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

Roberts didn’t rewrite it for them. The federal government argued in the lower courts, whose decisions the SC was actually responding to, that it was a tax. Roberts didn’t come up with that on his own. It was what they argued. And, of course, it is a tax, being collected through the IRS.

Rational Thought on June 28, 2012 at 6:31 PM

They only ever argued it was a tax when they were trying to fend off challenges. But then when it came to whether the mandate was constitutional or not suddenly it was no longer a tax. But none of that matters. What the Fluke did congress call it and how did they write this bill? Roberts is the only justice calling this a tax. Why is that?

NotCoach on June 28, 2012 at 6:33 PM

Well this certainly bullish for KY jelly and Preparation H. Americas kleptocrats have won again.

Congrats citizens you no longer have any individual rights because they have been officially subsumed to the government right to tax you to death. (you are no longer citizen either you are now simply subjects of the states authority.)

Corporations will of course maintain their rights of free speech (otherwise know as bribing politicians) and the right to confiscate your personal property in concert with local (wholely owned) politicians solely to increase tax revenues (thank you Supine Kangaroo Court).

Individuals that have only the right to be taxed, have their assets and property confiscated, provide for illegal immigrants (non-citizens) will now to be forced to enrich insurance companies, BigPharma, the Corporate Hospital machine, and the American Bar Association.

Is it any wonder? Who is actually surprised given that a gaggle of Lawyers has eviscerated the Constitution? Never mind that there is no money left to pay for any of this they’ll just print up some more.

LCT688 on June 28, 2012 at 6:33 PM

Seeing all of the whining on here is actually kind of funny to me, because it’s a bunch of conservatives whining that Big Daddy Supreme Court justice didn’t come in and save them.

Rational Thought on June 28, 2012 at 6:28 PM

Why do you think Thomas, Scalia, Alito, and Kennedy didn’t see it that way? Do they simply lack Robert’s wisdom?

Yes, we were hoping the Supreme Court would save us from the punishment we have been suffering due to the whims of low information voters. If you haven’t noticed, we’re a little outnumbered.

So lets say it gets kicked back to the voters and they reelect Obama. Then what?

Kataklysmic on June 28, 2012 at 6:34 PM

A Most Dangerous Precedent.

Whatever one’s position, in favor or opposition to the president’s health care law, the SCOTUS decision was what can only be described as the worst of both worlds. The left will no doubt gloat that this decision is some sort of a victory for “fairness.” The Right will no doubt be energized and even more determined to achieve victory at the polls in November in order to repeal the law in its entirety.

Be that as it may for either side. The truth is we all lost something by this decision; just a bit more of our liberty. By the way the court framed it decision, they have in fact empowered government to tax non-behavior. This is not taxing you on your income, not taxing you for a purchase you’ve made. This is not even punishing you for having committed a criminal act. This taxation for not doing something that the government has decided is in your “best interest,” taxation for not participating.

Dangerous indeed. Were does it stop? Are we now no longer even be allowed to tell government that our choice to act or more importantly to not act is none of its business? The court has opened the door to even more intrusion into or private lives. They have in fact said there are to be no limits just so long as such intrusion is couched in terms of our “best interest” and enforced in the form of a tax.

No one in their right mind thinks that government will suddenly say “we’ve gone far enough.” There will always be politicians, from both sides of the aisle, who will seek to corral more and more power and control for government simply because they profit from it or some power group wants a law passed in its “best interest.” The need for which will be reinforced with campaign contributions.

What next? We have too much obesity so we all must participate in some government approved exercise program and if we don’t government will tax you because you didn’t do the prescribed number of push-ups? Or maybe they will tell us that we should eat a certain amount of what the government defines as “healthy” foods. You don’t really have to, but if you don’t, they’re going to monitor your grocery store receipt and tax you for not participating in what they have deemed is our “best interest.”

Perhaps my concern is overblown because there is no money to pay for Obamacare or any other pernicious program that may grow out of it. But have no doubt politicians will continue to expand the excesses of government until it collapses of its own weight. Maybe then we will get something approaching a clean slate and can start again to build anew a system based on individual liberty and personal responsibility rather than the sloth of demanding that government force everyone else to provide for us all those things we have become to lazy to do for ourselves. One where we tell central government to stick to its proper rolls of national defense and foreign relations and little else.

LCT688 on June 28, 2012 at 6:34 PM

http://townhall.com/columnists/katehicks/2012/06/28/the_roberts_opinion_its_not_all_bad

ObamaCare will only stand if Barry is re-elected. So work to throw him out.

A few days ago, there was a thread about Scalia lamenting the expansion of the usage of Commerce Clause, so it has been cut back in this ruling.

bayview on June 28, 2012 at 6:34 PM

Rational Thought on June 28, 2012 at 6:31 PM

If it were a tax then the Anti-Injunction Act would apply and the Court wouldn’t hear it until taxes were levied and someone filed. The Court, in this very decision, said that it wasn’t a tax .. only to make it a tax later.

————————————–
Page 12 of THIS decision about this alleged “tax”:

The text of the pertinent statutes suggests otherwise.
The Anti-Injunction Act applies to suits “for the purpose
of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax.”
§7421(a) (emphasis added). Congress, however, chose to
describe the “[s]hared responsibility payment” imposed on
those who forgo health insurance not as a “tax,” but as a
“penalty.” §§5000A(b), (g)(2). There is no immediate
reason to think that a statute applying to “any tax” would
apply to a “penalty.”
Congress’s decision to label this exaction a “penalty”
rather than a “tax” is significant because the Affordable
Care Act describes many other exactions it creates as
“taxes.” See Thomas More, 651 F. 3d, at 551. Where
Congress uses certain language in one part of a statute
and different language in another, it is generally pre-
sumed that Congress acts intentionally. See Russello v.
United States, 464 U. S. 16, 23 (1983).

