Video: Working-class hero celebrates legality of gigantic regressive new “tax”

posted at 5:21 pm on June 28, 2012 by Allahpundit

Says Amanda Carpenter, “If Obamacare was presented as a tax, it would have never passed.” Certainly true; the White House itself was careful to dismiss that argument in its talking points on O-Care in order to make Blue Dog Dems more comfortable with the bill. And yet here we are. By the numbers: 26 million people, 70-75 percent of whom make less than $200,000 a year, are now on the hook for a fat new “tax” thanks to a guy who swore he’d avoid new taxes on the middle class. Be sure to tell an undecided centrist friend before November.

If it makes you feel better, The One did have to endure 200-300 seconds of despair this morning.

Standing with White House chief of staff Jack Lew and looking at a television in the “Outer Oval” featuring a split screen of four different networks, the president saw graphics on the screens of the first two cable news networks to break the news — CNN and Fox News Channel — announcing, wrongly, that he had lost.

Senior administration officials say the president was calm.

A couple minutes later, White House counsel Kathy Ruemmler came to Outer Oval and gave him two thumbs-up. Ruemmler had gotten the correct information from a White House lawyer at the Supreme Court and from SCOTUSblog.com.

Some righties are arguing this afternoon that this decision was actually a big win for conservatives because we did, after all, carry the day on the Commerce Clause. Don’t get caught up in O-Care being upheld, as catastrophic as that might be, they say. Focus on the fact that the biggest weapon in the left’s constitutional arsenal for regulating the economy is a little smaller now than it was yesterday. Is it really smaller, though? For one thing, there have been “landmark” rulings imposing limits on the Commerce Clause before that never went anywhere precedentially afterward. The Lopez case in 1995 was supposed to herald a new golden age of limited federal power. Ten years later, it was politely distinguished away in the terrible, terrible Raich ruling — and that was without any conservatives on the Court being replaced by liberals in the interim. Beyond that, who cares whether Congress has to use the taxing power instead of the Commerce Clause to impose a mandate? To use the ol’ broccoli example, it’s apparently now unconstitutional for Congress to order you to buy veggies on penalty of paying a fine but it is constitutional for them to impose a “tax” on people who don’t buy veggies. You’re being forced into commerce either way; the distinction’s mainly semantic. As Jacob Sullum, who’s lamented the lameness of “Commerce vs. tax” formalism before, puts it, “We’re not locking you up for disobedience, we’re locking you up for failing to pay the tax on disobedience.” Yay?

The only compelling reason to be happy about the decision, it seems to me, is that by forcing Congress to frame future power grabs as “taxes,” it’ll be harder to pass them. Then again, this case stands for the proposition that Congress doesn’t have to frame them that way; the Court will re-frame the bill for them and uphold it on tax grounds even if the government explicitly and repeatedly denies that what it’s engaged in as taxation. And as for the supposedly valuable Commerce Clause precedent that was set here, I think con law Prof. Douglas Laycock has it right:

Laycock, a constitutional law professor at the University of Virginia, says it was unexpected that the Supreme Court made a distinction between activity and inactivity. But, he says, it’s hard to think of a situation where this will matter much…

What’s more, the fact that the individual mandate has been interpreted as a tax still gives lawmakers plenty of leeway. Congress might not be able to compel all Americans to purchase broccoli under the Commerce Clause. But, Laycock says, Roberts’ ruling has shown a way around this. “If Congress ever does need to mandate purchase of a product or service again,” he notes, “it can impose a tax for failing to buy it.”

Some conservatives seem to agree that the impact will be small. “Holding the mandate exceeds the scope of the Commerce and Necessary and Proper Clauses poses no threat to any other existing federal program or law that was not already in jeopardy,” writes Jonathan Adler, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University.

Read the opinion and you’ll find that Roberts and the other four conservatives stood by the holding in Raich. If they had tossed that and said it was wrongly decided, that would be a provocative ruling worth celebrating insofar as it might really herald a broad new trend towards limiting Congress’s regulatory power under the Commerce Clause. They didn’t. Not much of a win. And besides: What good is the prospect of future victories if you’re losing on cases as epochal as the ObamaCare decision? It’s like losing the Super Bowl but celebrating afterwards because your defense played well enough to make you think you might win some games next season. Who cares?

Needless to say, if O wins in November and gets to replace one of the conservatives on the Court, the exciting new precedent forbidding mandates under the Commerce Clause likely won’t live to see the end of the decade. Exit quotation via Timothy Carney: “They’ll trample Roberts’ Commerce Clause firewall when the need to. But his tax trick means they may never need to.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

Democrats win on policy, Republicans win on jurisprudence. Since policy is much easier overturned than jurisprudence, thats a compromise I’m willing to make, especially when the win on policy also comes with a political win for Republicans, as the court basically forced a “Read my Lips” moment from Obama.

-Reposted from my Facebook status.

vegconservative on June 28, 2012 at 5:24 PM

Mark it on your calendar, this is the day freedom died in America.

