determining and effectively imposing a tax, CM, is the penultimate in judicial activism, and that Roberts was any part of it worries me to no end going forward. Until this, I had the utmost respect for him as a jurist, even when disagreeing here or there on his prior opinions. His reasoning and logic, even in those instances, were solid and unassailable. Here, however, I am non-plussed, shocked at his ruling.
I feel like I’m watching that 50′s movie, The Body Snatchers.

So what is the spin by the no-spinner ?
It is a tax so shut up
or
we have to respect the 9 ?

burrata on June 28, 2012 at 8:11 PM

First, that we got in this place because the health insurers couldn’t hack it. End of story. No context of the environment health insurers have been operating in and the role government had in that. Nope, health insurers screwed up, end of story.

Also, he says this bill is going to be great for the poor but the rich are going to have to carry the bill for them. In reality, this bill might help some poor that couldn’t afford before, but it’s going to get a hell of a lot more expensive for all. You can’t increase the pool and increase the regulation, without doing a thing for supply of care, and expect anything else. Yes, it will be aggravating for the richest too, but they will absorb the cost much easier than the rest. No, the people that will get royally hosed by this is that middle class Obama constantly throws verbal bouquets to, and the poor that had coverage prior. It will absorb more and more of our disposable income, and leave little room for the things that might get an economy humming, and that will double ding the middle class and triple ding the poor, at least if they’re expecting state assistance long term, in an environment with a decreasing tax pool.

On top of that, as anybody who reads this blog regularly understands, you can’t soak the rich and come close to covering our obligations. To cover all this you’ll have to clobber the middle class as well, and there goes a little more of our income. Not only will we have to pay more to get the same coverage, we’ll have to pay more in taxes because of this bill as well….

And Bill O’Reilly thinks it’s adequate to say it’s just the rich that will be affected by this and the poor will benefit. Good Lord. I understand this isn’t something you can cover in any depth in a 5 minute segment, but you can at least get the broad strokes right.

“There must be a strange feeling down in Texas right now in the Bush family that they created a Chief Justice,” said Matthews. “By the way, here was Bush coming in because of the Supreme Court led by Republicans. Here he is basically responsible now by having appointed John Roberts to the Court to be Chief Justice.”

I’m pretty sure that W. Bush made the same face that Karl Rove had this morning on FOX.

Midas on June 28, 2012 at 8:20 PM

You might be right, but this might make the difference between having the numbers and not having the numbers.

Likely scenario in November:
President: Republican
House: Republican
Senate: 51~59 Republicans

Before mandate was a tax: 60 votes in Senate required for repeal.
Now that mandate is a tax: 51 votes in Senate required for repeal.

That’s what I’m thinking.:)

Even with Roberts auctioning the most important vote in the history of everything for a concession, not one liberal joined him in limiting the commerce clause.

HitNRun on June 28, 2012 at 7:31 PM

Beltway George Will penned an idiotic column today. He congratulates Roberts for moving the SCOTUS forward in the great debate about the role of government with the Left. As Mark Levin pointed out on his show today: he abandoned the Commerce Clause victory by betraying Kennedy, Scalia, Alito and Thomas and voting with the knee jerk Leftist bloc.

In effect Will is arguing that the 5 justice majority of presumed conservative jurists are an illegitimate majority bloc. Only a bloc of votes that includes the Left can be legitimate. Unreal!!!!!!

Well, libs should get their chills up their legs while they can, because there’s a lot hidden in the Roberts decision that the libs don’t see yet. Lots. Heh.

Mr. Roberts: we cannot afford your hare-brained majority opinion. We cannot afford it financially, and we cannot afford it governmentally.

Lawdawg86 on June 28, 2012 at 7:47 PM | Delete | Delete and Ban

Thanks for the information. I’m with you on this.

Appreciate it.

The f@#$ I will.

Since the mandate is now officially a tax, doesn’t that make it easier to use reconciliation in the Senate to repeal it?

imasoulman on June 28, 2012 at 8:02 PM

Does it matter? You think McConnell & Co. have the sack to do anything remotely like that, even if we give them the numbers? Have they ever given an inkling of an iota of a scintilla of a hint that they might ever actually play to win?

The more I read and hear after this mornings ruling the more I believe this just might work to our advantage both in the short-term (big tax O’s defeat) and long-term (commerce clause limitations).

I need something to believe in right now.

Holder being held in Criminal Contempt is a day saver for sure.

O’Reilly explaining it all to the “folks” right now in an oversimplified and extremely inaccurate manner, as usual.

stldave on June 28, 2012 at 8:09 PM

So what is the spin by the no-spinner ?
It is a tax so shut up
or
we have to respect the 9 ?

Since the mandate is now officially a tax, doesn’t that make it easier to use reconciliation in the Senate to repeal it?

imasoulman on June 28, 2012 at 8:02 PM

yes. 51 votes in the senate.

Now, that the Court has ruled that paying corporations for products and services is a form of “taxation”…..

Why do the so-called “best and brightest” always get us into the worst situations (Vietnam, housing bubble, runaway deficits, credit default swaps, stock market crashes, etc.) and make complete asses of themselves (paying Blue Cross premiums = paying your taxes) then wonder why we are so critical of government and despise those in authority? Who the hell wants to be governed by a dunces rejected by the Confederacy and even Banana Republics and vanities…unworthy of any bonfire?

I’m with Buckley. I’d rather be governed by the first 300 names in the Boston phonebook than the current ruling “elite” and the faculty lounge of Harvard and Yale any day.

Matthews is NOT a woman. Matthews is a pile of troll spore.

Female troll spore.