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

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.

I agree with the general thrust here, but the fact that Congess and the Administration insisted that this was not a tax, wrote such into the legislation, read such into the Congressional Record, and so argued ad nauseum to the public at large – AND EVEN WITH ALL THAT the SC still ruled it not unconstitutional due to the taxing power – says to me that the Court has handed future Congresses and Presidents an ideal way to pass stealth taxes. Call them mandates; say they aren’t taxes; and let the SC save your bacon. The beauty is this: They don’t even have to pass taxes anymore to raise taxes!

What a country.

jdp629 on July 1, 2012 at 3:59 PM

Without that promise of reform, what exactly was Obama’s appeal?

I never saw a flicker of appeal to Ofibber, promise or no promise of reform. I still can’t figure out what the blank was wrong with my own family and friends who voted for him, some of whom are likely to again–but then we live in loony IL.

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

Let’s clarify that–the legitimacy question rests with the DEMOCRAT Congress and the DEMOCRAT President who forced this ObamascareTAX behemoth on us through such incredibly corrupt, insidious and ignorant means.

As for the silver linings consolation prizes, I don’t care about any of it right now. I’m sure it’s going to take a long, long time to make sense out of this ruling, if that ever can be done. Right now the only thing that matters is tossing the Dooms out of power everywhere and in every way possible, and taking back and scaling back this government.

stukinIL4now on July 1, 2012 at 3:59 PM

Schadenfreude on July 1, 2012 at 3:57 PM

Ah… Ronald Reagan. The eternal optimist.

There must be a pony in there somewhere!

TitularHead on July 1, 2012 at 4:02 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

I would actually be more than willing to pay for a ticket to sit in on Roberts’ explanation to Congress with both Scalia and Kennedy present as well to ask questions. Best show in the land that day, make it this decade and probably longer, bar none, and Roberts being exposed for the legal hack that he is. I’d bet on lots of bumbling, silence and stuttering on his part since there is absolutely no logic in his decision. legal or otherwise. A judge cannot create a tax where there is none. Period. End of story. You want to treat it as a tax? Great, send the law back to Congress and make it re-write the law to mention tax.

Roberts’ impeachment would serve well for all future SCOTUS judges. Rule by law or be fired. No expections and rule of law HAS to be applied to SCOTUS, they are not gods.

Funny how so many realize and understand now what Newt was saying all along. Where are all the idiot GOP pundits now that they were proven what they are.

We need to get rid of political activism in courts, once and for all.

riddick on July 1, 2012 at 4:04 PM

… No exceptions …

riddick on July 1, 2012 at 4:06 PM

the SC still ruled it not unconstitutional due to the taxing power – says to me that the Court has handed future Congresses and Presidents an ideal way to pass stealth taxes.

jdp629 on July 1, 2012 at 3:59 PM

I see it just the opposite. I think future Congresses will have to acknowledge such, fines, penalties, levies, mandates, etc. are simply taxes now.

Of course, they’ll try to spin it, and the media will cover. But it’ll be harder. The fig leaf should be gone now.

TitularHead on July 1, 2012 at 4:08 PM

TitularHead on July 1, 2012 at 4:08 PM

I hope you are correct.

jdp629 on July 1, 2012 at 4:13 PM

I don’t care what you call it – a penalty, a tax, whatever – individual liberty hangs by a thread after last Thursday’s decision.

TarheelBen on July 1, 2012 at 4:13 PM

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

True dat.

Myron Falwell on July 1, 2012 at 4:18 PM

The fig leaf should be gone now.

TitularHead on July 1, 2012 at 4:08 PM

Sure … just as the exposure of the pseudo-science and lying behind catastrophic evil-human global warming stopped that leftist push …

Our EPA is STILL citing discredited hack-science in order to kill industry. Still. And Barky and the left haven’t backed off the idiocy of “carbon pollution” (LOL) one little bit – even after the fig leaf was removed and their lack of any privates, at all, was clearly demonstrated to the public.

I don’t see where you get these ideas that the left ever feels bound by logic or reason. They have no such constraints. The same way the EPA is continuing on its global warming jihad future Congresses will continue on their same course. I have history – and CURRENT EVENTS – to back up my point.

And, besides, the mandate penalty is STILL not a tax. Period. Beanballs are still not strikes, no matter how the ump calls them. And Barky’s idiotic ideas about “reduce spending in the tax code” is still a flat lie and his idea that he’s “lowering taxes” by issuing cash credits to people who don’t pay federal income tax is still a lie (even though these checks are being issued by the IRS).

I don’t know what you think you’re defending. I really don’t.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on July 1, 2012 at 4:19 PM

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

I just love people who react emotionally while claiming rationality. Not. There are dozens of ways to analyze this ruling and putting them all together results in BOTH positive and negative future outcomes.

In the end it is our will that matters. The outcome, either way, is not guaranteed. That is why it is going to be difficult of course.

I’m beginning to think some conservatives and some libertarians are lazy and inflexible. I want to be proven wrong.

MaggiePoo on July 1, 2012 at 4:27 PM

In the end it is our will that matters.

MaggiePoo on July 1, 2012 at 4:27 PM

That’s a Democracy, where the whims of the People are the Supreme Law. We used to have a Constitutional Republic, where the whims of the People are constrained by the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land.

To so blithely yield Constitutionality in favor of a democratic course is something that I cannot understand. But, it’s clear that that’s what we now have, which is why Benedict Roberts effectively killed off what little was left of the United States and gave formal birth to the American Socialist Superstate.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on July 1, 2012 at 4:30 PM

Leading the charge: Gov. Scott Says Fla. Won’t Comply with Health Care Law

“Florida is not going to implement Obamacare. We are not going to expand Medicaid and we’re not going to implement exchanges,” Scott’s spokesman Lane Wright told The Associated Press on Saturday. Wright stressed that the governor would work to make sure the law is repealed.”

Perhaps CJ Roberts has ensured this whole ball of illegal mandates (etc.) has now become uneforceable.

E.g.: if I don’t have access to an ‘affordable’ exchange, and I fall into that segment which would have been included in an expanded medicaid pool (which was the basis for taxing lower income citizens to buy insurance/otherwise be covered in the first place), how can a tax assessment be valid or enforceable?

Perhaps Roberts has ensured OTax, for all practical purposes, is dead.

