It’s a tax: Delegitimization isn’t a Supreme Court problem

posted at 12:31 pm on July 1, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Consider this our latest entry in the Great Hunt for Silver Linings series, post-Mandate-mas.  I’ll gather three wise men to muse upon the impact of the Supreme Court ruling, two of whom believe silver linings are easily found — and one of which believes the cloud to be even darker than we realize.  Let’s start with Glenn Reynolds, who moves from his Instapundit home today to argue at the Washington Examiner that the entire ObamaCare arc didn’t delegitimize the Supreme Court, as critics warned — but it did do real damage to the legitimacy other two branches of government:

With the focus on the Supreme Court’s opinion, it’s easy to forget the sleazy way that Obamacare was passed. But the Supreme Court itself points out one key aspect. Though President Obama pooh-poohed the idea that the mandate was a tax, the Supreme Court found that, in fact, it was. In an extended discussion with George Stephanopoulos back in 2009, Obama was adamant …

Obama had to reject that notion, since otherwise Obamacare’s tax increase would have represented a massive middle-class tax increase indeed, and one that violated his promise that families earning less than $250,000 a year would see no tax increases of any kind under his plan. Now the Supreme Court has basically said he lied.

Presidents lie?  That’s not entirely novel, of course, but this was the man who ran on nothing but Hope and Change.  Without that promise of reform, what exactly was Obama’s appeal?  Two years as a Senate backbenchers, preceded by seven years as a backbencher in the Illinois state legislature?  Speaking of legislatures, Congress didn’t exactly cover itself in glory, either:

And if the executive branch’s treatment of Obamacare was characterized by lies, the legislative branch didn’t look any better. Obamacare, remember, was rammed through in the teeth of popular opposition; when the special election victory of Scott Brown meant that Democrats no longer had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, the bill was squeezed through via a “reconciliation” procedure under the fiction that it was a budget bill, not substantive legislation.

Add to that the intense role of lobbyists and special interests in drafting the law, Nancy Pelosi’s famous remark that we’d have to pass the bill to find out what was in it and the rampant vote-buying (remember the “Cornhusker Kickback”?), and we have a process that was dishonest, corrupt and far less legitimate than any conceivable Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare.

So, at the end of the day, the legitimacy question rests not with the Supreme Court, but with Congress and the president.

We may not approach the same level of skepticism about government and the institutions of a democratic republic seen after Watergate, but we’re getting close.  For that, Obama and the Democratic leadership of Congress have only themselves to blame, although Republicans who controlled Congress from 2001-6 and broke their promises for spending restraint and smaller government shouldn’t be let off the hook, either.

Michael Barone, also writing at the Examiner, thinks that the court decision will spark a new energy into the conservative renaissance, now that the only option to opposing ObamaCare is the upcoming election:

Unhappy conservatives grumble that Congress can get around the declaration that a mandate is beyond Congress’ enumerated powers by labeling it a tax — or just by relying on five justices declaring it one.

But there’s usually a political price to pay for increasing taxes. That’s why Barack Obama swore up and down that the mandate was not a tax. It’s why Democratic congressional leaders did not call it one.

Chief Justice Roberts’ decision undercuts such arguments, now and in the future. Members of Congress supporting such legislation will be held responsible, this year and for years to come, for increasing taxes.

The backlash to the “it’s a tax” revelation will be instructive, if one takes shape in any significant form.  If not, the lessons might not be learned at all, but if it does, it will — as Barone says — make a great argument against Democrats in Congressional elections for years to come, and certainly in this one.  But more importantly, Barone argues, ObamaCare has pushed the pendulum of public opinion firmly away from big government, which had its own brief renaissance in the panic following the crisis in 2008:

Obama followed the New Deal historians in portraying history as a story of progress from minimal government to big government and in arguing that economic distress would make Americans more supportive of big government policies.

The unpopularity of Obamacare and the stimulus package have proven the latter assumption wrong. Most Americans are skeptical about the supposedly guaranteed benefits of centralized big government programs.

Finally, let’s look once more to the judiciary.  David Bernstein at SCOTUSblog acknowledges that conservatives lost when the court upheld ObamaCare on tax-power grounds.  He sees this as a last gasp of liberalism, though, with the court signaling a transition towards a conservative, limited-government approach — assuming that Mitt Romney wins the election:

Now that the Court has voted 5-4 to uphold the ACA, I want to suggest a different historical analogy, also focusing on 1936.  What if the Court’s ACA decision, like the Court’s controversial 1936 ruling invalidating a state minimum wage law, turns out to the last gasp of a dying constitutional regime? …

As important, the ACA litigation shows that ideas once deemed beyond the pale in “respectable” legal circles have now become mainstream among elite conservative lawyers.  Indeed, though the individual mandate was upheld, the five conservative Justices expressed a willingness to put real, substantive limits on the scope of the Commerce power (Lopez and Morrison were easily evaded). The five conservatives, plus two liberal Justices, also endorsed substantive limits on the Spending power, the first time such limits were applied to Congress since the 1930s.

Like the other Justice Roberts in the 1936, the current Justice Roberts unexpectedly voted with a 5-4 majority to continue the old regime.  But while the Justices continued to dance in 1936, the music had died.  Not only did the first Justice Roberts soon become a consistent vote to uphold New Deal legislation, but a series of FDR appointments unleashed a wave of liberal jurisprudence that ultimately went far beyond the Progressives’ original goal of keeping the courts out of economic matters.

The conservatives on the Court have already rewritten the constitutional law of campaign finance, sovereign immunity, and more, but only tenuously with five vote majorities.  A 7-2 or better majority would expand those rulings, but, more important, expand conservative jurisprudence into areas not currently considered in play.  What would happen to the Contracts Clause with a 7-2 conservative majority? Could vouchers for religious grade schools become  mandatory, not just permitted?  What powers now denied to the states would be allowed, and what powers now allowed to the federal government would be denied? Or maybe disputes between more “activist” and less “activist” Justices, and between libertarian-leaning and more authoritarian conservative woulds mimic the infamous Douglas-Black-Frankfurter debates of the early Warren Court.  The Old regime would be overthrown, but progress toward affirmative conservative goals for an indefinite period of time.

We can only hope, but this points out the urgency of winning this next election.  Not only is the only and final opportunity to repeal ObamaCare, but the direction of the court over the next few decades does hang in the balance.  If by upholding ObamaCare the court changed the political dynamic and put Mitt Romney on the path to victory by enraging and engaging Tea Party activists, and if a President Romney gets a couple of conservative jurists on the Supreme Court, then Bernstein might well be correct.  But the only way to get to the only silver lining from this decision is at the ballot box — which may be the best outcome for a democratic republic anyway.

Reason TV’s Nick Gillespie interviewed Peter Suderman on Thursday, who also found some silver linings:

 


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

He really doesn’t think the Court should ever throw out an entire 2,000 page law just because two clauses are unconstitutional. It is Congress’ job to go back and fix it.

If you go back and read Roberts’ opinion, you can easily see it reading exactly the same had it tossed the mandate and the Medicaid expansion but kept the rest of the law.