Axion on June 28, 2012 at 5:25 PM

“Chicken” Roberts – new name in an infamous list of people who have come to see things “the Chicago Way”

PolAgnostic on June 28, 2012 at 5:25 PM

interesting take….

Chief Justice Roberts Is A Genius
Posted on June 28, 2012 by I.M. Citizen

Before you look to do harm to Chief Justice Roberts or his family, it’s important that you think carefully about the meaning – the true nature — of his ruling on Obama-care. The Left will shout that they won, that Obama-care was upheld and all the rest. Let them.

It will be a short-lived celebration.

Here’s what really occurred — payback. Yes, payback for Obama’s numerous, ill-advised and childish insults directed toward SCOTUS.

Chief Justice Roberts actually ruled the mandate, relative to the commerce clause, was unconstitutional. That’s how the Democrats got Obama-care going in the first place. This is critical. His ruling means Congress can’t compel American citizens to purchase anything. Ever. The notion is now officially and forever, unconstitutional. As it should be.

Next, he stated that, because Congress doesn’t have the ability to mandate, it must, to fund Obama-care, rely on its power to tax. Therefore, the mechanism that funds Obama-care is a tax. This is also critical. Recall back during the initial Obama-care battles, the Democrats called it a penalty, Republicans called it a tax. Democrats consistently soft sold it as a penalty. It went to vote as a penalty. Obama declared endlessly, that it was not a tax, it was a penalty. But when the Democrats argued in front of the Supreme Court, they said ‘hey, a penalty or a tax, either way’. So, Roberts gave them a tax. It is now the official law of the land — beyond word-play and silly shenanigans. Obama-care is funded by tax dollars. Democrats now must defend a tax increase to justify the Obama-care law.

Finally, he struck down as unconstitutional, the Obama-care idea that the federal government can bully states into complying by yanking their existing medicaid funding. Liberals, through Obama-care, basically said to the states — ‘comply with Obama-care or we will stop existing funding.’ Roberts ruled that is a no-no. If a state takes the money, fine, the Feds can tell the state how to run a program, but if the state refuses money, the federal government can’t penalize the state by yanking other funding. Therefore, a state can decline to participate in Obama-care without penalty. This is obviously a serious problem. Are we going to have 10, 12, 25 states not participating in “national” health-care? Suddenly, it’s not national, is it?

Ultimately, Roberts supported states rights by limiting the federal government’s coercive abilities. He ruled that the government can not force the people to purchase products or services under the commerce clause and he forced liberals to have to come clean and admit that Obama-care is funded by tax increases.

Although he didn’t guarantee Romney a win, he certainly did more than his part and should be applauded.

And he did this without creating a civil war or having bricks thrown through his windshield. Oh, and he’ll be home in time for dinner.

Brilliant.

Follow I.M. Citizen at IMCitizen.net

http://whitehouse12.com/2012/06/28/chief-justice-roberts-is-a-genius/

jsunrise on June 28, 2012 at 5:26 PM

as the court basically forced a “Read my Lips” moment from Obama.

-Reposted from my Facebook status.

vegconservative on June 28, 2012 at 5:24 PM

Yeah because all of Obama’s volumes of lies and hypocrisy on these issues have damaged him politically so far right?

What world do you guys live in? What you are doing…it isn’t working.

ClassicCon on June 28, 2012 at 5:27 PM

Roberts flipped a bird to the Founders that worked so hard to write a constitution that limited the power of the federal government.

pedestrian on June 28, 2012 at 5:27 PM

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/06/28/Dem-Rep-Now-Lets-Unionize-Doctors

and now the evolution of ObamaCare begins.

Unionize doctors.

PappyD61 on June 28, 2012 at 5:28 PM

I wonder how long it’ll take before the barrel of monkey’s the liberals are having fun with today tell them they no long have the commerce clause to pervert?

Speakup on June 28, 2012 at 5:29 PM

Needless to say, if O wins in November and gets to replace one of the conservatives on the Court, the exciting new precedent forbidding mandates under the Commerce Clause likely won’t live to see the end of the decade. we’ll likely continue to get rulings just like the rulings we got today.

This works too.

Kataklysmic on June 28, 2012 at 5:29 PM

vegconservative on June 28, 2012 at 5:24 PM

Well alrighty then. You restore some of my faith in smoo.

This decision is going to be some fun that lasts all summer.

cozmo on June 28, 2012 at 5:30 PM

Who cares if it’s taxes or the commerce clause? The people do not understand the commerce clause. Taxes they understand very well and taxes have to originate in the House which limits the influence of RINOs. a short lived benefit.Democrats won’t have the stones to again raise taxes on their base and if it’s behavior they want to control they can’t pick and choose. They can’t use income to decide who pays the tax. They don’t with cigarette or alcohol taxes or excise taxes. The Libs will miss the commerce clause and will find having to use taxesto be a short termed benefit.

xkaydet65 on June 28, 2012 at 5:30 PM

I wonder how long it’ll take before the barrel of monkey’s the liberals are having fun with today tell them they no long have the commerce clause to pervert?