——————————————-

It only became a tax down some pages. This decision was an abomination in all ways.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on June 28, 2012 at 6:34 PM

Levin is on. Must hear radio!

kevinkristy on June 28, 2012 at 6:09 PM

Yeah, and listening is making me more and more angry over how Roberts screwed us all and we have only one crapshoot of a remedy in the election with no recourse to get rid of his kind from the bench.

stukinIL4now on June 28, 2012 at 6:34 PM

The impact of this is so far reaching, we haven’t a clue what they have the power to do.

Key West Reader on June 28, 2012 at 6:28 PM

There isn’t any charade anymore that we are living under a Constitutional Republic with Robert’s ruling.

There is no more pretense from here on out.

Dr Evil on June 28, 2012 at 6:35 PM

…a bunch of conservatives whining that Big Daddy Supreme Court justice didn’t come in and save them. What Roberts did here was put the power where it belongs — with the people.

Rational Thought on June 28, 2012 at 6:28 PM

Respectfully DISSENT.

Conservatives don’t want or need anyone to “save” us. We merely want those who are responsible for justice to FOLLOW THE LAW.

Especially the US Constitution, as it’s the only thing protecting THE PEOPLE from the federal government.

LaserBeam on June 28, 2012 at 6:35 PM

Breaking…

DHS on alert as right wing, dangerous Tea Party extremist riots break out across America. A suspicious package sent to Roberts was found to be a dangerous, extremist bundt cake.

Mr. Wednesday Night on June 28, 2012 at 6:35 PM

Obama’s original try for a mandate was unconstitutional so he sent out his soldiers to plead to the SCOTUS that it was a really tax. Never mind that Obama promised that he would never put a tax on the middle class to pay for their health care. How many more lies will it take before even his parasitic constituents recognize him for the deceitful charlatan he really is?

rplat on June 28, 2012 at 6:36 PM

I’m with AP on the Commerce Clause implications. There’s no Silver lining there, but go ahead and keep looking, something else might turn up.

slickwillie2001 on June 28, 2012 at 6:36 PM

Show up on election day. Make sure everyone you know shows up. And show these SOBs the door. It has always been political suicide to be a big taxer. Make sure it stays that way.

Rational Thought on June 28, 2012 at 6:28 PM

..channeling my inner pragmatic:

NOVEMBER 6TH: OUR TURN!

The War Planner on June 28, 2012 at 6:36 PM

There is no place to move to. This is freedom’s final stand.

pedestrian on June 28, 2012 at 6:31 PM

Freedom is gone, here. There’s little difference with the rest of the world, now, except that there’s an insane, third world retard acting like a tyrant in the Executive branch and no one in any position will do anything to stop him. It’s been over 3 years already.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on June 28, 2012 at 6:37 PM

I don’t think it was that bad. Like another poster said, he didn’t go Howard Dean about it and that’s good. He said what he needed to say and reiterated that he’s going to repeal it.

kim roy on June 28, 2012 at 6:28 PM

I thought he could have been a little more angry and forceful.

But, what I really think he needs to do is look into the camera and say:

“America, if you don’t like this bill you’ve got one, and only one, chance to do something about it. November is your only chance, after that you will be stuck with this bill and you’ll never get another chance to get rid of it.”

He has to make this crystal clear.

JohnInCA on June 28, 2012 at 6:37 PM

He changed the mandate to a tax, thus avoiding the answering the question whether this is overreach under the Commerce Clause entirely! And without Roberts it is 4-4 on that question.

NotCoach on June 28, 2012 at 6:23 PM

So, you wanted to be saved by the jedi justices?

Let them do the work and let republicans take the blame?

You can stay mad at everybody who isn’t as frothing at the mouth as you. Or, you can look at the decision, what it entails and what has to happen for 0bamacare to be fully implemented.

Me, I’m a happy camper.

cozmo on June 28, 2012 at 6:38 PM

…a bunch of conservatives whining that Big Daddy Supreme Court justice didn’t come in and save them. What Roberts did here was put the power where it belongs — with the people.

Rational Thought on June 28, 2012 at 6:28 PM

The only duty they have is to interpret whether a law is constitutional. They do not have the power to rewrite legislation to make it constitutional. You understand why we have 3 branches of government right? Checks and Balances. Roberts just made himself an un elected congressmen/lawmaker by changing a penalty into a tax.

Dr Evil on June 28, 2012 at 6:39 PM

So, you wanted to be saved by the jedi justices?

Let them do the work and let republicans take the blame?

You can stay mad at everybody who isn’t as frothing at the mouth as you. Or, you can look at the decision, what it entails and what has to happen for 0bamacare to be fully implemented.

Me, I’m a happy camper.

cozmo on June 28, 2012 at 6:38 PM

Obtuseness is not an attractive trait.

NotCoach on June 28, 2012 at 6:39 PM

Scary thought here… *adjusts tinfoil helmet*

Does this open a door for an American version of the one child policy?

IRS agent: Mrs. Smith. We have learned you already have one child and are expecting a second. You have the option of obtaining an abortion or paying the tax.

And, well, bad things happen to people who don’t pay their taxes.

Isn’t that how the one child policy works in China? Isn’t that exact same thing now possible here now?