So in my mind, we have Anthony Kennedy to thank for this result, not John Roberts. We could have gotten the mandate tossed, but Kennedy would not agree to keep the rest of it.

rockmom on July 1, 2012 at 1:06 PM

When the two unconstitutional clauses in a law are inextricably linked to the rest of the law, then it is appropriate to strike the entire law (regardless of how long or convoluted the law is, or how many tricks and deceits and bribes were necessary to ensure its passage). That is a basic canon of statutory construction. Even Verrilli admitted that if the mandate was struck, other parts of the law would need to be struck too, as they were never intended to function separately. It was not the Court’s job to go through the bill section by section to try and determine which parts of the law might conceivably be sustainable without the mandate and Medicaid expansion.

Courts try to save as much of a law as they reasonably can, but it is not their job to re-write poorly written laws. Kennedy did the right thing by refusing to sever.

But I do agree with one part of your comment: Roberts’ uppermost concern was upholding the law, and if he had to violate canons of construction, or engage in blatant illogic to achieve that end, he was willing to do it, and he did – to his shame.

AZCoyote on July 1, 2012 at 1:54 PM

For those who say the Commerce Clause language in the majority was NOT the holding of the court but merely dicta please explain why Ginsburg who was in the majority wrote a Dissent against the CC holding. Second for those who said Roberts switched his vote before the ruling was announced, who ever said Justices can’t change their minds before the ruling is announced? Heck they can change their minds over the course of their careers in different written opinions. If we (and all our sides best public spokesman) waste time between now and November on analyzing this opinion, that is time not spent on beating Obama and the Senators who voted for it. Focus on the goal, all else can wait til after November 6.

txmomof6 on July 1, 2012 at 1:55 PM

Schadenfreude on July 1, 2012 at 1:48 PM

Since the SC is not very popular with a lot of folks right now, especially Justice Roberts, I sent that link to Romney to suggest he might want to remove this from his website:

Mitt will nominate judges in the mold of Chief Justice Roberts

Flora Duh on July 1, 2012 at 1:57 PM

This has dual meaning, and can be a plus for either side…consider it carefully and do your thing:

It must be considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful of success, or more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of things. For the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by the old order and only lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit by the new order…

said Machiavelli

Schadenfreude on July 1, 2012 at 1:58 PM

Okay… help me understand. Most of you agree with 0bama? You think the money you’ll have to pay to the IRS for failing to buy health insurance isn’t a “tax”?

TitularHead on July 1, 2012 at 1:05 PM

Apparently, they do agree with Obama because the most important thing now on the Right is to trash John Roberts.

Glenn Reynolds is right – John Roberts just called Obama a liar, and did it in a way that makes Obama completely unable to respond to that.

rockmom on July 1, 2012 at 1:10 PM

Yep. The BO administration argued in court that it’s a tax. http://hotair.com/archives/2010/07/18/nyt-obama-wh-will-argue-obamacare-mandate-is-a-tax/ Roberts threw BO’s duplicity in his face.

Syzygy on July 1, 2012 at 1:58 PM

Flora Duh on July 1, 2012 at 1:57 PM

Good on you. I saw in the past few days that Mitt had even mentioned this in the past.

———-
Unrelated, it should never be the aim of the SC to be popular. They are not a beauty contest; they are the frickin’ SC of the USA! Or so one would still think.

Schadenfreude on July 1, 2012 at 1:59 PM

Roberts threw BO’s duplicity in his face.

Syzygy on July 1, 2012 at 1:58 PM

No, he didn’t.

In the SC hearings the OafAdmin argued “tax” one day and “not tax” the next, or in reverse, as they needed it to be good for the item at hand. Some justices even laughed at them at the time. It should have been enough for Roberts to see the charlatanry, alas.

Schadenfreude on July 1, 2012 at 2:03 PM

The bottom line is that Roberts gave Congress carte blanche to grab even more power from the states and the people. There is no silver lining.

hillbillyjim on July 1, 2012 at 2:06 PM

Roberts to Congress: ‘Do your job. We will not do your dirty work for you.’
Roberts to Obama: ‘You lie!’

Roberts to the People: “I know it hurts, but stop whining, put on your big boy/girl pants, and vote the bastards out.”

idalily on July 1, 2012 at 2:07 PM

But I do agree with one part of your comment: Roberts’ uppermost concern was upholding the law, and if he had to violate canons of construction, or engage in blatant illogic to achieve that end, he was willing to do it, and he did – to his shame.

AZCoyote on July 1, 2012 at 1:54 PM

+ 54 million…in Nov. at a minimum.

Schadenfreude on July 1, 2012 at 2:07 PM

There is no silver lining.

We are not just back to where we were before there ever was a court challenge to the constitutionality of the mandate. Roberts decided to rule that mandates are okay by him if created the right way. And even though Congress did not do it the right way he gave them a pass.

No one asked the Supreme Court if mandates can be created using Congressional taxing power. The Supreme Court was asked to rule if Obamacare as written was constitutional. It isn’t. Five justices including Roberts said so.

Yet Roberts ruled that it is anyway, because in his opinion the mandate is a tax. And, by the way, why yes, of course, mandates can be created using Congressional taxing power.

This is supposed to be some kind of victory for conservatism and the principle of limited government? Just how stupid do they think we are? Pretty stupid apparently.

farsighted on July 1, 2012 at 2:09 PM

So in my mind, we have Anthony Kennedy to thank for this result, not John Roberts. We could have gotten the mandate tossed, but Kennedy would not agree to keep the rest of it.

rockmom

Keep engaging in those silly mental gymnastics you seem to find necessary to justify Robert’s ridiculous decision.

xblade on July 1, 2012 at 2:09 PM

Roberts has given us a gift and a reminder.

The reminder: we the people hold our future in our own hands.

The gift: That which we hate is a revenue raising tax. Taxes are special in that they are decided by the part of government closest to the people SO THE PEOPLE CAN SPIT IN THEIR FACES AND THROW THEM OUT if they dare impose a tax we don’t want. Roberts also let the entire world know that our President and the Democratic Congress MISLED US about the mandate. It’s there in the opinion: essentially our President lied to us. Thus we know WHO THE BUMS ARE!

We also have Citizen’s United. Though the rules are the same for all of us, the forces that want less government intrusion are much more likely to donate this cycle.

The Supreme Court has made it easier for us to win in November.

So let’s stop complaining and DO IT.

MaggiePoo on July 1, 2012 at 2:09 PM

Roberts to Congress: ‘Do your job. We will not do your dirty work for you.’
Roberts to Obama: ‘You lie!’

…but I made it constitution for you to lie, Mr. President, you the biggest Liar in all of History.

Roberts to the People: “I know it hurts, but stop whining, put on your big boy/girl pants, and vote the bastards out.”

idalily on July 1, 2012 at 2:07 PM

This goes without saying, and without insulting the good people who can hold two big concurrent thoughts in one R/conservative head. The inability to do so is a purvue of the inane leftists (there’s a repeat in here).

Schadenfreude on July 1, 2012 at 2:09 PM

If there is any conservative renaissance, then it is too little, too late. Does anyone really think anything MEANINGFUL will take place outside of a bloody rebellion and destruction of the country at large?

We are doomed to live the lives of peasants forever arrested to a government broke decades ago. A life of perpetual misery and anguish, where we are scared into silence from dissent and debate.

The bad guys won. We lost.

The US as we knew it finally died Thursday. It can never be brought back.

(Sorry, but it may be best to out-AP AP here)

Myron Falwell on July 1, 2012 at 2:12 PM

The US as we knew it finally died Thursday. It can never be brought back.