Speakup on June 28, 2012 at 5:29 PM

Commerce clause is now irrelevant. Now hand over all your guns or pay your 2nd amendment tax.

pedestrian on June 28, 2012 at 5:30 PM

In so doing, Justice Roberts has just busted Campaign 2012 wide open. The high court’s ruling leaves in place 21 tax increases costing nearly $700 billion. Of those taxes, 12 would affect families earning less than $250,000 per year.

Now that Obamacare’s penalty is a “tax,” not a “fee,” Mr. Obama is breaking a 2008 campaign pledge not to raise taxes on Americans earning less than $250,000. This new “tax” will hit across the economic spectrum, despite his campaign declaration that health care should “never be purchased with tax increase on middle-class families.” Now, Mr. Obama and congressional Democrats have enacted the largest tax increase in history.

Schadenfreude on June 28, 2012 at 5:31 PM

Talk about DECEPTIVE!
(AND stupid, on the part of SCOTUS)

WH argued OCare was legal based on 3 criteria:
1) Commerce Clause (REJECTED by SCOTUS)
2) Proper and Necessary Clause (REJECTED by SCOTUS)
3) Congress may TAX (ACCEPTED by SCOTUS)

EXCEPT THAT…
IN ORDER FOR A TAX TO BE LEGITIMATE, CONGRESS MUST INITIATE IT IN THE *H*O*U*S*E*….oops. THIS originated in the Senate.

SO, not only is SCOTUS an ACCOMPLICE in this travesty, but
the only so-called justifiable legitimacy of this law IS ILLEGITIMATE!

Czar of Defenestration on June 28, 2012 at 5:31 PM

jsunrise on June 28, 2012 at 5:26 PM

Yep, but some folks haven’t had that sink in.

cozmo on June 28, 2012 at 5:32 PM

jsunrise on June 28, 2012 at 5:26 PM

Interesting; but I think I’ll take a “wait and see” approach to that analysis.

CurtZHP on June 28, 2012 at 5:32 PM

Needless to say, if O wins in November and gets to replace one of the conservatives on the Court, the exciting new precedent forbidding mandates under the Commerce Clause likely won’t live to see the end of the decade.

Neither will the country, AP.

Doughboy on June 28, 2012 at 5:32 PM

keep harping on his little this is not a tax meme gop.mitt…

please!!!!

cmsinaz on June 28, 2012 at 5:32 PM

I have got to get me some rose colored glasses…

d1carter on June 28, 2012 at 5:32 PM

jsunrise on June 28, 2012 at 5:26 PM

Get back with us after Roberts proves he hasn’t pulled a Earl Warren on us.

fiatboomer on June 28, 2012 at 5:32 PM

Thank You Chief Justice Roberts/

Dr Evil on June 28, 2012 at 5:33 PM

Took a motorcycle ride, had a few beers on the dock with some buddies, and took a breather. Has the “OMG I’m moving to Cambodia or anywhere but here!” crap settled down yet because it was pretty depressing.

Bishop on June 28, 2012 at 5:33 PM

Commerce clause is now irrelevant. Now hand over all your guns or pay your 2nd amendment tax.

pedestrian on June 28, 2012 at 5:30 PM

Do you whine because a full glass isn’t full enough?

The comment didn’t even pass as humor.

cozmo on June 28, 2012 at 5:33 PM

Commerce clause is now irrelevant. Now hand over all your guns or pay your 2nd amendment tax.

pedestrian on June 28, 2012 at 5:30 PM

More like, “Now go buy a gun or pay your 2nd amendment fine.”

CurtZHP on June 28, 2012 at 5:34 PM

Then again, this case stands for the proposition that Congress doesn’t have to frame them that way; the Court will re-frame the bill for them and uphold it on tax grounds even if the government explicitly and repeatedly denies that what it’s engaged in as taxation.

F U John Benedict Arnold Roberts
F U

burrata on June 28, 2012 at 5:35 PM

Do you whine because a full glass isn’t full enough?

The comment didn’t even pass as humor.

cozmo on June 28, 2012 at 5:33 PM

The glass is bone dry. AP got it right.

pedestrian on June 28, 2012 at 5:35 PM

Has the “OMG I’m moving to Cambodia or anywhere but here!” crap settled down yet because it was pretty depressing.

Bishop on June 28, 2012 at 5:33 PM

No, some people are slow learners.

cozmo on June 28, 2012 at 5:35 PM

Boehner promised not to spike the football if it were overturned.

Obama, on cue, spikes the football.

Red Cloud on June 28, 2012 at 5:35 PM

The only silver lining is that by upholding it as a tax vs. the Commerce Clause the burden to repeal it legislatively is lesser. Instead of needing 60 Senators + the White House we need simple majorities plus the White House.