I am going to need more foil.

bitsy on June 28, 2012 at 6:40 PM

So lets say it gets kicked back to the voters and they reelect Obama. Then what?

Kataklysmic on June 28, 2012 at 6:34 PM

I’m sorry, and perhaps you’re in a moment of angst that this decision has brought to us, but that is a really dumb question. If the American people re-elect Barack Obama, then they get the government they deserve. There are many, many reasons to vote against this man beyond health care. Health care, it seems to me, is just the decisive factor needed to push that 25% of undecideds over to the Romney column. If it doesn’t, then a majority of my fellow voters want a Marxist-lite regime. Not much can be done about that. However, there are far more conservatives and center-right independents in this country than there are wacko leftists like Barack. They need to vote. If they do, he’ll lose in a landslide.

Rational Thought on June 28, 2012 at 6:41 PM

bitsy on June 28, 2012 at 6:40 PM

Sure. Every child you don’t have you get a tax credit.

NotCoach on June 28, 2012 at 6:41 PM

cozmo on June 28, 2012 at 6:38 PM

If it needed to be a tax to be Constitutional than they should have kicked it back to the Legislature to rewrite it. Not rewrite it themselves- no one elected them, they are not lawmakers.

Dr Evil on June 28, 2012 at 6:42 PM

Let’s talk about enforceability for a minute.

How would it be possible to determine if an American is or is not insured? Easy.

The IRS will likely turn over the SSN’s of all living Americans to the remaining private health insurers and force them to “match”. If there is no “match” here comes the IRS and your fines.

The implications of this are limitless.

Key West Reader on June 28, 2012 at 6:42 PM

Because the old words are as true today as they were then, “Eventually you run out of other people’s money.”

Let them scheme and enact and crush the economy, we will catch up to Europe eventually and then the balloon goes up. Yeah it sucks but it seems there are a majority of Americans who need to be lit on fire to know that flame really does burn.

Bishop on June 28, 2012 at 6:30 PM

I have nowhere near the confidence you do that our side would win the chaos, post-balloon. At best for us, fifty-fifty, and given the outcome that’s not a coin I’m eager to flip.

slickwillie2001 on June 28, 2012 at 6:43 PM

What Roberts did here was put the power where it belongs — with the people.

Rational Thought on June 28, 2012 at 6:28 PM

Which people ?
The people who don’t want O’Scare, or the people who we the people elect to make laws a k a lawmakers ?

burrata on June 28, 2012 at 6:43 PM

How many of these non-compliant non-insurance purchasing “taxpayers” will actually pay their ACA “tax”?

How many tax-paying workers will have to pay more for health insurance to make up for the non-compliant?

How many tax-paying workers will have to pay real taxes on the portion of the insurance premiums their employer picked up (remember the “Cadillac Plan” provisions)?

Those who don’t comply will pay nothing.. and be told how to apply for “free” coverage. Those of us who actually pay, will pay even more.

What a mess Roberts made today.

LaserBeam on June 28, 2012 at 6:43 PM

Let’s talk about enforceability for a minute.

How would it be possible to determine if an American is or is not insured? Easy.

The IRS will likely turn over the SSN’s of all living Americans to the remaining private health insurers and force them to “match”. If there is no “match” here comes the IRS and your fines.

The implications of this are limitless.

Key West Reader on June 28, 2012 at 6:42 PM

Bingo! I was saying the same thing to my DH this afternoon.

GrannyDee on June 28, 2012 at 6:44 PM

Key West Reader on June 28, 2012 at 6:42 PM

I am sure it would work like a 1099. You buy insurance and your insurer provides a 1099 to you and the federal government. Don’t file said 1099 and you don’t get your tax credit.

NotCoach on June 28, 2012 at 6:44 PM

Obtuseness is not an attractive trait.

NotCoach on June 28, 2012 at 6:39 PM

Not being obtuse, you ain’t understandin’.

they should have kicked it back to the Legislature to rewrite it. Not rewrite it themselves…
Dr Evil on June 28, 2012 at 6:42 PM

They didn’t rewrite it. They told congress how congress could.

cozmo on June 28, 2012 at 6:45 PM

Let’s talk about enforceability for a minute.

How would it be possible to determine if an American is or is not insured? Easy.

The IRS will likely turn over the SSN’s of all living Americans to the remaining private health insurers and force them to “match”. If there is no “match” here comes the IRS and your fines.

The implications of this are limitless.

Key West Reader on June 28, 2012 at 6:42 PM

Obamacare means that HHS has access to all your bank accounts, credit card accounts, trading accounts, retirement accounts, and of course, health records. That data and access will be shared with the IRS.

slickwillie2001 on June 28, 2012 at 6:45 PM

AND NO THE ABILITY to TAX does NOT mean that anything can be constitutional. The taxes are only supposed to be for the powers enumerated. What a joke SCOTUS and Robert are.

CW on June 28, 2012 at 6:45 PM

As much as I would have enjoyed a political victory over this issue, the long reaching, life changing implications are devastating.

Health care delivery and the administration of benefits are no longer private.

Think about that.

Key West Reader on June 28, 2012 at 6:46 PM

Key West Reader on June 28, 2012 at 6:42 PM

Yep, congress just has to write a law to do it.

cozmo on June 28, 2012 at 6:46 PM

I’m getting close to moving.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on June 28, 2012 at 6:29 PM

There is no place to move to. This is freedom’s final stand.

pedestrian on June 28, 2012 at 6:31 PM

I used to think so, but not anymore.