Opinionator on July 1, 2012 at 4:31 PM

“The people never transfers its powers to a king so completely but that it reserves to itself the right of receiving back this power”

St Bellarmine

marinetbryant on July 1, 2012 at 4:38 PM

To so blithely yield Constitutionality in favor of a democratic course is something that I cannot understand. But, it’s clear that that’s what we now have, which is why Benedict Roberts effectively killed off what little was left of the United States and gave formal birth to the American Socialist Superstate.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on July 1, 2012 at 4:30 PM

I am not happy about the ruling either, but this is not really true.

Roberts did not write this bill. He did not even like this bill…the point is that the people still have the power to change this. And that is what our Constitution is about.

Terrye on July 1, 2012 at 4:39 PM

In the end it is our will that matters.

MaggiePoo on July 1, 2012 at 4:27 PM

That’s a Democracy, where the whims of the People are the Supreme Law. We used to have a Constitutional Republic, where the whims of the People are constrained by the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land.

To so blithely yield Constitutionality in favor of a democratic course is something that I cannot understand. But, it’s clear that that’s what we now have, which is why Benedict Roberts effectively killed off what little was left of the United States and gave formal birth to the American Socialist Superstate.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on July 1, 2012 at 4:30 PM

There’s nothing ‘blithely’ about it! It’s our only choice NOW. It doesn’t mean I totally disagree with you, it just means I’m looking forward instead of complaining over something I don’t have a chance of changing at the present time.

MaggiePoo on July 1, 2012 at 4:39 PM

I don’t know what you think you’re defending. I really don’t.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on July 1, 2012 at 4:19 PM

I know you don’t understand. I could explain more, but I doubt it’d help. I hated the Roberts’ decision. I wish he’d gone with Kennedy, and the others.

However, I absolutely understand why Roberts called it a tax. I thought it was a tax from day 1, even before the Stephanopoulos interview. That was my biggest fear during arguments. Although, I figured that, if it was found a tax, they’d punt, until the tax kicked in.

Now that a majority of the Court found it was in fact a tax, we have to deal with that. I think we (conservatives) should use that to our advantage. I doubt I can explain my position any clearer.

TitularHead on July 1, 2012 at 4:40 PM

There’s nothing ‘blithely’ about it! It’s our only choice NOW. It doesn’t mean I totally disagree with you, it just means I’m looking forward instead of complaining over something I don’t have a chance of changing at the present time.

MaggiePoo on July 1, 2012 at 4:39 PM

Okay. I hear you. I don’t think the solution is at hand by election, but I’m still voting for Mittens as there’s nothing else left to me. I don’t hold any illusions about what is to come, though.

TitularHead on July 1, 2012 at 4:40 PM

We are going to continue to strenuously disagree on this. I pointed out the reasons for my position and the examples of why I think yours is untenable. If you feel bound to defend the concept of taxing inaction, then you and I will not see eye-to-eye on any of this. I will continue to issue counterarguments to your posts. I will continue to refuse to accept the left’s concept of “spending reductions in the tax code” as anything less than “raising taxes” and I will not allow them to claim that they are “lowering taxes” by issuing tax credits in cash to those who don’t pay taxes. You will find yourself having to agree with their rhetoric on those issues. Perhaps, then, you will realize the errant nature of your position. Until then, we will be on opposite sides of these issues in our little comment battles, here.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on July 1, 2012 at 4:48 PM

You need to step back and think very, very carefully about what you think you are arguing.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on July 1, 2012 at 3:46 PM

Maybe you should take some of your own advice.

I don’t recall anyone caring about Newt criticizing the Court. I think your memory is terribly mistaken…

…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

Former Bush Attorneys General Call Gingrich Position on Courts ‘Dangerous’

Newt Gingrich’s assault on ‘activist judges’ draws criticism, even from right

George Will Slams Gingrich For “Sinister Radicalism” On Courts

Scott Brown Hits Newt Gingrich Over His War On Judges

Need more?

Flora Duh on July 1, 2012 at 4:55 PM

As Sancho Panza said to the great Man Of La Mancha:

“Take care, sir. Those over there are not giants but windmills.”

TitularHead on July 1, 2012 at 5:00 PM

NOW that OBAMAcare has been determined to be a TAX, and it has attacked the Freedom of Religion by MANDATING ABORTION AND CONTRACEPTIVE COVERAGE by church institutions, I am sure those DemoRats against raising taxes on the middle class and the PRINICIPLED CATHOLICS in the Senate and House will join the REPUBLICANS IN CORRECTING THIS EGREGIOUS ERROR IN REPEALING THE BEAST!
I am sure they know the people will be watching as the small misstatement, or BIG FAT LIE, if you prefer, has been exposed and WE THE WORKING PEOPLE have tired of Higher Taxes, Big Fat Lies and Big FatCat Liars!
We will be watching and we WILL THROW THE LIARS OUT!
One more chance at correction comes July 11!

ConcealedKerry on July 1, 2012 at 5:04 PM

This whole discussion, and specifically the Reynolds and Bernstein comments, only underlines how in fact the legitimacy of the court HAS been degraded (and not just by this absurd ruling).

The degraded state of the electorate and key institutions like academia and what was called the press – themselves pre-requisites for the election of Obama and consideration of such ridiculous and unconstitutional ideas such as the health insurance debacle – are well known to thinking people.

This does nothing to help the SCOTUS’ problem – Reynolds makes no sense at all here. That SCOTUS problem – lawlessness and capricious rulings clearly not founded in law or common sense, and generally counter to the animating principle of limited govt. – is tremendously worsened by this fiasco, even if it started a ways back.

Barone – OK, duh, whatever. The whole point is that electoral swings and episodes are one thing, institutional change is another – especially when that “change” is the collapse of the court as a guardian of the constitution. There’s no reason to have a constitution, or a court as a co-equal branch, if that court just rubber-stamps the most egregious products of the other two branches.

I think the legislative counsels’ offices in the House and Senate, as well as the counsels at Senate Finance and House Ways & Means (assisted always by their friends at Hogan & Hartson, Williams & Connolly, et al) know how to write tax law. Hell, they even understand the well-established constitutional framework within which all tax laws must fit.