My initial despair has given way to icy rage and a determination that every race this Fall needs to be looked at as whether we get a vote for repealing the Obamacare Tax or not. There is no middle ground on that question.

Obamacare got Scott Brown elected 3 years ago. I wonder if it can get him reelected and send a bunch of other Republicans to Congress to vote against it.

Jill1066 on June 28, 2012 at 5:35 PM

jsunrise on June 28, 2012 at 5:26 PM

Yep, but some folks haven’t had that sink in.

cozmo on June 28, 2012 at 5:32 PM

No he isn’t, and that’s not even fresh spin. It’s a load of horse apples.

Dr Evil on June 28, 2012 at 5:35 PM

Took a motorcycle ride, had a few beers on the dock with some buddies, and took a breather. Has the “OMG I’m moving to Cambodia or anywhere but here!” crap settled down yet because it was pretty depressing.

Bishop on June 28, 2012 at 5:33 PM

We all agreed on Myanmar. They have nice beaches.

NotCoach on June 28, 2012 at 5:36 PM

Have NEVER donated to politicians. Just sent Romney some money. FreedomWorks next. Not my first choice all along, but he’s what we’ve got. Who knows, if elected, he may surprise us. In a good way.

msupertas on June 28, 2012 at 5:36 PM

What a national catastrophe. I don’t see any silver linings. I haven’t read the decision yet, but am just gob-smacked that Roberts voted how he did. This decision is truly depressing.

MJBrutus on June 28, 2012 at 5:36 PM

Kudos Allah – you said this would be found constitutional and, by kracky – it was.

Kudos.

HondaV65 on June 28, 2012 at 5:37 PM

Obama is much too sexy and stellar to be bogged down in the fine niceties of truth and lies. His Presidency will be unmade, if it is, by an overwhelming sense that however cool and smart he is, he is an objective and undeniable failure. No matter how many lies he tells, how many taxes he passes, how many wars he starts, and how many Mexicans he kills, this will remain the fact. Lies and hypocrisy and even ideology only penetrate to low information voters through dogged illustration by the media, and most voters are low information voters.

As for the idea that the Commerce Clause took a hit today, it’s extremely unlikely. It’s possible that it’s Roberts intention, and maybe it will even come to something as a narrative, but only as a narrative. As a matter of humdrum fact, Democratic-nominated justices will always vote for the universal and unlimited application of the Commerce Clause, no matter what precedent was set in the last case or how stridently they hollered about stare decisis when the last Republican justice was nominated.

HitNRun on June 28, 2012 at 5:37 PM

Thank You Chief Justice Roberts/

Dr Evil on June 28, 2012 at 5:33 PM

Yep thanks a lot.

CW on June 28, 2012 at 5:37 PM

wolfie upset with ‘but mitt did it too’

cmsinaz on June 28, 2012 at 5:37 PM

http://whitehouse12.com/2012/06/28/chief-justice-roberts-is-a-genius/

jsunrise on June 28, 2012 at 5:26 PM

Yeah that was left in another post a few minutes ago, good luck fluffing that turd.

Dr Evil on June 28, 2012 at 5:37 PM

Now, Mr. Obama and congressional Democrats have enacted the largest tax increase in history.

The largest regressive tax increase in history

Schadenfreude on June 28, 2012 at 5:38 PM

The glass is bone dry. AP got it right.

pedestrian on June 28, 2012 at 5:35 PM

AP ain’t dumb. Eeyore yes, dumb no.

There is no melting bunny. Just steaming mad righty’s and independents who will take that anger with them to vote. By then it will have grown so big they will need a trailer.

cozmo on June 28, 2012 at 5:38 PM

Just think how many TAXES politicians can now impose on you for NOT doing something.

No solar on your roof? TAX
No hybrid or all-electric car? TAX
Did not vote in the last election? TAX
Haven’t purchased a US built car in 7 years? TAX
Actually have a ‘savings account’? TAX

GarandFan on June 28, 2012 at 5:38 PM

At least this means the exceptions for Nevada and NH and such are flat out unconstitutional. Taxes cannot be state specific.

pedestrian on June 28, 2012 at 5:39 PM

These political idiots in all branches of this government have thrown the Constitution on the ground and urinated on it. How can any legitimate argument be made against this aberration when no body even cares about the law or the Constitution. Simply put, we have no recourse other than to simply yield to this faustian government.

rplat on June 28, 2012 at 5:39 PM

Obama hates the middle class.

Roberts does too.

Schadenfreude on June 28, 2012 at 5:39 PM

Today is like Breitbart dying 100,000 times over per minute.

SparkPlug on June 28, 2012 at 5:39 PM

The ruling is not a win for Barry when it is framed in term of a big and new TAX. ObamaCare and that tax can be repealed after the election. The GOP base is fired up. The young voters, who are Barry’s base, young and healthy, and many stuck in lower paying jobs, may be turned off by the prospect of being forced to buy health insurance under ObamaCare.