Myron Falwell on July 1, 2012 at 2:12 PM

Coward.

MaggiePoo on July 1, 2012 at 2:16 PM

Coward.

MaggiePoo on July 1, 2012 at 2:16 PM

Re-read the last line.

(Sorry, but it may be best to out-AP AP here)

That I have to admit it was sarcasm (albeit, heavily morbid sarcasm) destroys the humor inherent.

Geez.

Myron Falwell on July 1, 2012 at 2:19 PM

The US as we knew it finally died Thursday. It can never be brought back.

(Sorry, but it may be best to out-AP AP here)

Myron Falwell on July 1, 2012 at 2:12 PM

Realistically you should prepare for this, for the sake of you and family.

Idealistically, even if there is only 1% of idealism left in all the apathy, you should go to the barricades one more time in Nov., for the sake of throwing most from the congress out. They are all charlatanic swine, with apologies to the good clean critters.

After that it will still not be glorious. The demise will just be slowed down, unless the House/Senate and the presidency are taken away from Pelosi/Reid and the biggest destroyer of them all. Even in the latter and not assured of all outcomes, the cancer of the crooks and the looters/moochers will have to ‘treated’. It’s really tough but remember “it’s for the children”, in this case for real, in earnest.

Schadenfreude on July 1, 2012 at 2:19 PM

It’s a Tax, it’s a penalty. Whatever. We could refer to all taxes as penalties, and no one would care. Right? I mean, if every time the word “tax” was changed to a derivative of the word “penalty” on your 1040, do you think you’d even notice? I doubt it.

Besides, this is just a war on free-riders, right? Can #occupy be far behind?

BKeyser on July 1, 2012 at 2:21 PM

That I have to admit it was sarcasm (albeit, heavily morbid sarcasm) destroys the humor inherent.

Geez.

Myron Falwell on July 1, 2012 at 2:19 PM

I understood your ribbing of AP, and that is something he proudly lives. However, on serious note, your comment was closer to reality than sarcasm. It’s really a huge mountain to climb.

Schadenfreude on July 1, 2012 at 2:21 PM

Myron Falwell on July 1, 2012 at 2:12 PM

I’m glad you weren’t an adviser to General Washington.

Flora Duh on July 1, 2012 at 2:21 PM

I’m glad you weren’t an adviser to General Washington.

Flora Duh on July 1, 2012 at 2:21 PM

Great lady, look into – this is a great dude…read about him.

Schadenfreude on July 1, 2012 at 2:22 PM

I understood your ribbing of AP, and that is something he proudly lives. However, on serious note, your comment was closer to reality than sarcasm. It’s really a huge mountain to climb.

Schadenfreude on July 1, 2012 at 2:21 PM

Agree 1000%.

Myron Falwell on July 1, 2012 at 2:23 PM

farsighted on July 1, 2012 at 2:09 PM

News for you. The federal government has always been allowed to create a mandate through taxes. How do you think taxes were collected prior to the amendment which gave us an income tax?

The limitation has only been that the tax must be assessed equitably across the states.

Whether you like it or not, it has always been so and the only recourse against taxation is the threat of voting the bums out.

Roberts gave us something else. If the government lies to you about a tax not being a tax, you do not have to wait until the tax is actually paid before you can fight it in court.

MaggiePoo on July 1, 2012 at 2:24 PM

We have a lot of experts on Con Law and the Supreme Court here at Hot Gas. Who knew?

I’m surprised so few favor the simplest of explanation, that Roberts did what appellate judges are supposed to do, in accord with long-standing rules of statutory construction and appellate jurisprudence. I just don’t see any evidence of reasoning backward from a desired conclusion in his opinion, or putting the ruling in service of a political agenda.

Roberts construed the law in accordance with its consequences as opposed to its labels. He made his ruling on the narrowest possible grounds. In the process, limits were placed on the government’s authority that weren’t there before, which is good.

Obamacare stands, which is not good, but it isn’t the court’s job to remediate bad legislation and bad policy that included massive tax increases misrepresented by its supporters.

We have to take responsibility for the jackasses we have been sending to DC for decades. Period.

novaculus on July 1, 2012 at 2:24 PM

The bottom line is that Roberts gave Congress carte blanche to grab even more power from the states and the people. There is no silver lining.

hillbillyjim on July 1, 2012 at 2:06 PM

yeap. The SCOTUS simply continued its process it started in the 1930′s to kill the idea of self rule and install a central government that controls every faucet of our lives. The decarlation of independence comes to mind since this is the holiday we are suppose to celebrate our freedom or in our case what is left of it:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

unseen on July 1, 2012 at 2:27 PM

novaculus on July 1, 2012 at 2:24 PM

The sad thing is, with precious few exceptions, they are all jackasses.

Cindy Munford on July 1, 2012 at 2:27 PM

Roberts to Congress: ‘Do your job. We will not do your dirty work for you.’
Roberts to Obama: ‘You lie!’

Roberts to the People: “I know it hurts, but stop whining, put on your big boy/girl pants, and vote the bastards out.”

idalily on July 1, 2012 at 2:07 PM

In a nutshell, that is it.

novaculus on July 1, 2012 at 2:28 PM

Coward.

MaggiePoo on July 1, 2012 at 2:16 PM

Re-read the last line.

(Sorry, but it may be best to out-AP AP here)

That I have to admit it was sarcasm (albeit, heavily morbid sarcasm) destroys the humor inherent.

Geez.

Myron Falwell on July 1, 2012 at 2:19 PM

I read it as AP not being pessimistic enough. Sorry for misunderstanding, but your last line was not perfectly clear to me.

MaggiePoo on July 1, 2012 at 2:28 PM

Great lady, look into – this is a great dude…read about him.

Schadenfreude on July 1, 2012 at 2:22 PM

On that I have no doubt. But the “we’re doomed, we’re finished” comments have been outweighing the “we’re Americans, we will overcome this” comments for 4 days now.

It’s become tiring and more than a little disheartening. Especially on what is considered one of the most conservative blogs on the internet. One that was started by none other than Michelle Malkin no less.

Flora Duh on July 1, 2012 at 2:30 PM

‘Toon of the Day: Progressive Freedom

http://predicthistunpredictpast.blogspot.com/2012/07/toon-of-day-progressive-freedom.html

M2RB: Don McLean

Resist We Much on July 1, 2012 at 2:30 PM

No action or decision occurs in a vacuum. Part of what this all means (one could argue most) in the long game is up to us. But, it was always up to us, even had the Court done the right thing. We still would have needed to win in November and continue the TP revolution of 2010.

Having said that, CJ Roberts’ decision was, is, and will always be wrong. He will never be borne out to be some 11th dimensional sage judicial wizard on this decision no matter what happens, no matter how we proceed. He could have gotten all of these “silver linings” were just as attainable had Roberts joined the four dissenters. He could have said, written and accomplished all of the same things and, AND, thrown the statute back to Congress to rewrite as a tax and been right all the way around. If the conservative electorate happens to bail him out in the short term, it still doesn’t change how wrong he is.

And for what? I’m not so cynical (barely) to think it’s only about how he is perceived by the elite. But, something had him grasping at straws to uphold this abortion of a law.