You’d be surprised over how many countries in the world with a lower tax burden, lower % of federal budget to GDP and more freedoms than we currently have under the Obama regime.

Switzerland is nice time of year.

Norwegian on June 28, 2012 at 6:46 PM

What Roberts did here was put the power where it belongs — with the people.

Rational Thought on June 28, 2012 at 6:28 PM

Whatever…he did not follow the Constitution. THAT is his job. You nor he understands THAT.

CW on June 28, 2012 at 6:46 PM

They didn’t rewrite it. They told congress how congress could.

cozmo on June 28, 2012 at 6:45 PM

Congress doesn’t need to do anything.

“CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III–B that the individual mandate must be construed as imposing a tax on those who do
not have health insurance, if such a construction is reasonable.”

http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/392172/supreme-court-decision-on-the-patient-protection.pdf

pedestrian on June 28, 2012 at 6:47 PM

$10.00 Band-Aids looming in the not-too-distant future? Oh, no worries, ’cause they’ll be free!

This “crony capitalist” thing is wearing mighty thin…but there really is no such thing…just plain ol’ everyday capitalists who will do whatever they can to turn a nickel into a dime, and if they can get the government to help them, then so what?

The lines between government and commerce are becoming increasingly blurred, and more and more both are working against the interests of the American people.

Dr. ZhivBlago on June 28, 2012 at 6:47 PM

Think about that.

Key West Reader on June 28, 2012 at 6:46 PM

…..

Yep.

Keep your laws off my body …and my bank account.

CW on June 28, 2012 at 6:47 PM

donna brazille totally ok with that dnc ugly tweet….

of course she is…

cmsinaz on June 28, 2012 at 6:48 PM

Yeah, I really don’t see how this is not scary as sh**.
Roberts just handed Congress unlimited revenue and the means by which to get it.

ORconservative on June 28, 2012 at 6:48 PM

I’m sorry, and perhaps you’re in a moment of angst that this decision has brought to us, but that is a really dumb question. If the American people re-elect Barack Obama, then they get the government they deserve.

Rational Thought on June 28, 2012 at 6:41 PM

Right. Which means you and I suffer along with them. You good with that?

Kataklysmic on June 28, 2012 at 6:48 PM

The implications of this are limitless.

Key West Reader on June 28, 2012 at 6:42 PM

So the regime will force us to carry health papers ? And check them everytime we go to get ice-cream with our kids ?
Even the minorities ?
That’s so racist

burrata on June 28, 2012 at 6:48 PM

Let’s talk about enforceability for a minute.

How would it be possible to determine if an American is or is not insured? Easy.

The IRS will likely turn over the SSN’s of all living Americans to the remaining private health insurers and force them to “match”. If there is no “match” here comes the IRS and your fines.

The implications of this are limitless.

Key West Reader on June 28, 2012 at 6:42 PM
Obamacare means that HHS has access to all your bank accounts, credit card accounts, trading accounts, retirement accounts, and of course, health records. That data and access will be shared with the IRS.

slickwillie2001 on June 28, 2012 at 6:45 PM | Delete | Delete and Ban

You are exactly right. That is another component of the “bill”.

So let’s comingle your bank and your doctor and the IRS and your so-called private health policy all into one tight little ball that makes sure you are in compliance.

The implications of this decision are life altering and I am frankly stunned.

Did anyone think this through? Oh, yes they did.

Key West Reader on June 28, 2012 at 6:48 PM

2002
Mitt Romney runs as a Democrat though he uses the Republican Ticket as he moved from Conservative Utah too late to run in the Democratic Primary. He makes clear he hates Republicans and is the more liberal candidate for Governor. This in the most liberal of the lower 48 States. A major platform was Romney Care promising and getting Teddy Kennedys for this.

2004
Mitt Romney signs Romney Care into law. He praises the individual mandate and Kennedy praises Romney. Makes it clear Romney is the best Democratic Governor in the US.

2005
Mitt Romney decides he can further abuse the Republican Ticked and run for President on that ticket he so recently repudiated. He writes a boot touting how wonderful it would be to have Romney Care nationwide.

Mitt Romney secures Gay Marriage by abusing the Mass Constitution forcing clerks to issue marriage licenses to Gays, after the Legislator failed to make Gay Marriage legal. Proving Mitt Romney is more liberal than the Mass Legislator.

2009
Obama Care becomes law in large part because Romney supported it in Opt Eds and on TV. Some Democrats saw it as bipartisan because of Romney.

2010
The Conservatives vote Democrats out of power in the House over Obama Care. Romney continues to praise it (Romney Care). Says only problem with Obama Care is Constitution. (He was wrong).

2012
Today Romney made it clear he supports all the fundamentals of Obama Care while promising to repeal it and replace it with almost the same thing possibly a more radical version even.

Steveangell on June 28, 2012 at 6:48 PM

Obamacare means that HHS has access to all your bank accounts, credit card accounts, trading accounts, retirement accounts, and of course, health records. That data and access will be shared with the IRS.

slickwillie2001 on June 28, 2012 at 6:45 PM

The IRS already knows most of the above with the new 1099 rules that have gone and will go into effect for 2012 Form 1040. The only things that missing are the health records.

GrannyDee on June 28, 2012 at 6:48 PM

All the evening news programs are still calling this TAX “a penalty”.

Still covering for Barack “No New Taxes” Obama.

profitsbeard on June 28, 2012 at 6:49 PM

It is not a tax and even it was IT WOULD STILL NOT be Constitutional.

CW on June 28, 2012 at 6:49 PM

He is LAWLESS…….but he is ABOVE IT ALL, kind of like God.