IMCitizen has analyzed Robert’s vote well. Robert also took the Court out as a campaign issue for Barry and the Democrats.

Now just concentrate on voting Barry and the Dems out in November.

bayview on June 28, 2012 at 5:39 PM

It’s a tax, it’s a commerce clause, states can’t be penalized in other ways.

At the end of the day, is this thing still in force? From where I’m sitting it looks like yes. Everything else is spin.

WitchDoctor on June 28, 2012 at 5:39 PM

jsunrise on June 28, 2012 at 5:26 PM

THIS.

In the cold light of day, when you put your emotions aside, this in the long term is a big victory for our side. Roberts got the lib judges to rule in favor of states rights and federalism.

And going forward, the Dems will not be able to hid behind lies to pass a law. They will have to enact programs and have to call it a tax, which is political death.

And repealing this will now be repealing a tax as opposed to taking away an entitlement. Much more appealing to the electorate and easier to support if you are a politician. Plus, the libs cannot go back to SCOTUS to challenge the repeal and expect to win because it is a tax and the repeal of which are always legal. Roberts was very clever in doing this.

Today was Pearl Harbor. But in the end the sleeping giant was awoken and we won the war.

Rixon on June 28, 2012 at 5:39 PM

vegconservative on June 28, 2012 at 5:24 PM

Well alrighty then. You restore some of my faith in smoo.

This decision is going to be some fun that lasts all summer.

cozmo on June 28, 2012 at 5:30 PM

We have a great political science department here that has taught me very well. Although my ability to spin is a natural skill, not taught.

vegconservative on June 28, 2012 at 5:40 PM

The only silver lining is that by upholding it as a tax vs. the Commerce Clause the burden to repeal it legislatively is lesser. Instead of needing 60 Senators + the White House we need simple majorities plus the White House.

Jill1066 on June 28, 2012 at 5:35 PM

It won’t be repealed and – even if it were – it would simply be replaced with a British Conservative Party Republican version of nationalized health care.

We got nationalized health care today – that’s not even debateable. The only question now is who’s name is on it. Conservatives seem all fired up to OWN IT themselves by voting for Mittens. LOL. No thanks.

HondaV65 on June 28, 2012 at 5:40 PM

Look, this is our side’s fault for not calling it a tax when this bill was going through Congress. It might not have passed had Republicans forced Democrats to own up to it as a tax.

But it IS a tax.

rockmom on June 28, 2012 at 5:40 PM

Yeah that was left in another post a few minutes ago, good luck fluffing that turd.

Dr Evil on June 28, 2012 at 5:37 PM

I am getting sick of the attempts to spin this as good news. Try to make this positive does absolutely nothing for us. We need to get madder then hell verbally abuse our elected reps. into doing our bidding.

What the Fluke is the point of the spin anyways? Shut the Fluke and live with the ruling?

NotCoach on June 28, 2012 at 5:40 PM

Yeah that was left in another post a few minutes ago, good luck fluffing that turd.

Dr Evil on June 28, 2012 at 5:37 PM

Patience dear Evil, patience.

cozmo on June 28, 2012 at 5:41 PM

So we have President Bush to thank for Roberts’ nomination and failed presidential hopeful Mitt Romney to thank for inspiring this nightmare.

The Republican Party, and conservatism in general, is officially dead.

newtopia on June 28, 2012 at 5:41 PM

Supremes Okay More Fascism In Amerika

hey, all you repuke supporters – recall voting for Bush because he would give you so-called “conservative” justices.

Yea, well, you can now give Justice Roberts your daily BJ with his “vote” for imposing those shackles on you.

Have fun swallowing.

roflmao

donabernathy on June 28, 2012 at 5:41 PM

But it IS a tax.

rockmom on June 28, 2012 at 5:40 PM

Does Roberts pay for your fellatio of him by the second?

NotCoach on June 28, 2012 at 5:41 PM

Just think how many TAXES politicians can now impose on you for NOT doing something.

No solar on your roof? TAX
No hybrid or all-electric car? TAX
Did not vote in the last election? TAX
Haven’t purchased a US built car in 7 years? TAX
Actually have a ‘savings account’? TAX

GarandFan on June 28, 2012 at 5:38 PM

Do you honestly think ANY of those things would EVER pass in any Congress?

rockmom on June 28, 2012 at 5:42 PM

Beyond that, who cares whether Congress has to use the taxing power instead of the Commerce Clause to impose a mandate? To use the ol’ broccoli example, it’s apparently now unconstitutional for Congress to order you to buy veggies on penalty of paying a fine but it is constitutional for them to impose a “tax” on people who don’t buy veggies. You’re being forced into commerce either way; the distinction’s mainly semantic.

This is exactly how I feel about it. I’m not seeing the silver lining that some conservatives are. Yes, I’m pleased to some extent to see the court say that the Commerce Clause could not compel activity. But, then Roberts turns right around and hands them the keys to the backdoor to ignore that ruling by simply calling it a tax.