I continually come back to one conclusion about “conservative” leadership; they do not really believe things are bad, that we’re on the edge of the abyss, and that liberalism is squeezing the last gasps of freedom out of America. They do not believe we are teetering on the edge of implosion and ultimately the dustbin of history. Why can I say this? Because they continue to fail to act in a manner that is consistent with someone who does. They continue to barter, trade, negotiate and proceed in a business as usual manner that betrays their words of urgency. We saw the same in the debt ceiling vote. What’s another trillion or two, right?

CJ Roberts showed up at a house ablaze in flames, the fire department (Congress) and the police department (President) are not only already there, they started the blaze and have no interest in stopping the destruction. Roberts could have grabbed a hose and brought the whole thing under control, at least for now. Instead, he made a grand speech, lamenting the incompetence of both the FD and PD, but alas, he is only the building inspector, so it’s not his job. But by gosh, I bet the FD and PD do the right thing the next time a house is burning.

The Hammer on July 1, 2012 at 2:33 PM

And any tax can always be repealed via reconciliation.

Rixon

And can be put right back in by a future Congress. And please don’t say future congresses will be afraid to do that because it will be a tax increase. Despite what some are saying, there are plenty of taxes on the books proving that congress has little real concern when it comes to increasing and creating new taxes.

Furthermore, even if a future congress doesn’t put the individual mandate-tax-mandate-tax back in, the rest of the law is still in effect. There is plenty of destruction in this bill apart from the individual mandate.

There is no silver lining here. America was handed a huge defeat on Thursday, and it’s likely one we will never overcome.

xblade on July 1, 2012 at 2:34 PM

News for you. The federal government has always been allowed to create a mandate through taxes.

MaggiePoo on July 1, 2012 at 2:24 PM

The constitutionality of imposing of federal taxes for doing nothing but breathing had never before been tested in the Supreme Court. Now it has and Roberts ruled it is okay.

farsighted on July 1, 2012 at 2:35 PM

Flora Duh on July 1, 2012 at 2:30 PM

I like ‘our’ side hopping mad. I want ‘our’ side to go into the booth with tea more strong and bitter than any other. Nov. 6 will not be close, no matter what the polls say until then.

Schadenfreude on July 1, 2012 at 2:36 PM

Unrelated, it should never be the aim of the SC to be popular. They are not a beauty contest; they are the frickin’ SC of the USA! Or so one would still think.

Schadenfreude on July 1, 2012 at 1:59 PM

Yes, one would think, but Roberts just blew that to smithereens with Thursday’s ruling.

He has just shown for all time how fundamentally unserious and callous he is, all for the fleeting approval — and it will be fleeting — of a group of unserious people who are deadly serious about one thing and one thing only: depriving everyone but themselves of freedom.

PatriotGal2257 on July 1, 2012 at 2:37 PM

Question , and I ask as someone really serious about it :
How can we get rid of John Roberts, if he does not reverse himself and resign ?

burrata on July 1, 2012 at 2:42 PM

Realistically you should prepare for this, for the sake of you and family.

Idealistically, even if there is only 1% of idealism left in all the apathy, you should go to the barricades one more time in Nov., for the sake of throwing most from the congress out. They are all charlatanic swine, with apologies to the good clean critters.

After that it will still not be glorious. The demise will just be slowed down, unless the House/Senate and the presidency are taken away from Pelosi/Reid and the biggest destroyer of them all. Even in the latter and not assured of all outcomes, the cancer of the crooks and the looters/moochers will have to ‘treated’. It’s really tough but remember “it’s for the children”, in this case for real, in earnest.

Schadenfreude on July 1, 2012 at 2:19 PM

I only argued about this whole debacle with one person. Part of it is on my Twitter account already linked, but we debated further elsewhere.

She (a mutual friend for 10 years) is at the near opposite of the political spectrum as I am (although I can’t identify myself as a ‘true conservative’ for honesty’s sake … maybe more of Goldwater in his later days).

The ideological gulf is massive, and I must say, too massive to overcome. So many “educated” people talk about the “spirit of compromise” and “dialogue,” as if it’s supposed to mean something. But when both sides are so far apart, and cannot come to grips with the possibility that their side could be flawed (I think I can safely speak for her, as well as myself) there is no compromise unless one side capitulates. But you and I know that already.

I won’t argue that the health care system was messed up. BUT… HOW it got that way, and WHY this was a bad deal will never be understood. That it’s supposed to be for the good of our children for the Feds to take over something they should have no business in doing. (And that’s Roberts’ fatal flaw with his awful opinion, and why we should STOP thinking that there was ANY silver lining with this piece of dog poo.)

I, like AP, live in an area dominated by Democrats – with failing economies and depressed regions – and while my state (and that same region) voted overwhelmingly to reject Obamacare (in the same election where Dems and public unions hijacked Gov. Kasich’s agenda by repealing S.B. 5) this region will never get it. In many ways, I feel like I’m in held hostage, unable to really express my beliefs.

There are many times I wish I had the speaking ability of Reagan. Or that any of us can. Closest ones are Rush, Levin, Palin, Rand and Rubio… may they continue to fight the good fight, even when we are too badly broken and beaten and want to give up.

Myron Falwell on July 1, 2012 at 2:42 PM

The sad thing is, with precious few exceptions, they are all jackasses.

Cindy Munford on July 1, 2012 at 2:27 PM

Just as sad, if not sadder, is that we elelcted the jackasses and it has taken us reaching the brink of disaster to get us to pay attention. We have been fat and happy and just let the ticks suck the blood out of us until suddenly we realize we are anemic and diseased nearly to death.

It is real class warfare, not the preposterous myth of Marxist class war but the Productive Class against the Political Class and its dependents, the Parasite Class. We must win, starting with Romney and a Republican Senate this fall.

novaculus on July 1, 2012 at 2:42 PM

Remember that four Supreme Court Justices — Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito — did not agree with Roberts’ ruling.

For chrissakes Kennedy, the guy everyone was worried about, wanted to toss all of Obamacare as unconstitutional. How many thought that would be his position?

Now we have conservatives and Republicans arguing that those four justices are wrong, that Roberts is right, and that those who do not like Roberts ruling just do not understand how great it is.

I agree with Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito

farsighted on July 1, 2012 at 2:43 PM

I agree with Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito

farsighted on July 1, 2012 at 2:43 PM

I do as well. Obamacare is unconstitutional, plain and simple.

PatriotGal2257 on July 1, 2012 at 2:46 PM

Question , and I ask as someone really serious about it :
How can we get rid of John Roberts, if he does not reverse himself and resign ?

burrata on July 1, 2012 at 2:42 PM

Sitting jurists could be impeached (and forcibly removed) by the Legislative Branch.

But in truth, this decision on its’ weight would not be enough to merit such a removal. Even as horribly written as it was, and what the net result of it became.

Myron Falwell on July 1, 2012 at 2:47 PM

Just as sad, if not sadder, is that we elelcted the jackasses and it has taken us reaching the brink of disaster to get us to pay attention.

novaculus on July 1, 2012 at 2:42 PM

Sadder still, a little known governor tried to warn us 4 years ago about the danger of electing the head jackass. But instead of heeding her warning, she was scorned and ridiculed by many in her own party.

Flora Duh on July 1, 2012 at 2:47 PM

Sadder still, a little known governor tried to warn us 4 years ago about the danger of electing the head jackass. But instead of heeding her warning, she was scorned and ridiculed by many in her own party.