Roberts? Not so much. Thus, his atrocity from the bench, which is indefensible in its own terms, and is sheer comedy (of the dark sort) with respect to tax law.

We don’t just have a cretinized electorate and degraded institutions – we even have mediocre pundits.

Electoral outcomes within lawless frameworks have very uncertain importance.

“It’s much more than just the economy, idiot”

“Elections have consequences, though without rule of law, not so much”

IceCold on July 1, 2012 at 5:17 PM

You need to step back and think very, very carefully about what you think you are arguing.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on July 1, 2012 at 3:46 PM

Maybe you should take some of your own advice.

I don’t recall anyone caring about Newt criticizing the Court. I think your memory is terribly mistaken…

…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

Former Bush Attorneys General Call Gingrich Position on Courts ‘Dangerous’

Newt Gingrich’s assault on ‘activist judges’ draws criticism, even from right

George Will Slams Gingrich For “Sinister Radicalism” On Courts

Need more?

Flora Duh on July 1, 2012 at 5:28 PM

If I decide I’m not going to purchase health insurance AND I refuse to pay the penalty/tax, what’s the worst that could happen?

I’ll get sent to some minimum-security country-club jail where I’ll get 3 hots and a cot AND free healthcare, courtesy of a tax-paying Obama voter? And I don’t have to pay any income taxes?

Where do I sign up?

TeresainFortWorth on July 1, 2012 at 5:36 PM

“You lie!”

Hening on July 1, 2012 at 6:05 PM

Okay. I hear you. I don’t think the solution is at hand by election, but I’m still voting for Mittens as there’s nothing else left to me. I don’t hold any illusions about what is to come, though.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on July 1, 2012 at 4:48 PM

After 10 Presidential elections and 20 congressional elections I have to agree that this election may not change anything. But like you say it is what it is and we are left between a rock and a hard place.

chemman on July 1, 2012 at 6:10 PM

The gospel of the Democrats:

get down on your knee’s and worship me
your burden will be heavy and your taxes will crush you.

chemman on July 1, 2012 at 6:15 PM

Former Bush Attorneys General Call Gingrich Position on Courts ‘Dangerous’

Newt Gingrich’s assault on ‘activist judges’ draws criticism, even from right

George Will Slams Gingrich For “Sinister Radicalism” On Courts

Need more?

Flora Duh on July 1, 2012 at 5:28 PM

George Will?

The WaPo?

No one cares what those idiots say about anything. They’re many of the same ones hailing Benedict Roberts’ great strategery on this rape of our Consitution.

If you think they are the voice of conservativism, then fine. They aren’t, though. Newt wasn’t hurt by their idiocy. He was hurt by his own idiotic attack on capitalism.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on July 1, 2012 at 6:22 PM

Roberts blew the chance to rein in the Commerce Clause. Also, after Obama gets reelected, we’re going to have another 60 years of liberal dominance on SCOTUS. That should be enough to finish us off. Thanks John Paul Roberts.

besser tot als rot on July 1, 2012 at 6:26 PM

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.

Sweet. Romney will nominate 3 Justices in the mold of John Roberts, as Romney claims to be his plan, and we’ll have a new era of small government conservatives on the supreme court! Woo Hoo!!! Wait. What?

besser tot als rot on July 1, 2012 at 6:31 PM

George Will?

The WaPo?

No one cares what those idiots say about anything. They’re many of the same ones hailing Benedict Roberts’ great strategery on this rape of our Consitution.

If you think they are the voice of conservativism, then fine. They aren’t, though. Newt wasn’t hurt by their idiocy. He was hurt by his own idiotic attack on capitalism.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on July 1, 2012 at 6:22 PM

Just couldn’t admit you were wrong, could you? So you moved the goalpost to suit your incessant need to always be right about everything.

How about folks here at Hot Air, do they fit your definition of conservatives?

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/12/18/newts-war-on-the-courts/

And I’m not talking about Jazz.

Flora Duh on July 1, 2012 at 6:39 PM

Flora Duh on July 1, 2012 at 6:39 PM

That wasn’t what did in Newt’s primary bid. Your memory is bad. It was his attacks on capitalism, with Perry joining in for some unknown reason.

If you think it was his remarks about the judiciary, then that’s what you think. But that’s not how it happened. It was not a determining factor in the race. The Bain attacks were. They were huge and stupid.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on July 1, 2012 at 6:43 PM

That wasn’t what did in Newt’s primary bid. Your memory is bad. It was his attacks on capitalism, with Perry joining in for some unknown reason.

If you think it was his remarks about the judiciary, then that’s what you think. But that’s not how it happened. It was not a determining factor in the race. The Bain attacks were. They were huge and stupid.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on July 1, 2012 at 6:43 PM

Let’s talk about a bad memory, shall we?

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

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

Nobody implied that’s “what did in Newt’s primary bid. YOU did.

As I said, moving the goalpost to keep from having to admit you made a mistake.

Flora Duh on July 1, 2012 at 6:53 PM

Think this through.

A text search of the document shows that the phrase “secretary shall” appears 1,005 times.

Schadenfreude on July 1, 2012 at 7:05 PM

I am simply stunned by the naivete displayed here. Amongst my favorite Hot Air people.

Justice Roberts should be impeached over this? Anyone who thinks this has even a 1% chance of happening needs their head examined.

The upholding of this travesty was a surprise? Really? Hardly. I said if it passed and got signed we’d be stuck with it way back when. There was no way the USSC was going to keep such an expansion of federal power from happening. No. Way.

And yet many here actually believed we had any chance in this at all. Oh, and calling me an eeyore is just plain stupid. The pundit that mentioned the rulings of the 1930s, and then suggested this was still somehow a win for conservatives wasn’t really paying attention in history class.

As a free country, we’re finished. When the 3 co-equal branches conspire to remove our freedoms, what can we possibly do about it? Nothing. And they’ve been doing this for decades. What did we do about it? Vote? What did it do to reverse, or even slow down this destruction? Again, nothing.

runawayyyy on July 1, 2012 at 7:08 PM

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on July 1, 2012 at 6:22 PM

Something else you should know. In case you haven’t noticed, unlike some people here, I never challenge someone on the accuracy of their comments, unless I can prove their inaccuracy.