It’s a distinction without a difference. Congress can’t “make” you buy something at the point of a gun, but they can “coerce” you to buy it at the end of a tax.

gravityman on June 28, 2012 at 5:42 PM

So now it’s ok to only tax the select few who don’t have insurance? There’s a reason upwards of 75% didn’t have insurance… They can’t afford it. The rich who don’t buy (read super rich) still won’t buy it. So, at the end of the day who the heck does this help?

They’re not gonna magically get insurance. If they couldn’t afford it before, they’re not gonna afford it now.

LtGenRob on June 28, 2012 at 5:43 PM

We all agreed on Myanmar. They have nice beaches.

NotCoach on June 28, 2012 at 5:36 PM

Big spiders too, no thanks.

Bishop on June 28, 2012 at 5:43 PM

jsunrise on June 28, 2012 at 5:26 PM

While I find that argument to have certain merits, I can’t say I buy in to it. Maybe it’s just the despair preventing me from seeing it.

Next up: Congress passes a law requiring all car buyer to buy an electric car. Failure to do so will incur a find of $10,000. Automakers will be required to sell electric cars for no more than $15,000.

After all, someone who is buying a car affects the prices of all cars by their decision. What’s more, the dangerous pollutant known as CO2 is a threat to all man kind and must be addresses. If people are “encouraged” to buy electric vehicles, naturally the prices for them will plummet thanks to economies of scale, right? What’s more automakers must not be allowed to gouge consumers now that they are compelled to buy their golf carts … er electric vehicles.

MJBrutus on June 28, 2012 at 5:43 PM

But it IS a tax.

rockmom on June 28, 2012 at 5:40 PM

And Sebelius gets to decide on a case by case basis who has to pay the tax.

Now Congress will call everything a fee but not a tax, and SCOTUS will bend over and call it a tax for them.

pedestrian on June 28, 2012 at 5:44 PM

We have a great political science department here that has taught me very well. Although my ability to spin is a natural skill, not taught.

vegconservative on June 28, 2012 at 5:40 PM

Did you get caught up in the carjacking crane diver fiasco?

When will the first bill be introduced to be able to collect the 0bamacare taxes?

cozmo on June 28, 2012 at 5:44 PM

Do you honestly think ANY of those things would EVER pass in any Congress?

rockmom on June 28, 2012 at 5:42 PM

You keep asking the question, and everyone keeps saying yes. Do you ride the short bus?

NotCoach on June 28, 2012 at 5:44 PM

Obama hates the middle class.

Roberts does too.

Schadenfreude on June 28, 2012 at 5:39 PM

Robert’s obviously holds American citizens in Deep contempt.

Dr Evil on June 28, 2012 at 5:44 PM

I get a kick out of all the conspiracy theories

Conservative4ev on June 28, 2012 at 5:44 PM

Do you honestly think ANY of those things would EVER pass in any Congress?

rockmom on June 28, 2012 at 5:42 PM

I never thought Roberts would vote to allow Congress to do anything via “coercion by tax”. Nothing our federal government does now would surprise me.

gravityman on June 28, 2012 at 5:45 PM

Does Roberts pay for your fellatio of him by the second?

NotCoach on June 28, 2012 at 5:41 PM

Sorry my prediction was right.

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck. It doesn’t matter that Congress and the President want to call it a chicken because they know ducks are unpopular.

Why are you upset that Roberts has simply called it a duck?

rockmom on June 28, 2012 at 5:45 PM

Obama, on cue, spikes the football.

Red Cloud on June 28, 2012 at 5:35 PM

along with the dems and lsm…

cmsinaz on June 28, 2012 at 5:45 PM

jsunrise on June 28, 2012 at 5:26 PM

While I agree for the most part, he could have done all of the above by saying “It’s unconstitutional. Try again.”

LtGenRob on June 28, 2012 at 5:45 PM

ObamaCare is certainly not a tax … to ILLEGALS!!!

Illegal aliens get free health care and “the blessings of Liberty” which are denied “to ourselves and our Posterity.”

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on June 28, 2012 at 5:45 PM

So now it’s ok to only tax the select few who don’t have insurance? There’s a reason upwards of 75% didn’t have insurance… They can’t afford it. The rich who don’t buy (read super rich) still won’t buy it. So, at the end of the day who the heck does this help?

They’re not gonna magically get insurance. If they couldn’t afford it before, they’re not gonna afford it now.

LtGenRob on June 28, 2012 at 5:43 PM

They will just tax the producers

Conservative4ev on June 28, 2012 at 5:46 PM

Why are you upset that Roberts has simply called it a duck?

rockmom on June 28, 2012 at 5:45 PM

What other justice called it a duck?

NotCoach on June 28, 2012 at 5:46 PM

Didn’t Rick Santorum say that Obamacare would be the biggest issue in this election and that we can’t cede this issue by nominating Romneycare?