He should be impeached.

God save our Country…….because our leaders will not.

PappyD61 on June 28, 2012 at 6:49 PM

pedestrian on June 28, 2012 at 6:47 PM

But collecting a tax is different than mandating a penalty. Not to mention waivers and those federally insured.

The dems intentionally left out any way to collect a tax so the the mandate could not be called one.

cozmo on June 28, 2012 at 6:50 PM

For God’s sake, even Anthony Kennedy… Anthony.Freakin.Kennedy… understood O-Care was a monumental overreach of federal government authority.

Does Roberts… or a member of his family… have a pre-existing condition?

I want to know the real motive for him saddling the American people with O-Care. It certainly isn’t a respect for the law as written in the US Constitution.

LaserBeam on June 28, 2012 at 6:51 PM

CJ Roberts will be remembered as a weak, pathetic excuse for a judge.Kudos to Kennedy, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia for getting it right.

McDuck on June 28, 2012 at 6:51 PM

What a mess Roberts made today.

LaserBeam on June 28, 2012 at 6:43 PM

Yes and I think it’s time for Constitutional Amendments to make the Judiciary more answerable to We the People.

stukinIL4now on June 28, 2012 at 6:51 PM

But collecting a tax is different than mandating a penalty. Not to mention waivers and those federally insured.

The dems intentionally left out any way to collect a tax so the the mandate could not be called one.

cozmo on June 28, 2012 at 6:50 PM

Too late. Roberts already construed it as a tax, so it’s a tax as far as SCOTUS is concerned, and that’s all he cares about.

pedestrian on June 28, 2012 at 6:51 PM

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom — go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”

Samuel Adams

Resist We Much on June 28, 2012 at 6:52 PM

The IRS already knows most of the above with the new 1099 rules that have gone and will go into effect for 2012 Form 1040. The only things that missing are the health records.

GrannyDee on June 28, 2012 at 6:48 PM | Delete | Delete and Ban

Granny, they repealed the 1099 provision earlier last year.

Key West Reader on June 28, 2012 at 6:53 PM

More Hints that Roberts Switched his Vote

David Bernstein • June 28, 2012 6:10 pm

Reader Stuart Buck provides more detail as to why the dissent reads like a majority opinion:

1. The dissent has a whole section on severability that is completely beside the point except on the assumption that the mandate had been struck down, and now “We” have to decide whether and what to preserve of the rest of the act now that the mandate is gone.

2. Notice also that his response to Roberts is tacked on at the end, rather than worked into the body of whatever he was writing (see page 64 of his dissent). For example, one would have expected Scalia to directly take on Roberts’ application of the Anti-Injunction Act, but his brief section on that act only mentions what “the Government” argues (see pages 26-28).

3. On top of that, Scalia’s sections on the Commerce Clause and the Medicaid Expansion are just as long or longer than what Roberts writes (Scalia wrote 16 pages on the Commerce Clause and 21 pages on the Medicaid Expansion, compared to Roberts’ 16 pages and 14 pages respectively). Yet Scalia never writes in the vein of saying, “I agree with the Chief Justice’s opinion, but write to add a crucial discussion of some complexity.” His analysis agrees with Roberts, and makes essentially the same points in “We” language. There’s no reason for Scalia to do this at such length, unless his opinion is what came first.

UPDATE: Ed Whelan notes a related theory: Roberts assigned the opinion to himself, and wrote most of what became the four-Justice dissent. He then switched on the tax issue, and the four dissenters adopted most of his original majority opinion as a dissent. This would explain why the dissent is unsigned.

NotCoach on June 28, 2012 at 6:53 PM

“It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”

THIS is what I have taken away from reading the write up of the SCOTUS decision thus far.

We can survive an Obama, a Reid, a Pelosi (heck, we can survive all three at the same time).

What we cannot survive is a population of low information, ignorant, selfish, recist, jealous (I have more words but do not wish to feel the breeze of the banhammer) voters who actually give these . . . things . . . the power to make laws (or disregard them if they so desire).

If we can muster enough votes to put conservatives in power and then keep them honest, so be it. If not, then find a way to provide for your own family, help your friends and others who share your moral/spiritual/whatever beliefs, and ensure that anyone who threatens that life does not survive to threaten it again.

majordomomojo on June 28, 2012 at 6:54 PM

Reminds me of when I was finally cornered into giving up info for the Census. The second guy badgered me and badgered me even though I told him I was busy and didn’t have time. Lib neighbor couldn’t figure out what my ‘problem’ was (I just wanted to supply how many, ages, genders and that’s it…now what I do, how much I make and so on). Finally gave into the harassment from their offices in Atlanta or wherever they were.

That’s the thing…there will always be a plentiful supply of people who will enforce whatever they’re paid/told to do (“Hey, buddy, just doing my job!”).

Dr. ZhivBlago on June 28, 2012 at 6:54 PM

UPDATE: Ed Whelan notes a related theory: Roberts assigned the opinion to himself, and wrote most of what became the four-Justice dissent. He then switched on the tax issue, and the four dissenters adopted most of his original majority opinion as a dissent. This would explain why the dissent is unsigned.

NotCoach on June 28, 2012 at 6:53 PM

Benedict Roberts.

pedestrian on June 28, 2012 at 6:55 PM

I want to know the real motive for him saddling the American people with O-Care. It certainly isn’t a respect for the law as written in the US Constitution.

LaserBeam on June 28, 2012 at 6:51 PM

Battered wife syndrome

burrata on June 28, 2012 at 6:55 PM

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom — go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”

Samuel Adams

Resist We Much on June 28, 2012 at 6:52 PM

Amen!