Flora Duh on July 1, 2012 at 7:12 PM

What did we do about it? Vote? What did it do to reverse, or even slow down this destruction? Again, nothing. runawayyyy on July 1, 2012 at 7:08 PM

Truth is no longer self evident and the SIX WHOLE PAGES of the constitution are just too much for our politicians to read.

Mojave Mark on July 1, 2012 at 7:23 PM

If you’re not scared now and I’m terrified look at how close it’s going to be for the Senate.

A lot of work yet to do.

MaggiePoo on July 1, 2012 at 7:29 PM

X-blade, thanks for making me put them all in one place.

Congrats, you’ve got your own page now.

Sorry, Progs, But You Really, Really, Really Did Lose The Commerce Clause Argument

(Alternative title: X Doesn’t Mark The Spot)

M2RB: 30 Seconds To Mars

I even gave you a pretty kewl song!

Resist We Much on July 1, 2012 at 7:54 PM

If, as Roberts points out, it isn’t the job of the SCOTUS to save the people from those they elect when they make bad legislation then it also isn’t the job of the SCOTUS to protect the legislators from doing their job to write good legislation and when it is misplaced, poorly done, or not utilizing the proper power to send it back to the legislative branch.

The job of the SCOTUS is to ensure that laws AS WRITTEN are Constitutional and to strike down those that ARE NOT WRITTEN PROPERLY to do that very thing. It isn’t the job of the SCOTUS to save the legislative branch from their OWN PROBLEMS EITHER.

ajacksonian on July 1, 2012 at 7:57 PM

Doesn’t anybody else think this is the stupidest bit of hairsplitting ever? If you’re against the mandate, you’re against the mandate. If you’re for it, you’re for it. Whatever you call the money that uninsured people must pay to the government, it’s the same thing and the same amount. If Obama and Roberts want to split hairs, fine. They have their own jobs to do. And we can all argue about whether it’s a tax for legal/constitutional purposes. That’s legit. But expecting anyone to change their mind regarding the legitimacy of the mandate because somebody pasted a new label on top of the old one is pretty moronic, right?

So I guess Romney’s health care plan turns out to be one of the largest tax increases in Massachusetts history, now, isn’t it? Good luck winning the base with a tax-and-spender at the top of the ticket.

urban elitist on July 1, 2012 at 8:04 PM

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.

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

Are you kidding?!? Legitimacy only counts if someone is reporting its lack. Anyone who (even vaguely) claims that the GOP can win any war of messaging is a fool.

RedCrow on July 1, 2012 at 8:04 PM

So I guess Romney’s health care plan turns out to be one of the largest tax increases in Massachusetts history, now, isn’t it? Good luck winning the base with a tax-and-spender at the top of the ticket.

urban elitist on July 1, 2012 at 8:04 PM

Lol. Well, it was the state of Massachusetts, which is totally constitutional. The federal government doing the exact same thing…not so much.

Are you upset that your tax-and-spend socialist president who promised the idiot masses that they’d see no tax increases whatsoever has increased inumerable taxes, in addition to the the future crippling of medicine in America?

RedCrow on July 1, 2012 at 8:09 PM

Lol. Well, it was the state of Massachusetts, which is totally constitutional. The federal government doing the exact same thing…not so much.

Are you upset that your tax-and-spend socialist president who promised the idiot masses that they’d see no tax increases whatsoever has increased inumerable taxes, in addition to the the future crippling of medicine in America?

RedCrow on July 1, 2012 at 8:09 PM

Apparently five justices of the Supreme Court agree with me: the “tax” is indeed constitutional, so I’ll just ignore your rantings on that regard.

As for taxes, Obama cut my payroll taxes to the tune of, what, three grand a year? I’ll take that.

Oh, and, thanks to Obamacare, my 23-year-old with a pre-existing condition is covered. I’ll take that, too.

urban elitist on July 1, 2012 at 8:21 PM

…But expecting anyone to change their mind regarding the legitimacy of the mandate because somebody pasted a new label on top of the old one is pretty moronic, right?

urban elitist on July 1, 2012 at 8:04 PM

War is peace.

Hatred is love.

Black is white.

Commerce is taxation.

All just labels.

We have always been at war with EastAsia.

ajacksonian on July 1, 2012 at 8:25 PM

Apparently five justices of the Supreme Court agree with me: the “tax” is indeed constitutional, so I’ll just ignore your rantings on that regard.

As for taxes, Obama cut my payroll taxes to the tune of, what, three grand a year? I’ll take that.

Oh, and, thanks to Obamacare, my 23-year-old with a pre-existing condition is covered. I’ll take that, too.

urban elitist on July 1, 2012 at 8:21 PM

My “rantings”? I made one comment. And, five justices of SCOTUS “argeeing with you” is a really big (f’in) deal, since liberal justices always vote their ideology rather than the Constitution. (Give me a contrary example, if I’m wrong.)

Your payroll tax cut? I’m thinking that you’re having fun attributing a bad law of GWB to Odumbo.

As far as your child with pre-existing conditions: I would partially agree. For years, the insurance industry has refused to cover or dropped people who became chronically sick while insured. (That last part is the part that needed legislative interference.) What liberals like you don’t understand is that the problem was caused by government interference in the healthcare industry–a place where they have no legitimate purpose to be.

RedCrow on July 1, 2012 at 8:31 PM

ajacksonian on July 1, 2012 at 8:25 PM

Lovely that you have the same debate skills as a bright high school junior. The difference, of course, is that everyone on the planet knows that, if you’re not insure, you kick in $750. Whether you call it a penalty or a tax — hardly the same contrast as war and peace, by the way — eberyone has been informed what is going on.

Ask Romney about “user fees,” “assessments” and so on, if you want to get all anal-retentive on this.

My “rantings”? I made one comment. And, five justices of SCOTUS “argeeing with you” is a really big (f’in) deal, since liberal justices always vote their ideology rather than the Constitution. (Give me a contrary example, if I’m wrong.)

Your payroll tax cut? I’m thinking that you’re having fun attributing a bad law of GWB to Odumbo.

As far as your child with pre-existing conditions: I would partially agree. For years, the insurance industry has refused to cover or dropped people who became chronically sick while insured. (That last part is the part that needed legislative interference.) What liberals like you don’t understand is that the problem was caused by government interference in the healthcare industry–a place where they have no legitimate purpose to be.