Obama is going to win in a landslide thanks to all you who voted for Romney and CJ John Roberts nominated by the Bush clan.

milemarker2020 on June 28, 2012 at 5:46 PM

I never thought Roberts would vote to allow Congress to do anything via “coercion by tax”. Nothing our federal government does now would surprise me.

gravityman on June 28, 2012 at 5:45 PM

What the heck do you think Social Security is?

We’ve already been in this pot of boiling water for decades.

rockmom on June 28, 2012 at 5:47 PM

ObamaCare is certainly not a tax … to ILLEGALS!!!

Illegal aliens get free health care and “the blessings of Liberty” which are denied “to ourselves and our Posterity.”

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on June 28, 2012 at 5:45 PM

We don’t qualify for that

Conservative4ev on June 28, 2012 at 5:47 PM

i see a new gop/mitt ad with all these dems including dear leader saying this is not a tax….

get on this stat!!

cmsinaz on June 28, 2012 at 5:47 PM

Why are you upset that Roberts has simply called it a duck?

rockmom on June 28, 2012 at 5:45 PM

Calling an elephant a “duck” is nothing to be proud of. Calling a car a “duck” is even dumber.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on June 28, 2012 at 5:48 PM

Obama promised no tax on middle class.
But ObamaCare is a TAX.

Obama lied freedom died.

SparkPlug on June 28, 2012 at 5:48 PM

Today’s ruling included a few silver linings for pro-lifers:

1. One of the main concerns that pro-lifers had about Obamacare is that it would make it far easier for the federal government to regulate health-insurance plans. Even worse, these regulations would not be decided through the democratic process, but rather by administrative fiat. Since any health-insurance mandates can now be deemed tax increases — imposing additional mandates becomes much more difficult politically.

2. The Supreme Court set limits on the requirement that states expand their Medicaid programs. The long-term implications of this aspect of the ruling are uncertain. However, if states enact their own conscience protections or their own limits on abortion funding, this ruling likely makes it much more difficult for the federal government to retaliate by withholding Medicaid funding.

3. This decision may actually make it easier to prevent federal funding of abortion in the future. Remember, the mandate has been ruled a tax, and senators cannot filibuster a bill passed under “budget reconciliation.” As such, a future Senate would need just 51 votes (50 with a Republican vice president) to ban Obamacare from funding insurance plans that include abortion. Due to the interlocking nature of the various funding streams and mandates, this might have the implication of preventing abortion coverage in a vast majority of private health-insurance plans.

4. Politically, the ground has shifted to terms very favorable to the pro-life movement. Taxpayer funding of abortion has never been popular with the American people. Today the pro-life movement can call Obamacare what it is: A record breaking tax increase on low- and middle-income earners to subsidize Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry.

NRO on some overlooked effects of calling this a “tax.”

Wethal on June 28, 2012 at 5:48 PM

gravityman on June 28, 2012 at 5:45 PM

I hear you. Caesar has crossed the Rubicon. While I’m confident that we will win this next election and that Romney will push a bill to repeal ObamaCare through Congress, what will happen when the day arrives that the Donks once again control Congress? Where is our protection from unbridled Congressional power? How will we ever again be able to say that they’re not allowed to do ANYTHING?

MJBrutus on June 28, 2012 at 5:48 PM

…and everyone keeps saying yes.

NotCoach on June 28, 2012 at 5:44 PM

Only low information morons are saying yes.

Or incurable Eeyores.

cozmo on June 28, 2012 at 5:48 PM

We all agreed on Myanmar. They have nice beaches.

NotCoach on June 28, 2012 at 5:36 PM

Big spiders too, no thanks.

Bishop on June 28, 2012 at 5:43 PM

Living in Ecuador:
An Insiders’ Guide to the Good Life

Valuable Tips, News and Commentary for a Successful Ecuador Experience

We have been talking about Ecuador for a little while now. Not a bad place to live for Ex Pats.

Dr Evil on June 28, 2012 at 5:48 PM

Sorry, but this is not a victory.

Do you think that this decision will have any impact the next time congress decides it wants to commerce clause itself into your business. Hell no. They’ll do it and leave it up to the Supreme Court to reinterpret what they wanted into a nice legal package.

Ever since Kelo why anyone expects anything from the court is beyond me.

The only way to fix this is to win everything, and win big. And actually start dismantling the apparatus that does this shit.

grahsco on June 28, 2012 at 5:48 PM

Obama is going to win in a landslide thanks to all you who voted for Romney and CJ John Roberts nominated by the Bush clan.

milemarker2020 on June 28, 2012 at 5:46 PM

Go blow it out your butt…

sandee on June 28, 2012 at 5:49 PM

Then again, this case stands for the proposition that Congress doesn’t have to frame them that way; the Court will re-frame the bill for them and uphold it on tax grounds even if the government explicitly and repeatedly denies that what it’s engaged in as taxation.