Flora Duh on July 1, 2012 at 2:47 PM

Yup.

And, sometimes, they did so with as much zeal as odious socialists like Bill Maher.

Myron Falwell on July 1, 2012 at 2:51 PM

We must win, starting with Romney and a Republican Senate this fall.

novaculus on July 1, 2012 at 2:42 PM

And make sure they don’t fall into the same habits of those who proceeded them. We have forgotten that eternal vigilance is our duty.

Cindy Munford on July 1, 2012 at 2:51 PM

Myron Falwell on July 1, 2012 at 2:42 PM

Good fellow, make sure the other side “capitulates” :)

If not, they will make sure that you do.

I understood all other which you wrote, and indeed it is late and hard. My 1% non-apathy wants to still believe in what the USA was, or is supposed to be/mean.

If not, may DARK, in the way of Ayn Rand dark, be upon all of them. I have begun to starve the, in earnest.

Schadenfreude on July 1, 2012 at 2:53 PM

Schadenfreude on July 1, 2012 at 1:59 PM

Roberts may not realize it yet, since now he’s apparently in the Left’s good graces, but for every one of us in flyover country, nothing that comes out of his mouth will be taken seriously ever again. He’s the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. So? He’s just demonstrated that he is casting his lot with the worst of the worst pandering politicians and thus is not worthy of one shred of respect from anyone.

PatriotGal2257 on July 1, 2012 at 2:54 PM

Now we have conservatives and Republicans arguing that those four justices are wrong, that Roberts is right, and that those who do not like Roberts ruling just do not understand how great it is.

farsighted on July 1, 2012 at 2:43 PM

Yep. It’s just amazing in its stupidity. Alleged conservatives think they are going to get some leverage by accepting and now forcefully arguing that the feral government does, indeed, have the right to slap individual mandates on the citizenry and to do it by the newfound concept of taxing inaction. I would say that I couldn’t believe that I was hearing this except that we went through much the same thing with the eligibility issue. Alleged conservatives wanted to ignore the Constitution in that instance, too, and were jumping ugly on any of us who wanted the issue, at least, resolved in court (though we can now see what a farce that would have been, anyway).

I said it during the election of 2008, when conservatives start publicly calling for the Constitution to be ignored then, as the only defenders of the Constitution in this nation, one can be assured that the Constitution will be destroyed. That eventuality has come to pass. There is no more Constitutionality, as even these same “conservatives” are arguing that everything comes down to elections – a Democracy. Yay!

Oh well. America had a good run. I only hope we can eject the Indonesian slime and then split this nation peacefully. It’s clear that we have too many America-hating leftists to possibly continue in any reasonable way. That is without doubt. And if we are reduced to the Ochlocracy of nothing but elections mattering, then the next major financial crisis (and it is coming hard and fast, as the Fed has over $3 trillion to suck back out of the system, as well as lots of long-term bonds to “untwist”) the AMerican Socialist Superstate will finally go full retard. We’re only 70% retard, right now, though 100% Superstate.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on July 1, 2012 at 2:54 PM

“Common sense”

Schadenfreude on July 1, 2012 at 2:56 PM

Question , and I ask as someone really serious about it :
How can we get rid of John Roberts, if he does not reverse himself and resign ?

burrata on July 1, 2012 at 2:42 PM

Impeachment. Jurists must maintain “good Behaviour” in order to remain on the bench and Benedict Roberts has most certainly violated that ten ways from Sunday. But we would need politicians with courage to do that … so …

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on July 1, 2012 at 2:56 PM

Look at how the NYT’s is whining this morning:

MANY state and local governments, universities and nonprofit agencies build their operations around federal financing. If the federal government can deny them additional money only when it adds conditions the recipients must meet, it will be hamstrung in ensuring compliance with critical federal objectives. For example, the government gives grants on the condition that recipients will not discriminate on the basis of race, sex and disability. If Congress adds sexual orientation to the list — which seems likely at some not-too-distant point — must it maintain existing financing for groups that defiantly persist in discriminating against lesbians and gay men?

A 2000 law requires state prisons and local jails that get federal funds to accommodate inmates’ religious practices. But those facilities received money long before the law was passed. Can the government credibly threaten to cut off funds to facilities that violate the law, or are its enforcement tools now limited?

In less-noticed opinions, the court also curbed federal power in important ways. It rejected the government’s view that drug company representatives should be entitled to overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act. It seemed poised to severely restrict Congress’s ability to give private plaintiffs the right to enforce consumer protection laws, unless they could show direct economic injury. (On the final day of the term, the court said it wouldn’t decide the case after all.)

In another health care case, the court refused to permit state workers to sue for violations of their right to take sick leave for themselves under the Family and Medical Leave Act. A 5-to-4 majority ignored evidence that although the act uses a gender-neutral leave model, it was designed in significant part to protect childbearing women against pervasive employment discrimination.

In the fall, the court will have further opportunities to advance the conservative agenda. It will almost certainly decide cases involving voting rights, race-conscious affirmative action and same-sex marriage. Three cases involving federal environmental law are already on the docket. And even before the court struck down Montana’s century-old ban on corporate political spending, there were already a slew of new challenges to campaign finance regulations working their way toward the court.

What, then, to make of the court’s landmark decision to uphold the individual mandate? Chief Justice Roberts construed the mandate not as a requirement that individuals purchase health insurance but as a choice: buy insurance or pay a tax. But the conservatives surely know that a Congress that can tax but not do much else — spend money, regulate the economy or enforce civil rights — will be hamstrung. Taxes are unpopular and nearly every Republican member of Congress has promised to oppose any additional taxes on individuals or businesses.

A Congress that can advance national priorities only through its taxing power is a Congress with little power at all. That is the real legacy of the last term. The Supreme Court has given Americans who care about economic and social justice a reason to worry this Fourth of July. The court’s guns have been loaded; it only remains to be seen whether it fires them.

Resist We Much on July 1, 2012 at 2:57 PM

and thus is not worthy of one shred of respect from anyone.

PatriotGal2257 on July 1, 2012 at 2:54 PM

Understood…but he might soon get rid of “Affimative Action” and the likes…the leftists will then spit snakes, like Michelle O. does, most all days.

Schadenfreude on July 1, 2012 at 2:58 PM

RWM, you great lady, thanks for the good work, pro bono as it is.

Ayn Rand sends her respect. She’s mad in her grave, but proud of you, for the light and the dark.

Schadenfreude on July 1, 2012 at 3:00 PM

But there’s usually a political price to pay for increasing taxes. That’s why Barack Obama swore up and down that the mandate was not a tax. It’s why Democratic congressional leaders did not call it one.

I’m confused. Who besides Republicans ever pay a political price for increasing taxes? And once they’re raised why is it always so much harder to lower them and those who advocate for that always seem to pay an even higher political price for that?

Cleombrotus on July 1, 2012 at 3:00 PM

The arc of the universe is long and it bends toward tyranny.

You can quote me.

MAC1000 on July 1, 2012 at 3:02 PM

And make sure they don’t fall into the same habits of those who proceeded them. We have forgotten that eternal vigilance is our duty.

Cindy Munford on July 1, 2012 at 2:51 PM

I wonder as to how much we had forgotten prior to 2009.