RedCrow on July 1, 2012 at 8:31 PM

I’ll back off on the “rantings.”

Payroll tax xut was part of the Obama stimulus and was pushed through by Obama and the Dems over Republican ojections, as you’ll recall.

Let be be clear, by the way, the pre-existing condition is not at this point traumatic, but is bothersome and could become worse.

The problem of pre-existing conditions is not caused by government interference. It’s caused by the fact that it’s not profitable to provide coverage to sick people, so insurance companies try their best not to do so. Which serves up a dilemma: do we let sick people die in poverty, or do we find a way to provide for them. The idea that the wealthiest society in the history of the earth can’t find a way to do that is troubling.

urban elitist on July 1, 2012 at 8:39 PM

The idea that the wealthiest society in the history of the earth can’t find a way to do that is troubling.

urban elitist on July 1, 2012 at 8:39 PM

You better start worrying, cause your boy in DC is hellbent on making sure that aint the case. The country isn’t wealthy btw. You boy has driven the debt to 16 Tril. Pretty cool!

tom daschle concerned on July 1, 2012 at 8:44 PM

Lovely that you have the same debate skills as a bright high school junior. The difference, of course, is that everyone on the planet knows that, if you’re not insure, you kick in $750. Whether you call it a penalty or a tax — hardly the same contrast as war and peace, by the way — eberyone has been informed what is going on.

urban elitist on July 1, 2012 at 8:39 PM

It is your argument.

I point out the logical fallacy in it.

There are different domains in the sovereign powers granted to each part of government.

CJ Roberts has decided he can switch domains of another branch’s work.

That is not the job of the SCOTUS.

Yet that is what Roberts argues the SCOTUS can now do.

Do you trust a SCOTUS judgment that contains such a problem of logic within it? Do you really think that works out better when the SCOTUS can just change the domain of sovereign power granted to another branch all on its lonesome?

That is your labels switching argument.

I am just pointing out that commerce is not taxation.

Those are different domains of power that is up to the Legislative branch to choose which they invoke. Not the SCOTUS.

You assert it is moronic to be worried about this.

I point out that this is the path to Newspeak and tyranny.

ajacksonian on July 1, 2012 at 8:46 PM

It’s caused by the fact that it’s not profitable to provide coverage to sick people, so insurance companies try their best not to do so. Which serves up a dilemma: do we let sick people die in poverty, or do we find a way to provide for them. The idea that the wealthiest society in the history of the earth can’t find a way to do that is troubling.

urban elitist on July 1, 2012 at 8:39 PM

You’re an idiot. Insurance companies are in a bind. Allowing those with pre-existing conditions to join makes healthcare more expensive to all. Healthy people opt out of healthcare and only bleat about the unfairness of pre-existing conditions when, you know, they actually need healthcare. This goes against the whole point of health insurance. Which, of course, is where you morons jump in to claim that there is some sort of social injustice when people who never even attempted to buy health insurance declare it their right to be covered by those who have been paying into the system all along.

Your ilk are the selfish greedy commies that are destroying this nation. I hate the whole lot of you and can only hope that you end up dying in poverty for expecting others to pay for your healthcare.

Happy Nomad on July 1, 2012 at 8:48 PM

Your ilk are the selfish greedy commies that are destroying this nation. I hate the whole lot of you and can only hope that you end up dying in poverty for expecting others to pay for your healthcare.

Happy Nomad on July 1, 2012 at 8:48 PM

Be happy Nomad. Urban elitist helped elect Robert Mugabe to POTUS to do just that. Some call it unintended consequences, others call it self-destructive tendencies. We’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and chalk it up to him being a common mouth-breathing, low information, generally ignorant democrat voter.

tom daschle concerned on July 1, 2012 at 8:52 PM

Anger, really deep anger I think will make the difference in November. Anger because the public will realize more & more that they were swindled with a lie. For over two years Obama insisted it was definitely not a tax in order to get his bill passed and then essentially sent his Solicitor General to argue before the SCOTUS that it precisely is a tax in order to get it pass SCOTUS. He shows no shame.

Obama essentially told Americans “fooled you again suckers!” And yet he will continue to insult our intelligence by insisting still that he didn’t lie because it is not a tax. He seems to think enough of the American public are either stupid or don’t-care free-stuff pigs, and hence he can get by with about any lie – he’s done so many. I sure hope for our country’s sake that he is delusional.

Chessplayer on July 1, 2012 at 8:54 PM

The problem of pre-existing conditions is not caused by government interference. It’s caused by the fact that it’s not profitable to provide coverage to sick people, so insurance companies try their best not to do so. Which serves up a dilemma: do we let sick people die in poverty, or do we find a way to provide for them. The idea that the wealthiest society in the history of the earth can’t find a way to do that is troubling.

urban elitist on July 1, 2012 at 8:39 PM

Well, my point about the government interference was that the healthcare industry has not been a free market for decades. (Since FDR dipped his wick in the mix.) I’ve read a lot of your comments on HA, so I’m not too confident in persuading you that a true free market (i.e. capitalism) in the industry would drive prices (and costs) down and quality of service up.

And, yeah, the insurance companies don’t want to cover people who get very sick (in expensive ways). It makes sense–they need to be profitable to exist. What was needed from the government was a mechanism to insure that the insurance company did not drop the insured at some point after their becoming sick. NOT the complete takeover (yes, it is) of the healthcare industry.

I hope you’re never very ill under OdumboCare. You’ll see what I’m talking about really quick. (Of course, I think you’ve bragged before about how well-off you are. So you’ll be able to get the care you need. It’s the poor and middle class who will die under OdumboCare.)

RedCrow on July 1, 2012 at 8:56 PM

Oh, and, thanks to Obamacare, my 23-year-old with a pre-existing condition is covered. I’ll take that, too.

urban elitist on July 1, 2012 at 8:21 PM

Your 23 year old didn’t have insurance already?

You must be a bad parent by your own and Obama’s logic to allow such a thing to happen.

profitsbeard on July 1, 2012 at 9:00 PM

To all conservatives battling urban:

(I did not read all of the comments on this thread.)

S/he says:

everyone on the planet knows that, if you’re not insure, you kick in $750. Whether you call it a penalty or a tax

I just saw this, which is really all we need to end the argument. I think that urban elitist doesn’t see that this system will necessarily (and quickly) go bankrupt.