Not exactly. To be considered a tax, the court found that the IRS has to collect the funds and that the funds have to go into the gov’t's coffers. So, regardless of what lying Dems say, the language in any bill will have to spell out who collects the fine, fee, toll or whatever bullshyte term they devise to substitute for tax. Once that is spelled out, the “fool me once” rule kicks in, no? So in essence: regardless of what its called, IRS collection = a tax. So noted.

rcpjr on June 28, 2012 at 5:49 PM

What the heck do you think Social Security is?

We’ve already been in this pot of boiling water for decades.

rockmom on June 28, 2012 at 5:47 PM

What?? Since when do we pay SS taxes for not working?

NotCoach on June 28, 2012 at 5:49 PM

Do you honestly think ANY of those things would EVER pass in any Congress?

rockmom on June 28, 2012 at 5:42 PM

The libs have been talking about a Vehicle Mileage Tax. So, yes, some of these things could be possible.

Bitter Clinger on June 28, 2012 at 5:49 PM

If the Supreme Court ruling means that the states can opt out of Obamacare without penalty, then Obamacare is pretty much dead, because local politicians are not going to risk their political necks on a new tax boondoggle.

RebeccaH on June 28, 2012 at 5:49 PM

What a scam.

But We the People have willingly bent over for a lot of things…Federal Reserve Board, Inc., income tax, IRS, foreign ‘aid’, the Great Society, the New Deal and so much more. We’ll whine here, but most Americans will get used to it and have the same fatalistic, BS attitude about this (and I’m sure the coming carbon credit scheme) as they have about ‘death and taxes’, the ‘infernal revenue service’, and that you can’t ‘fight city hall.’.

On top of that we’re still shipping jobs overseas…but that’s OK, because it must surely hurt unions…doesn’t affect me!/s

I guess as a nation this is just where we want to be and what we collectively deserve.

Dr. ZhivBlago on June 28, 2012 at 5:49 PM

Roberts is a traitor and needs to be treated and shunned as one in public for the rest of his days.

Conservative4ev on June 28, 2012 at 5:50 PM

We don’t qualify for that

Conservative4ev on June 28, 2012 at 5:47 PM

The Court felt that Americans have had enough of the Blessings of Liberty, already, and it was time to spread the Liberty to those not covered by our Constitution. Global disparate impact or some other super-duper Ivy League SCOTUS concept …

As Benedict Roberts said, “At some point, you’ve had enough Liberty.”

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on June 28, 2012 at 5:50 PM

The GOP agenda should be this

Repeal obamacare
Impeach And replace Roberts

Conservative4ev on June 28, 2012 at 5:51 PM

At least this means the exceptions for Nevada and NH and such are flat out unconstitutional. Taxes cannot be state specific.

pedestrian on June 28, 2012 at 5:39 PM

And the HHS cannot grant waivers to taxes. Even Turbotax Timmy can’t do that.

Wethal on June 28, 2012 at 5:51 PM

Only low information morons are saying yes.

Or incurable Eeyores.

cozmo on June 28, 2012 at 5:48 PM

Because, you know, Congress would never mandate we purchase any private product just because we are live. No sir, never gonna happen!

Go Fluke yourself with a red hot pitchfork.

NotCoach on June 28, 2012 at 5:51 PM

Many people are claiming this helps Mitt but I don’t think it does. One of the reasons the right has been lining up behind someone with dubious conservative credentials is because of scotus picks. But if we can’t trust John Effing Roberts (Bush appointee who was sold to us as some kind of conservative super genius) not to sodomize us then what the hell difference does those pics make?

Roberts rewrote the law for Obama to make it constitutional by calling the penalty a tax instead of mandate. He could have joined Kennedy, Kennedy if he had wanted to and deep sixed the entire thing. He wanted this uphled. End of story.

Kataklysmic on June 28, 2012 at 5:52 PM

Why are you upset that Roberts has simply called it a duck?

rockmom on June 28, 2012 at 5:45 PM

When was the last time you paid a tax to a private company?

You have to buy health care or you are going to be taxed not penalized, who collects that tax/money? Private Insurers.

Dr Evil on June 28, 2012 at 5:52 PM

The only way to fix this is to win everything, and win big. And actually start dismantling the apparatus that does this shit.

grahsco on June 28, 2012 at 5:48 PM

That won’t happen as long as the government can keep borrowing and printing money keep the 52% on the plantation.

pedestrian on June 28, 2012 at 5:53 PM

The GOP agenda should be this

Repeal obamacare
Impeach And replace Roberts

Conservative4ev on June 28, 2012 at 5:51 PM

How about just call it a gigantic tax on the middle class and beat the hell out of anyone who supported it?

rockmom on June 28, 2012 at 5:53 PM

So, SCOTUS cannot only rule on the constitutionality of a law as it’s written, but also, in essense, rewrite it to create constitutionality.

Why not just write the damn thing to begin with.

Long live the oligarchy!

nico on June 28, 2012 at 5:53 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4