Do we even know as to how far behind we are on this? In the search for a “silver lining,” and pondering whether this was a maneuver on Roberts’ part (which is just silly), are we not able to see how much of a crippling defeat this was for federalism and state’s rights?

The Constitution is not hard to read. If there was actual enforcement of its’ principles (and there hasn’t been since 1933) we wouldn’t be this far on the road to bankruptcy and ruin.

Our side (the one for repeal of the ACA) is winning. Victory for Mitt is quite probable.

But the long-term is something we really need to take hold of. This won’t end with just elections. It has to be the honest discussion and spreading of our view out to those who reject conservatism. It’s by actually combating the universities and colleges indoctrination camps, aiding the followers of Breitbart in going after and finishing off the MSM, and doing what needs to be done the most: setting the movement that it can flourish in spite of those who want to kill it off.

Only by accepting how much we NEED to do, can this be done. Without the worst-case scenario of a bloody rebellion.

Myron Falwell on July 1, 2012 at 3:03 PM

I agree with Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito

farsighted on July 1, 2012 at 2:43 PM

I think that’s pretty universal with conservatives. Most all of us wish Roberts would have joined with Kennedy, et al.

He didn’t. Some of see some logic in the Roberts majority opinion, even if it wasn’t out first choice. Those folks, are now trying to explain that: it could have been worse. If Roberts or Kennedy would have joined the liberals and found that Commerce Clause gave Congress the authority to mandate, it would have been much worse.

(Note: Don’t forget, it was Scalia who expanded Necessary and Proper/Commerce Clause in Gonzales v. Raich.)

The second thing folks are trying to communicate is that the decision should be used to further the conservative movement. There are practical and political reasons characterizing the mandate as a “tax” may prove useful. Reconciliation is one of those.

I don’t think any conservative really liked the decision. However, I think a reasoned person could find some silver linings in the dark pile.

TitularHead on July 1, 2012 at 3:03 PM

Flora Duh on July 1, 2012 at 2:30 PM

Perhaps Patrick Ishmael could post a special edition poll to see where the Hot Gas community stands on the silver lining concept?

wolfsDad on July 1, 2012 at 3:03 PM

But in truth, this decision on its’ weight would not be enough to merit such a removal. Even as horribly written as it was, and what the net result of it became.

Myron Falwell on July 1, 2012 at 2:47 PM

I think that his THIS very ” opinion” and the motivation behind his
” decision” should be merit enough for his removal, starting with a bunch of legal experts questioning him on live TV about what Roberts ” thinks” about going against his job-description , Obama’s defense attorney , the Constitution and public opinion ?
I remember Newt saying something about such hacks in the judiciary, where the heck is he now ??

burrata on July 1, 2012 at 3:04 PM

Schadenfreude on July 1, 2012 at 2:58 PM

Good. Let ‘em. I want to see them take even more fits.

Reading the NYT quote above from Resist We Much, it seems that they’re not very happy because Roberts framed it as a tax, and everyone knows those evil Republicans are against raising taxes.

PatriotGal2257 on July 1, 2012 at 3:05 PM

There’s a silver lining if you want to see one and not if you don’t. Like with most of life.

I remember Newt saying something about such hacks in the judiciary, where the heck is he now ??

burrata on July 1, 2012 at 3:04 PM

People said he was loony and a “loose cannon” for criticizing the court. Imagine that.

alwaysfiredup on July 1, 2012 at 3:07 PM

As much as I hate all the things this administration has done to us, the thing that makes me the saddest is they way they have made the White House so classless.

The way they are peddling for campaign funds has to be the lowest
I have ever seen.

Barred on July 1, 2012 at 3:08 PM

Thanks for approving my links, HotAir- I realized after I posted (above) that 4 links in one post looks an awful lot like spamming. I’ll keep that in mind next time.

BKeyser on July 1, 2012 at 3:08 PM

There are practical and political reasons characterizing the mandate as a “tax” may prove useful.

TitularHead on July 1, 2012 at 3:03 PM

No, there aren’t. To accept that you can now be “taxed” for inaction holds no upside, whatsoever. I will argue to my dying day against this offensive notion. If you are dying to call ObamaCare’s mandate a “tax” then you need look no further than the administration’s own argument in court. You don’t have to accept that insane notion, just point out that they argued it, themselves.

I will NEVER accept the idea that these sorts of penalties (for not doing something) are “taxes”. NEVER. And you shouldn’t either, But you can still argue that they THEY argued that it was. You don’t need the Court’s opinion for that. Chris Wallace didn’t read Benedict Roberts’ opinion in his interview of that miserable piece of sh!t Lew – he played the administration’s OWN words in that retard Verilli arguing that it was a tax. That should be enough if you want to make the argument that THEY imagine it as a tax.

But these penalties are not taxes and never will be. And an individual mandate on Americans from the feral government is un-Constitutional and downright un-American. Period.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on July 1, 2012 at 3:09 PM

We have forgotten that eternal vigilance is our duty.

Cindy Munford on July 1, 2012 at 2:51 PM

Yes.

I think a lot of the anger is over the top, but it doesn’t bother me the way the doomsaying does. The battle to retake control of the government has just begun, and if we gain the upper hand, the battle won’t end.

Ranting wastes energy. Whining defeatism is worse; it saps the will to fight.

Para bellum.

novaculus on July 1, 2012 at 3:10 PM

The bottom line is that Roberts gave Congress carte blanche to grab even more power from the states and the people. There is no silver lining.

hillbillyjim on July 1, 2012 at 2:06 PM

Well I don’t know if it’s a silver lining but I think in presenting such a goofy ruling that even most of our government educated young adults understand how silly and selfserving it is. He single handedly (or will as time goes on and people feel the effects) destroyed the large goodwill most people hand in the SC.

whbates on July 1, 2012 at 3:12 PM

People said he was loony and a “loose cannon” for criticizing the court. Imagine that.

alwaysfiredup on July 1, 2012 at 3:07 PM

IIRC, even Ann Coulter insulted him for that .
Wonder what she has to say now ?
It’s time to play those tapes of Newt in campaign videos

burrata on July 1, 2012 at 3:13 PM

But there’s usually a political price to pay for increasing taxes. That’s why Barack Obama swore up and down that the mandate was not a tax. It’s why Democratic congressional leaders did not call it one.

Well, yes and no. It wasn’t as much fear of political price as much as it was the Obama adminsist rations stock in trade, which is deceit in order to further their agenda.

There is scant evidence that Liberals fear political prices. If they fear anything it’s exposure but that’s fast becoming a running joke. They know that if they’re patient enough they’ll eventually get everything they want.

There is never a rollback to Progressive successes.

Cleombrotus on July 1, 2012 at 3:15 PM

People said he was loony and a “loose cannon” for criticizing the court. Imagine that.

alwaysfiredup on July 1, 2012 at 3:07 PM

People got ticked at Newt for taking the Occupooper leftist side in that idiotic attack on Bain. I don’t recall anyone caring about Newt criticizing the Court. I think your memory is terribly mistaken. Newt went weirdo left for some odd reason. Way left. ANd Perry jumped on for the ride. That was the problem he ran into.

I, for one, was incredibly ticked because Newt would have been our strongest candidate (once Bachmann had been tossed aside by the “conservative intelligentsia”). Newt would have been a great conservative candidate, but he went totally nuts and lefty in the primary. It wasn’t because he criticized the Court. That’s silly.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on July 1, 2012 at 3:17 PM

A simple video which explains that under the constitution the tax may be invalid. http://themorningspew.com/2012/07/01/is-obamatax-invalid/

bloggless on July 1, 2012 at 3:18 PM

Without the worst-case scenario of a bloody rebellion.