S/he doesn’t understand the damage that will be caused by another multi-billion (or trillion) dollar entitlement.

S/he doesn’t understand the rationing that will be involved in a “cost imbalance” such as this. (Perhaps because it won’t affect him/her.)

Bottom line: Liberals have no understanding of simple economics.

RedCrow on July 1, 2012 at 9:16 PM

Oh, and, thanks to Obamacare, my 23-year-old with a pre-existing condition is covered. I’ll take that, too.

urban elitist on July 1, 2012 at 8:21 PM

Your 23 year old didn’t have insurance already?

You must be a bad parent by your own and Obama’s logic to allow such a thing to happen.

profitsbeard on July 1, 2012 at 9:00 PM

I’m certain she will be dealt with by Emmanuel Ezekiel’s Complete Lives Programme.

She better be productive!

tom daschle concerned on July 1, 2012 at 9:16 PM

Oh, and, thanks to Obamacare, my 23-year-old with a pre-existing condition is covered. I’ll take that, too.

urban elitist on July 1, 2012 at 8:21 PM

Let me guess. Your 23-year-old is an unemployable idiot living in your basement. He/she/it can’t possibly afford health insurance because that entails having an income. You expect others to pay for your brat and I find that offensive. Let he/she/it contribute to society which includes contributing to health insurance before taking from health insurance.

Happy Nomad on July 1, 2012 at 9:39 PM

Well, my point about the government interference was that the healthcare industry has not been a free market for decades. (Since FDR dipped his wick in the mix.) I’ve read a lot of your comments on HA, so I’m not too confident in persuading you that a true free market (i.e. capitalism) in the industry would drive prices (and costs) down and quality of service up.

While I do support some traditional free-market changes to the health care industry — insurance should be treated like income and taxed, for example — the idea that the health care market can be treated as the pork belly market is, is laughable. Ultimatley, you have no choice but to consume health care and — at the same time – you have far less knowledge than you’d need to strike the same bargain that you could strike at a used car dealership.

You may have noticed, by the way, that for all your support of capitalism, it’s socialist countries like France and Canada who have health care as good as ours at half the cost.

Your 23 year old didn’t have insurance already?

You must be a bad parent by your own and Obama’s logic to allow such a thing to happen.

profitsbeard on July 1, 2012 at 9:00 PM

I don’t follow. Our logic, by the way, is that it’s faily common for 23-year-olds not to have insurancem and so we fixed that.

I just saw this, which is really all we need to end the argument. I think that urban elitist doesn’t see that this system will necessarily (and quickly) go bankrupt.

S/he doesn’t understand the damage that will be caused by another multi-billion (or trillion) dollar entitlement.

S/he doesn’t understand the rationing that will be involved in a “cost imbalance” such as this. (Perhaps because it won’t affect him/her.)

Bottom line: Liberals have no understanding of simple economics.

RedCrow on July 1, 2012 at 9:16 PM

Health care is already rationed, by the marketplace. Before Obamacare, 30 million people had no regular access to the system, millions more had inadequate access. Every “socialized” system in the developed world provided greater access to health care than the U.S.

You have no idea what you’re talking about.

urban elitist on July 1, 2012 at 10:04 PM

since liberal justices always vote their ideology rather than the Constitution. (Give me a contrary example, if I’m wrong.)”

Admittedly, I can’t think of many off of the top of my head, but I can give you one:

Justice Breyer and Justice Kagan voted with Roberts and the 4 Conservative Justices that the Federal government could NOT force the states to expand Medicaid by threatening to withhold money to which they were entitled under existing law.

As the New York Times whined today:

For the first time since the New Deal, the court struck down an exercise of Congress’s spending power….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.

OK, that’s my second defence of the Prog Justices this year (joined with them on Kentucky v King) so I’d better go into hibernation before something dreadful happens. Maybe, I should see a doctor….

Resist We Much on July 1, 2012 at 10:09 PM

Before Obamacare, 30 million people had no regular access to the system,

Nope they languished in darkened allies.

I hate your ignorant guts, you puerile, recalcitrant ignoramus.

tom daschle concerned on July 1, 2012 at 10:10 PM

Every “socialized” system in the developed world provided greater access to health care than the U.S.

Hehehehe! You’re adorable.

Health insurance =/= health care

“Access” =/= health care

Recently, private German hospitals offered to take over 1 million patients that had been on waiting lists for over a year if the Coalition government would agree to pay expenses and transportation. Around 30% of cancer and cardiac patients either die outright or become terminal while on the waiting lists for care, surgical procedures, approvals for medication, etc.

Resist We Much on July 1, 2012 at 10:13 PM

You know what is awesome? suicide-tourism. Europe in a nutshell.

tom daschle concerned on July 1, 2012 at 10:22 PM

You may have noticed, by the way, that for all your support of capitalism, it’s socialist countries like France and Canada who have health care as good as ours at half the cost.

urban elitist on July 1, 2012 at 10:04 PM

Ok. This is absolutely ridiculous on its face! You aren’t joking, I’m sure. This is misinformation of the highest order. It’s sewer filth. Sorry, you lose. (And, now I know why I’ve seldom talked to you. :) )

RedCrow on July 1, 2012 at 10:28 PM

On the difference between a penalty and a tax…

If it was a tax implemented using existing federal taxing mechanisms here is how it would work. First, Congress would have to increase everyone’s taxes by $695…every breathing adult. Along with this Congress would say if you have health insurance, however obtained, you can take a $695 tax credit. Paycheck withholding would be adjusted accordingly. If you owed $695 on tax day because you did not adjust withholding and you do not have health insurance, and if you do not pay it then the IRS can come after you with every legal weapon at their disposal. The proceeds would go into general income tax revenue pool. The proceeds would not be not accounted for differently than other general tax revenue. The proceeds would are not be set aside for a specific use. The proceeds would be available to pay any bill the federal government incurred.

That is an income tax increase with an incentive. People with no income would not pay the tax. The $695 is a credit and not a penalty.

If it was constructed this way Congress critters would have to vote on it this way, explain it this way to the electorate, and it would be implemented this way.