As much as I would like to call or email my lib friends to tell them they and their children are in the same boat now as we conservatives, I just haven’t got the emotional strength to do it right now.

They put party above freedom in 2008. Now their loyalty to the Dems has come back around to choke them.

Screw ‘em all but six and save them for pall bearers.

GrannyDee on June 28, 2012 at 6:56 PM

Steveangell on June 28, 2012 at 6:48 PM | Delete | Delete and Ban

Let’s get one thing straight here. We will elect Mitt Romney and we will be all over his azz like white on rice to make sure that he does what he was elected to do.

In tandem, we will systematically vote out every single progressive democrat a/k/a socialist/statist/communist that has infected our legislative body.

Make no mistake. Obama might have just been helped out of his muddy dirty ditch but he’s going to lose in November. And so are all of his allies.

Key West Reader on June 28, 2012 at 6:57 PM

Q. What do you call a person who graduates top in their law school class?
A. “Future Partner”.

Q. What do you call the person who graduates last?
A. “Your Honor”.

LaserBeam on June 28, 2012 at 6:57 PM

They didn’t rewrite it. They told congress how congress could.

cozmo on June 28, 2012 at 6:45 PM

No that’s not what happened. Why do you think people are upset. Roberts said the mandate could be construed as a tax.

It’s clear that it was meant to be a penalty, and there were IRS agents that were to be hired to cover collecting the penalty- enforce the Individual Mandate. The IRS is still going to collect the tax from tax payers if they don’t prove they have health insurance.

The fascist have this country by the short hairs.

Dr Evil on June 28, 2012 at 6:57 PM

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom — go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”

Samuel Adams

Resist We Much on June 28, 2012 at 6:52 PM

Well, if the chains have the word freebie engraved on them, most idiots think its an advantage.

Hey, these shackles are free, dude!

If the government can make them look superficially like hospital name tags, so much the cooler.

profitsbeard on June 28, 2012 at 6:57 PM

The Court, in City of New York v. Feiring, 313 U.S. 283 (1941), established a test to be utilised in making the determination of whether an assessment is a tax or a penalty has been described as a four-part test incorporating the following criteria:

(1) an involuntary pecuniary burden, regardless of name, laid upon individuals or property; and,

(2) imposed by, or under authority of the legislature; and,

(3) for public purposes, including the purposes of defraying expenses of government or undertakings authorised by it; and,

(4) under the police or taxing power of the state.

The individual mandate is NOT a tax. How can Roberts argue that paying premiums to private corporations or punitive fines for failing to do something is the equivalent of the argument that the FDR administration relied upon (Taxing and Spending powers) when it argued for the constitutionality of Social Security? In Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937), the Court said that Congress had the authority to tax income to provide for Social

Security BECAUSE IT WAS A TAX PAID TO THE GOVERNMENT. Blue Cross/Blue Shield is not an arm of the Federal government; thus, paying premiums to it CANNOT be viewed as a form of taxation in any sane interpretation of the law…unless one is reading from Mussolini’s The Doctrine of Fascism.

How sad to be an American today! I’ve torn the collar on John Roberts … henceforth to be known as Shrub’s Warren.

Resist We Much on June 28, 2012 at 6:57 PM

UPDATE: Ed Whelan notes a related theory: Roberts assigned the opinion to himself, and wrote most of what became the four-Justice dissent. He then switched on the tax issue, and the four dissenters adopted most of his original majority opinion as a dissent. This would explain why the dissent is unsigned.

NotCoach on June 28, 2012 at 6:53 PM

Found a dead fish on his doorstep?

Dr. ZhivBlago on June 28, 2012 at 6:59 PM

Key West Reader on June 28, 2012 at 6:53 PM

Really? We’re not going to be getting the new 1099′s for stock sales, etc.? I remember getting some kind of update letters from stock companies about the reporting requirements for 2012.

I’m probably confused with something else. I’d go look at my tax records, but I’m just too worn out.

GrannyDee on June 28, 2012 at 6:59 PM

Right. Which means you and I suffer along with them. You good with that?

Kataklysmic on June 28, 2012 at 6:48 PM

No. I am often not “good with” how a majority of my fellow citizens vote. So what? That’s how they voted. I do my part in the citizen political arena to make things go my way as much as I can. If we all do — all conservatives — we’ll win every time. Every. Single. Time. Unfortunately, too many on our side choose to stay home or cast protest votes that hand elections to the commies. Nothing I can do about that. That’s on them. I’ll not take responsibility for it.

Rational Thought on June 28, 2012 at 7:00 PM

No that’s not what happened. Why do you think people are upset. Roberts said the mandate could be construed as a tax.

Dr Evil on June 28, 2012 at 6:57 PM

Construing and implementing are two different things. The structure to tax under 0bamacare doesn’t exist.

Wait and see.

cozmo on June 28, 2012 at 7:02 PM

Where’s the melting bunny?

AUINSC on June 28, 2012 at 7:02 PM

Where’s the melting bunny?

AUINSC on June 28, 2012 at 7:02 PM

We are the melting bunny.

GrannyDee on June 28, 2012 at 7:03 PM

Resist We Much on June 28, 2012 at 6:57 PM | Delete

The bill upheld by Roberts has 2700 pages in it.

Key West Reader on June 28, 2012 at 7:04 PM

Where’s the melting bunny?

AUINSC on June 28, 2012 at 7:02 PM | Delete | Delete and Ban

I’m so glad you asked!