Myron Falwell on July 1, 2012 at 3:03 PM

Way to avoid the HA mill :)

Schadenfreude on July 1, 2012 at 3:18 PM

Ranting wastes energy is human. Whining defeatism is worse; it saps the will to fight.

Para bellum.
novaculus on July 1, 2012 at 3:10 PM

Psychology101

Schadenfreude on July 1, 2012 at 3:20 PM

We have a lot of experts on Con Law and the Supreme Court here at Hot Gas. Who knew?

novaculus on July 1, 2012 at 2:24 PM

You might be surprised.

AZCoyote on July 1, 2012 at 3:21 PM

“Consider this our latest entry in the Great Hunt for Silver Linings series…”

You’d think since the majority of conservatives are buying into the Eeyore nonsense, you’d be a little more polite to the few of us who are brave or stupid enough to swim against the tide.

I’m getting really tired of this attitude from the conservative majority that those who part ways from their sky is falling meme are Pollyanna-like naifs. Very freaking tired.

ConservativeLA on July 1, 2012 at 3:23 PM

The constitutionality of imposing of federal taxes for doing nothing but breathing had never before been tested in the Supreme Court. Now it has and Roberts ruled it is okay.

farsighted on July 1, 2012 at 2:35 PM

I’m seeing this a lot, and I am wondering: does anyone think it is unconstitutional that you have to pay more income tax if you don’t have a mortgage on your house? If you do not marry, you pay more tax. If you do not have children, you pay more tax. Single people and childless couples pay way more taxes, for doing nothing.

rockmom on July 1, 2012 at 3:25 PM

Myron Falwell on July 1, 2012 at 2:42 PM

Good fellow, make sure the other side “capitulates” :)

If not, they will make sure that you do.

Schadenfreude on July 1, 2012 at 2:53 PM

That I understand wholeheartedly.

I can’t guarantee that I may ever be able to sway her (this was probably only the second or third time I’ve argued politics with her to begin with) but will try to give the best effort I can. Such arguments may be inevitable over the next few months, but is est quis is est.

This makes it even more difficult because I have been friends with her for a long time. But after a while (the exchange continued outside of Twitter; mainly, the 140 character limit annoyed me), I watched Reagan’s Time for Choosing speech on YT… and it was what this tired soul needed.

And this invites the other main difference. Liberals think with emotion, conservatives with reason. I can’t conceive of any potential benefits that could exist with Obamacare when the risks of the loss of personal liberty are too much to bear.

Just keep me in your thoughts and prayers that I can keep up the good fight.

Myron Falwell on July 1, 2012 at 3:26 PM

I’m getting really tired of this attitude from the conservative majority that those who part ways from their sky is falling meme are Pollyanna-like naifs. Very freaking tired.

ConservativeLA on July 1, 2012 at 3:23 PM

Agreed. But one thing blogs are really good for is giving people a place to vent. This decision hurt a lot because it was unexpected. You didn’t see people wailing and rending garments as much about the Arizona ruling because it wasn’t a big surprise.

rockmom on July 1, 2012 at 3:27 PM

I remember Newt saying something about such hacks in the judiciary, where the heck is he now ??

burrata on July 1, 2012 at 3:04 PM

People said he was loony and a “loose cannon” for criticizing the court. Imagine that.

alwaysfiredup on July 1, 2012 at 3:07 PM

.
.
.
.
…Hang in there Newt…!!!

KOOLAID2 on July 1, 2012 at 3:29 PM

Congress that can advance national priorities only through its taxing power is a Congress with little power at all. That is the real legacy of the last term. The Supreme Court has given Americans who care about economic and social justice a reason to worry this Fourth of July. The court’s guns have been loaded; it only remains to be seen whether it fires them.

Resist We Much on July 1, 2012 at 2:57 PM

A Congress which wants to raise taxes, OUT!!!

Schadenfreude on July 1, 2012 at 3:30 PM

Rockmom,

Don’t confuse “enticements” with “penalties”.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on July 1, 2012 at 3:30 PM

Though I’ve not had the chance to read Robert’s opinion on the Obama Care debacle, I believe I heard that Roberts wrote – and four other Justices concurred – that Congress enacted the will of the people with the passage of Obama Care. Those five citizens, though they sit on the most powerful bench in the judicial system, couldn’t be more wrong. The will of the people is that which is expressed in the Constitution and not what the current demagogued desideratum might be! If anything not granted Congress to legislate is the will of the people, it must be made possible for Congress to enact such law via an amendment to the Constitution.

I’m ashamed of the Court for expressing and acting upon such drivel. I’m ashamed of the rest of us – myself included – for allowing this debacle to stand as the law of the land. We reap what we have sewn, and we reap the weeds we allow to grow as well. I’ve had a bitter taste in my mouth since the Court vomited out this decision. I wonder how many of us will swallow…

I hope that made you gag.

George Washington, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796:

“The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, ’till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole of the People, is sacredly obligatory upon all.”

Woody

woodcdi on July 1, 2012 at 3:31 PM

Liberals think with emotion, conservatives with reason..

Just keep me in your thoughts and prayers that I can keep up the good fight.

Myron Falwell on July 1, 2012 at 3:26 PM

On the former, don’t be so sure :)

On the latter, of course! Also, on the latter, you can do so much. After that they really are the enemy.

Schadenfreude on July 1, 2012 at 3:33 PM

rockmom on July 1, 2012 at 3:25 PM

All those still make it wrong, good lady.

Schadenfreude on July 1, 2012 at 3:34 PM

Linking the Great One , totally worth the 10 1/2 mins :
http://www.therightscoop.com/mark-levin-calls-out-ann-coulter-for-unfairly-trashing-newt-gingrich/

burrata on July 1, 2012 at 3:35 PM

It’s way too late to focus your anger on Roberts, focus it on Obama instead. After all it’s obama’s decisions that brought us here in the first place.

You’ll just be playing into the Left’s hands if you heap it all on the Supreme Court. Just like we’ve allowed the liberals to blame Wall Street and the Banks for the financial crisis and let the government off the hook.

Focus on the battle ahead, not the last one.

MaggiePoo on July 1, 2012 at 3:38 PM

Schadenfreude on July 1, 2012 at 2:58 PM

Understood…but he might soon get rid of “Affimative Action” and the likes…the leftists will then spit snakes, like Michelle O. does, most all days.

Yeah, he might rule against a couple of provisions of the Voting Right Act that make Southern states get permission from the Justice Department for anything to do with elections. Maybe. OK, probably not.

But he can also say that the proper way to achieve the purported goals of the VRA is for Congress to impose a tax on the inhabitants of any district covered by the VRA that does not reserve 50% of any elected offices for official “oppressed minorities”. And as things stand now, he may rewrite the law from the bench to do just that. Who is to gainsay him? And how?

To trust in the allegiance of either Roberts or the court system to the Constitution is an act of faith too far. It would be like reinstating Benedict Arnold as Commandant of West Point after the British had surrendered at Yorktown.