However, it written and constructed as a penalty and handled completely differently from how a tax is handled and implemented.
The mechanisms of implementation are different, the method of payment is different, the enforcement of non-payment is different, how the proceeds are accounted for are different, and how the proceeds are used is different.

Words mean things and a “tax” and a “penalty” are two different things even if in the end the bottom line numbers are the same. It matters legally. How revenue is accounted for matters.

What King Roberts has unilaterally declared, without concurrence and agreement from any other justice, is that a penalty is a tax. Roberts has declared the definitions of these two words are equivalent.

Well, King Roberts does not have the power to do that. Penalties will still be called penalties and they will still be handled as penalties and I doubt any court in the land will be bound by King Roberts declaration that penalties are now taxes. If that was the case then a lot of accounting laws and a lot of regulations will have to be changed to implement that change. That is not going to happen.

The GOP may be able to get some political mileage out of calling the penalty a tax, and they may be able to try to repeal Obamacare via reconciliation by calling it a tax, but the Dems will argue that no matter what Roberts says, it is still a penalty.

It is possible this question could end up back before the Supreme Court again because it is not settled just because one Supreme Court justice has said so.

farsighted on July 1, 2012 at 10:29 PM

I don’t follow. Our logic, by the way, is that it’s faily common for 23-year-olds not to have insurancem and so we fixed that.

urban elitist on July 1, 2012 at 10:04 PM

Yeah, in Odumbo’s USA, it’s typical to have 23-year-olds who have no jobs. (Go figure.)

RedCrow on July 1, 2012 at 10:30 PM

Health care is already rationed, by the marketplace. Before Obamacare, 30 million people had no regular access to the system, millions more had inadequate access. Every “socialized” system in the developed world provided greater access to health care than the U.S.

You have no idea what you’re talking about.

urban elitist on July 1, 2012 at 10:04 PM

Rationing in a capitalist system takes place no matter what anyone does. It’s a natural law of economics. (There are simply not enough resources for everyone to have everything!!! Don’t you get this?)

You are a fool. Why is it, do you think, that “rich” Canadians are constantly traveling into the US for operations that they need? Do you think that they like the climate?

You’re a fool, urban elitist. I tried to talk to you, but now I’ve realized my folly. You’re just plain dumb. (Also, I’m dumb for talking to you–that’s over.)

(See, unlike you, I can learn that doing the same sh!t over and over will produce the same results. Hope you have a very hard time in the coming misery. Goodbye.)

RedCrow on July 1, 2012 at 10:37 PM

It’s not a tax. If it is, Congress can do it to us whenever Congress feels like it. Conservatives have got to see the larger picture on this.

J.E. Dyer on July 1, 2012 at 10:47 PM

Rationing in a capitalist ANY system takes place no matter what anyone does. It’s a natural law of economics.

Evening, RedCrow.

Resist We Much on July 1, 2012 at 10:48 PM

It’s not a tax. If it is, Congress can do it to us whenever Congress feels like it. Conservatives have got to see the larger picture on this.

J.E. Dyer on July 1, 2012 at 10:47 PM

Yep. It doesn’t even pass the test that the Court created in City of New York v Feiring decades ago and it fails to resemble any of the 4 taxes permitted in the Constitution.

Miss Me, Yet?

LOL! I mean, what was the point of the last 236 years?

Resist We Much on July 1, 2012 at 10:53 PM

Evening, RedCrow.

Resist We Much on July 1, 2012 at 10:48 PM

Hiya, Resist. Made the mistake of taking urban for a rational person. Oops.

Thanks for the correction. You are, of course, correct. I left the “capitalist” in my words because it’s the best system. If there’s rationing there, it makes sense that there’s rationing everywhere–not that urban elitist would get that.

RedCrow on July 1, 2012 at 10:56 PM

It’s not a tax. If it is, Congress can do it to us whenever Congress feels like it. Conservatives have got to see the larger picture on this.

J.E. Dyer on July 1, 2012 at 10:47 PM

Say goodbye to the Thirteenth Amendment, folks.

RedCrow on July 1, 2012 at 10:58 PM

Resist We Much on July 1, 2012 at 10:53 PM

Listen to this one. You know it, though. But, it’s good.

RedCrow on July 1, 2012 at 11:01 PM

Oh, and, thanks to Obamacare, my 23-year-old with a pre-existing condition is covered. I’ll take that, too.

urban elitist on July 1, 2012 at 8:21 PM

Spell out the pre-existing condition.

itsspideyman on July 1, 2012 at 11:05 PM

Mitt Romney & the GOP are sleeping out this election cycle.
Sorry to say this, but Mitt appears to be a shell of the man he was in 2008.
Next week the House will vote to repeal Obamacare, knowing that it will die in the Senate.

Runawayyy: “As a free country, we’re finished. When the 3 co-equal branches conspire to remove our freedoms, what can we possibly do about it?”

Runawayy you are correct. There is nothing we can do.

Do we think for 1 moment if Romney gets in he’ll repeal Obamacare? Oh, he’d have to if the House remains (R) & the Senate becomes (R) majority… but that’s not going to happen.

Belle on July 1, 2012 at 11:09 PM

I don’t follow. Our logic, by the way, is that it’s faily common for 23-year-olds not to have insurancem and so we fixed that.

urban elitist on July 1, 2012 at 10:04 PM

When I was 23, I had health insurance. So did all my 23-year old friends.

We had jobs.

itsspideyman on July 1, 2012 at 11:09 PM

Spell out the pre-existing condition.

itsspideyman on July 1, 2012 at 11:05 PM

It’s a rare condition called moronii paternica.

slickwillie2001 on July 1, 2012 at 11:28 PM

When I was 23 (mid 1980s) I and all my friends had health insurance and were supporting families. I’m not quite sure when 27 became the new 13-year-old but I don’t like it.

Happy Nomad on July 1, 2012 at 11:28 PM

Spell out the pre-existing condition.

itsspideyman on July 1, 2012 at 11:05 PM

IIRC, the preexisting provision has not taken affect yet. It is tied to the mandate which does not go into affect until 2014.

I could be wrong. But if not someone is not being entirely truthful.

farsighted on July 1, 2012 at 11:31 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

Interesting point – you’ve made me think about some more.
The key and important distinction is that the mandate demands you do something or you pay a tax. The examples you gave are tax breaks you get for performing the encourage action – the mandate is a penalty for not doing something the others are a reward for doing something (there is also an important distinction between a tax deduction and an increase in taxes).

gwelf on July 2, 2012 at 12:27 AM

Never forget that according to the current talking points being spouted by the liberals, we have been going through all of this for 1% of the population.