He’ll be appearing on stage at Romney’s innauguration in January 2013.

Key West Reader on June 28, 2012 at 7:05 PM

Rational Thought on June 28, 2012 at 7:00 PM

I understand and agree with what you are saying. I just don’t know why you’re taking an issue with conservatives who are disappointed in this ruling. We have been sitting here powerless, suffering under this Marxist dictator for the last three and half years and we can’t have one g*dd*mn day to vent about it when a conservative justice is the deciding vote to uphold Obama’s largest powergrab?

Kataklysmic on June 28, 2012 at 7:06 PM

Construing and implementing are two different things. The structure to tax under 0bamacare doesn’t exist.

Wait and see.

cozmo on June 28, 2012 at 7:02 PM

Roberts stated it was constitutional, that the penalty could be construed as a tax. That’s why the democrats are throwing a victory party. Roberts changed the law for them to make it constitutional.

That means the IRS can collect non compliance “Tax” for not buying Health Care Coverage from a private Insurer.

Dr Evil on June 28, 2012 at 7:08 PM

Where’s the melting bunny?

AUINSC on June 28, 2012 at 7:02 PM

We are the melting bunny.

GrannyDee on June 28, 2012 at 7:03 PM

Thanks for the laugh.

Mike Honcho on June 28, 2012 at 7:11 PM

Levin is on a rant about George Will’s article.

GrannyDee on June 28, 2012 at 7:11 PM

Dr Evil on June 28, 2012 at 7:08 PM

Uh-huh, and those IRS powers are pulled out of thin air and placed into the existing law?

cozmo on June 28, 2012 at 7:12 PM

A Most Dangerous Precedent.
LCT688 on June 28, 2012 at 6:34 PM

Fabulous summation of the events that unfolded today LCT!
For those of you that missed this, do yourself a favor and go read it.

Rovin on June 28, 2012 at 7:12 PM

I thought he could have been a little more angry and forceful.

But, what I really think he needs to do is look into the camera and say:

“America, if you don’t like this bill you’ve got one, and only one, chance to do something about it. November is your only chance, after that you will be stuck with this bill and you’ll never get another chance to get rid of it.”

He has to make this crystal clear.

JohnInCA on June 28, 2012 at 6:37 PM

Yeah, but that’s not really him, is it? *sigh*

Here we are with a sh!t sandwich today and a RINO running, but what can we do with it? Give up or double up our efforts?

I hope he does what you say.

kim roy on June 28, 2012 at 7:14 PM

Levin is on a rant about George Will’s article.

GrannyDee on June 28, 2012 at 7:11 PM

Yep, and he’s 100% correct. There’s just no nice way to spin this. We had a huge victory. We had Obamacare killed, totally. And Roberts went liberal activist on us and figured out a way to save it.

TarheelBen on June 28, 2012 at 7:15 PM

Levin is on a rant about George Will’s article.

GrannyDee on June 28, 2012 at 7:11 PM

Yep, and he’s 100% correct. There’s just no nice way to spin this. We had a huge victory. We had Obamacare killed, totally. And Roberts went liberal activist on us and figured out a way to save it.

TarheelBen on June 28, 2012 at 7:15 PM

Totally killed. And Roberts found a unconstitutional way to breathe life back into O-Care.

I am so stunned, there are not enough words to explain my feelings.

GrannyDee on June 28, 2012 at 7:18 PM

Uh-huh, and those IRS powers are pulled out of thin air and placed into the existing law?

cozmo on June 28, 2012 at 7:12 PM

Why not? Roberts pulled the idea that the mandate is really a tax out of the nether regions of his a$$.

NotCoach on June 28, 2012 at 7:20 PM

I understand and agree with what you are saying. I just don’t know why you’re taking an issue with conservatives who are disappointed in this ruling. We have been sitting here powerless, suffering under this Marxist dictator for the last three and half years and we can’t have one g*dd*mn day to vent about it when a conservative justice is the deciding vote to uphold Obama’s largest powergrab?

Kataklysmic on June 28, 2012 at 7:06 PM

So you’ll get back on the horse tomorrow? ;)

kim roy on June 28, 2012 at 7:21 PM

WE HAVE TO WIN!!!

Preach it, Mark.

GrannyDee on June 28, 2012 at 7:28 PM

If you can afford it, please make a donation to Josh Mandel. He’s running against Sherrod Brown for Senator/Ohio.

GrannyDee on June 28, 2012 at 7:30 PM

Why not? Roberts pulled the idea that the mandate is really a tax out of the nether regions of his a$$.

NotCoach on June 28, 2012 at 7:20 PM

Okay, you stick with that. Its all a big conspiracy, or something.

cozmo on June 28, 2012 at 7:30 PM

http://jobs.joshmandel.com/

Josh Mandel link.

GrannyDee on June 28, 2012 at 7:31 PM

This was my first tweet after I pieced together the news from this morning:

Shorter Supreme Court: “The mandate is legal as a tax. Congress deals with taxes. Go talk to them.” Can’t say I disagree.

Nine hours later, I still feel the same way. SCOTUS dumped this back on Congress, which I think is the last thing in the world that Dems in Congress (or the WH) wanted. Many Dems in Congress had their careers terminated in 2010 because of this bill. Now it’s time to make the Dem Senators who are up for reelection pay the same price.

joejm65 on June 28, 2012 at 7:33 PM

So you’ll get back on the horse tomorrow? ;)

kim roy on June 28, 2012 at 7:21 PM

Kim, I’ve haven’t fallen off the horse. I am voting for the person on the ballot most likely to unseat Obama this November whether it’s Mitt or whether it’s Charles Manson. What this ruling today did is make me stop and reflect on how much we can hope to actually accomplish if we win. Let’s say we get Romney in and get 60 votes in the senate and keep the house and all that. Let’s say they then buck their own histories and govern as conservatives. Then down the line one of our scotus picks decides he’d rather be a hero to the MSM than protect our liberties and hands down another landmark b*tchslap like what he got today. All our efforts and votes and hopes and dreams for naught? Looks that way to me.