Subotai Bahadur

Subotai Bahadur on July 1, 2012 at 3:40 PM

I think the “it’s a tax and will haunt the dems in November” argument is wanting for three reasons: 1. There is nothing inconsistent with the dems arguing that the SC got the result correct but the reasoning wrong. People argue that way about court decisions all the time. I’ll bet Ed M. has done it more than a few times in his career. 2. There is only one out of nine Justices on the SC who thought that the ONLY WAY the mandate could be upheld is as a tax; four others thought it could be upheld under the CC and four found it unconstitutional. Why do the dems have to buy into Roberts’ sole reasoning? 3. Ask people around you who are voters but aren’t down in the weeds about this stuff like readers of HA are: they likely will have no idea what you’re talking about when you launch into the SC opinions on Obamacare. All the average swing voter will know in November is that the thing was ruled not unconstitutional by a Republican-dominated SC.

jdp629 on July 1, 2012 at 3:41 PM

Glenn Reynolds is right – John Roberts just called Obama a liar, and did it in a way that makes Obama completely unable to respond to that.

rockmom

And he doesn’t have to….his signature piece of legislation is now the law of the land, and democrats have been handed the victory they’ve been seeking for 100 years. Call him a liar all you want, it matters not at this point.

If if SCOTUS had overturned ObamaCare, Obama would have a real good arrow in his quiver to use with independents that he needs be be re-elected to protect the people from an activists conservative court. The Dems were gearing up big time for this possibility. Roberts pulled that arrow away. So yes, the SCOTUS decision does help Romney get elected.

CaliforniaRefugee

If that’s going to be your argument, then maybe we should make sure Romney loses the election, because if he wins, the dems will be motivated to win in 2014 and 2016. If only we keep losing, eventually victory will be ours!

If Obama is re-elected, he will pack the Supreme Court with liberal justices. And then, it’s over for the conservative cause for at least a generation.

Holding Obamacare unconstitutional is nothing compared to that. Roberts took a calculated risk to ignite the electorate so that Obama is defeated. If that happens, Obamacare is repealed, and conservatism prevails with the Supremes.

The quote is a call to action.

ultraloser

Your theory is a call for mental help. It’s just complete nonsense. You don’t win by losing. Robert’s just waived off a slam dunk for the win, and folks like you are claiming victory because he gave us a way to win with a full court hail mary. If anything, his ruling just legitimized the Obama administration, and likely saved his presidency. And then, all those things you are concerned about will STILL come to pass, and Obamacare will be the law of the land as well.

xblade on July 1, 2012 at 3:41 PM

So, basically, all thee branches of our federal government twisted the truth, distorted the plain meaning of words, and broke the rules in order to shove a bill unpopular with the voters down their throats.

Doesn’t exactly give me hope for the future of the republic.

Socratease on July 1, 2012 at 3:42 PM

We really could use some well-crafted ads on Obamaspeak: what he says and what it really means.

obladioblada on July 1, 2012 at 3:46 PM

Schadenfreude on July 1, 2012 at 3:20 PM

The occasional rant is not unusual. That fact doesn’t invalidate what I said. It is a waste of energy, defeatism is even worse.

Para bellum!

novaculus on July 1, 2012 at 3:46 PM

I’m seeing this a lot, and I am wondering: does anyone think it is unconstitutional that you have to pay more income tax if you don’t have a mortgage on your house? If you do not marry, you pay more tax. If you do not have children, you pay more tax. Single people and childless couples pay way more taxes, for doing nothing.

rockmom on July 1, 2012 at 3:25 PM

I was on a little tablet before and couldn’t answer in full.

Once again, you are confusing enticements for action with penalties for inaction. This is the same stuff the left does by saying that it’s unfair that high earners should get more off their taxes if they donate to charity (as their tax deductions come at higher rates, as their tax rates are higher).

THis sort of argument is totally unacceptable. It is the same thing Barky argued in that he was “lowering taxes” by giving welfare through the IRS – i.e. taxes weren’t being lowered but people who didn’t pay taxes were actually getting cash. That is not “lowering taxes” in anyone’s book.

This is the road you are headed down (quite a ways down, already). I would strongly advise you to stop and think about what you are arguing. You are in an area that I will never, ever, ever support. You are mangling the language. You are adopting the arguments of the left – with their insane “spending reductions in the tax code”. Benedict Roberts opened up all of these lines of arguments – because he’s a retarded azzhole. Don’t follow him into that hell. You will not have many who support your mangling of English, especially when they see where it all leads and how the left has been DYING to get us down that insane path for some time.

You need to step back and think very, very carefully about what you think you are arguing. Take a lot of time to make sure you want to continue on this path.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on July 1, 2012 at 3:46 PM

There are practical and political reasons characterizing the mandate as a “tax” may prove useful.

TitularHead on July 1, 2012 at 3:03 PM

No, there aren’t. To accept that you can now be “taxed” for inaction holds no upside, whatsoever.

Heck, we can go round and round on this one forever. Of course the government can tax you for inaction. They always have. How about the estate tax, or death tax? They can tax you for not breathing. I don’t like it… but I don’t pretend they can’t do it under Article 1, Section 8.

Call it whatever you want: assessment, cost, custom, due, duty, excise, expense, fine, imposition, levy, obligation, tariff, tithe, toll, or tribute… when you’re forced to give your money to the government by the Internal Revenue Service it’s a tax.

Now there are advantages to limiting the Congress to only “taxing” and not “mandating”. Taxes will be harder to pass than other bills. 0-care would not have passed, if Dems would have had to acknowledge it was a tax. That’s a political advantage for conservatives in the future.

Immediately, it’ll only take 51 votes to repeal it in the Senate through reconciliation. That’s better than 60.

Yeah, it’s a big pile of poo, but I’m telling you, there’s may be silver in that pile.

TitularHead on July 1, 2012 at 3:50 PM

I think the “it’s a tax and will haunt the dems in November” argument is wanting for three reasons:

1. There is nothing inconsistent with the dems arguing that the SC got the result correct but the reasoning wrong. People argue that way about court decisions all the time. I’ll bet Ed M. has done it more than a few times in his career.

2. There is only one out of nine Justices on the SC who thought that the ONLY WAY the mandate could be upheld is as a tax; four others thought it could be upheld under the CC and four found it unconstitutional. Why do the dems have to buy into Roberts’ sole reasoning?

3. Ask people around you who are voters but aren’t down in the weeds about this stuff like readers of HA are: they likely will have no idea what you’re talking about when you launch into the SC opinions on Obamacare. All the average swing voter will know in November is that the thing was ruled not unconstitutional by a Republican-dominated SC.

jdp629 on July 1, 2012 at 3:41 PM

100% agree.

BoxHead1 on July 1, 2012 at 3:51 PM

Yeah, it’s a big pile of poo, but I’m telling you, there’s may be silver in that pile.

TitularHead on July 1, 2012 at 3:50 PM

It reminds one of Ronald Reagan’s beloved pony story.

Schadenfreude on July 1, 2012 at 3:57 PM

I am anxiously awaiting the resurgence of William Temple and the Tea Party.

Fallon on July 1, 2012 at 3:59 PM

Yeah, it’s a big pile of poo, but I’m telling you, there’s may be silver in that pile.

TitularHead on July 1, 2012 at 3:50 PM

Also, a platinum/gold/silver sprayed horseturd wreath is still made of caca.

Schadenfreude on July 1, 2012 at 3:59 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3