Kataklysmic on June 28, 2012 at 7:34 PM

http://townhall.com/columnists/katehicks/2012/06/28/the_roberts_opinion_its_not_all_bad

ObamaCare will only stand if Barry is re-elected. So work to throw him out.

A few days ago, there was a thread about Scalia lamenting the expansion of the usage of Commerce Clause, so it has been cut back in this ruling.

bayview on June 28, 2012 at 6:34 PM

If by “cut back” you mean “circumvented” by the Chief Justice, then, yes. I agree.

I’m still trying to figure out how the Feds can tax you for not buying a product produced by private enterprise.

Spliff Menendez on June 28, 2012 at 7:34 PM

I’m still trying to figure out how the Feds can tax you for not buying a product produced by private enterprise.

Spliff Menendez on June 28, 2012 at 7:34 PM

It’s enough to make me want to drop an 100 pound anvil on my foot so I can ignore the pain from banging my head into a brick wall.

GrannyDee on June 28, 2012 at 7:37 PM

kim roy on June 28, 2012 at 7:21 PM

But yeah, I’m assuming I’ll be less Eeyorish tomorrow (hopefully). The bottom line is I would have accepted this a little better if it had been 5-4 with Kennedy as the deciding vote. The fact that it was Roberts signaled to me that we are in a much more precarious position with scotus than I previously presumed. And that is cause for at least a full day of Eeyorishness ;)

Kataklysmic on June 28, 2012 at 7:38 PM

Not a huge Mark Levin fan but he is most definitely killing it today.

Mike Honcho on June 28, 2012 at 7:39 PM

Make no mistake. Obama might have just been helped out of his muddy dirty ditch but he’s going to lose in November. And so are all of his allies.

Key West Reader on June 28, 2012 at 6:57 PM

How deluded are you?

This was said five times. All five times the “Establishment Candidate” managed to lose. Every single time.

Sure you were one of the many assuring us McCain would win.

Mitt will not win mark my word. Mitt will not win.

When conservative voters get in that booth they will be unable to pull the lever or touch the screen and vote for Mitt Romney the father of Obama Care and man who will keep it in law.

Steveangell on June 28, 2012 at 7:41 PM

Ick. I cannot even watch the President anymore on video, I will have to rely on others to give me a synopsis. He LIED about it being a Tax. He lied at the State of the Union (You lie!) He seems to have lied to his own autobiography.

And I was truly shocked to see that the penalty tax/ while starting out at a meager one percent of some kind of income, rapidly seems to put a surcharge on your taxes if you don’t buy THEIR health care.

It’s over reach.

The Senate dictator is obdurate or we would be thru with this by now.

Fleuries on June 28, 2012 at 7:48 PM

So you’ll get back on the horse tomorrow? ;)

kim roy on June 28, 2012 at 7:21 PM

Kim, I’ve haven’t fallen off the horse. I am voting for the person on the ballot most likely to unseat Obama this November whether it’s Mitt or whether it’s Charles Manson. What this ruling today did is make me stop and reflect on how much we can hope to actually accomplish if we win. Let’s say we get Romney in and get 60 votes in the senate and keep the house and all that. Let’s say they then buck their own histories and govern as conservatives. Then down the line one of our scotus picks decides he’d rather be a hero to the MSM than protect our liberties and hands down another landmark b*tchslap like what he got today. All our efforts and votes and hopes and dreams for naught? Looks that way to me.

Kataklysmic on June 28, 2012 at 7:34 PM

Good. I’ve always enjoyed the pragmatic-ness of your comments and trains of thought.

All this means is that we have to remain diligent and always hedge our bets. There’s never a guarantee. For all intents, Roberts was a conservative and it’s mind boggling that he moved away from that and we may never know what happened.

Some will call me delusional, but I’m going to look at this as a gift. A gift of bringing conservatives together and giving greater clarity to what needs to be done. Giving us a hammer to pound on the liberals – TAX TAX TAX.

The only choice is to continue the fight or give up and I’m unwilling to concede to the liberals, even though it might be a futile endeavor.

But. We don’t know that and as you state our efforts may be for naught; that may be so, but if we give up then we know they will win for sure. :)

kim roy on June 28, 2012 at 7:51 PM

But yeah, I’m assuming I’ll be less Eeyorish tomorrow (hopefully). The bottom line is I would have accepted this a little better if it had been 5-4 with Kennedy as the deciding vote. The fact that it was Roberts signaled to me that we are in a much more precarious position with scotus than I previously presumed. And that is cause for at least a full day of Eeyorishness ;)

Kataklysmic on June 28, 2012 at 7:38 PM

Fair enough. :) Don’t take too long, tho, lots to do.

kim roy on June 28, 2012 at 7:53 PM

Steveangell on June 28, 2012 at 7:41 PM

WTFE moron. I’ll be running to the poll at 0600 election day. Mitt wasn’t my guy, but he ain’t Barack Hussein Obama.

Your concern trolling is extremely transparent and tedious.

tom daschle concerned on June 28, 2012 at 8:13 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4