Cindy Munford on July 2, 2012 at 12:34 AM

Insurance for a ore-existing condition is not
usually insurance any more. Insurance is about pooling risk- not transferring wealth from others to yourself for a cost you are certain to incur.

And the wealthiest nation on earth should be able to pay for it? There are many charitable institutions in America – more than anywhere else – including physicians who are willing to help others at dramatically reduced rates. Our government however is bankrupt. We owe 15 trillion at the federal level trillions more at the state and municipal level, social securitu is full of IOUs and has turned the corner on being solvent on a yearly basis. We’ve already spent our children’s tax revenue trying to fix all of societies ills.

gwelf on July 2, 2012 at 12:35 AM

Can Roberts (and the other affirmative voters) be called before congress to explain his vote?

I’d like to see him (and them) e.g. explain how the HHS rule defining Christian ministries out of existence amounts to a tax.

And then see them all impeached.

Akzed on July 2, 2012 at 1:19 AM

Rush gets it. He really does:

RUSH: I can’t get over this. The National Republican Congressional Committee, the people reelecting House members, they see this as a fundraising opportunity, which I understand it is, but for crying out loud. Here’s this e-mail again: “Friend, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote yesterday, ‘It’s not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.’ He’s right. You may disagree with his decision to uphold Obamacare, but his point still stands.” It’s now up to us. Send us three bucks. Not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.

One way or another the GOP ‘Conservatives’ WILL get your money. Don’t forget to vote for their liberal in November.

DannoJyd on July 2, 2012 at 2:48 AM

We won? Dr.Pangloss is alive and well in “Punditland I’m afraid. And not a word from anyone in the SC or conservative taxaphobes about what we really lost–our very freedom (think IRS enforcing those death panel Czars. Shades of the 1930′s Germany….?)

Don L on July 2, 2012 at 3:52 AM

The more I think about this, the more I like it. We have an election in November. It may be the only time we ever get to overturn a law and make a Supreme Court decision moot at the same time and all we have to do is election COnservative Republicans. I hope people understand that we need a filibuster proof Senate and not just a 50 plus 1 because the Democrats are going to fight tooth and nail.

What Justice Roberts did was give the people a chance to really send the Democrats a lesson. Had he overturned it, the whole election would have been about the court, now the Democrats have to defend this law and it’s going to be fun to watch. I’m really not sure how many people, who are paying for their 26 year olds insurance, are going to vote for Obama because of that, but the benefits do not outweigh the disaster this bill is.

bflat879 on July 2, 2012 at 7:40 AM

The court ruled that the mandatory payment must be assessed the under governments authority to tax, therefore any funds generated by this authority are logically and legally taxes. A penalty is a consequence for some other delinquency and in this case it would be a failure to buy government mandated health insurance which is in fact a tax. Convoluted, yes, but nevertheless it is a tax. The left believes that people are insanely stupid and will believe their “no tax” charade. On the other hand, they managed to get Obama elected so there may be some legitimacy in their belief that many voters are blatantly stupid.

rplat on July 2, 2012 at 7:41 AM

If I recall correctly, ObamaTax was passed with 51 votes, of which several Senators were not elected, but SELECTED and at least 1 senator was fraudulently elected (Stuart Smalley). I also believe there was a traitor cross over too.

The situation will be different in 2013 when it is repealed.

Robert Jensen on July 2, 2012 at 8:10 AM

Let’s hope John Roberts did us a favor but let’s work like hell and pledge our well being and worth to repeal this sucker cause it will then be hard for them to pass anymore social justice issues in the future when they are taxable to the public. Let’s push for a balanced budget Amendment for the federal government while we are at it.

Herb on July 2, 2012 at 9:53 AM

Think about this:

If the “penalty” is a tax, it’s unconstitutional by the simple fact that Obama Care originated in the Senate. ALL revenue bills must originate in the House of representatives(See Article I, Section 7, Clause 1.); to wit:

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.”

Woody

woodcdi on July 2, 2012 at 10:48 AM

The big problem with excusing ObamaCare on the grounds that it’s a tax, is that there is no consensus at all on it being a tax.

The legislators didn’t call it a tax. The White House didn’t call it a tax, until they were desperate to defend it. And several Justices scoffed at the idea that it was a tax.

And of course the Obama administration and campaign will spend the next 5 months insisting that it’s not a tax. Though, strangely, they won’t complain about Roberts allowing ObamaCare.

Now, if there were some teeth in this decision, it would be different. If all concerned had to acknowledge it as a tax or accept the law as overturned, then you would strip them of all pretense and reveal them as hypocrites. But just because Roberts — alone out of all the Justices — called it a tax does not mean that anyone else is required to admit it.

tom on July 2, 2012 at 2:24 PM

But just because Roberts — alone out of all the Justices — called it a tax does not mean that anyone else is required to admit it.

tom on July 2, 2012 at 2:24 PM

Yeah, but since 4 other justices concurred, and it only survived as a tax, it’s officially a tax.

Woody

woodcdi on July 2, 2012 at 4:14 PM

Without that promise of reform, what exactly was Obama’s appeal?

Umm… Policies that

don’t fail

. You remember? The guy ran against “the failed policies of the past”.

So, policies that fail are bad, get yourself some policies that succeed!

(And, if you count policies that pass the SCOTUS–only by being redefined to be what you swore they were not–then he’s got about one, as it has not destroyed the health sector yet–oh and there’s also shooting terrorists in the head–forgot about that one.)

Axeman on July 3, 2012 at 9:28 AM

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 30:

The conclusion is, that there must be interwoven, in the frame of the government, a general power of taxation, in one shape or another.

Money is, with propriety, considered as the vital principle of the body politic; as that which sustains its life and motion, and enables it to perform its most essential functions. A complete power, therefore, to procure a regular and adequate supply of it, as far as the resources of the community will permit, may be regarded as an indispensable ingredient in every constitution.

Thus Hamilton argues that it is a general power to raise revenue. The main limitations are what the people will suffer with good will and good sense. He even suggests Other things Hamilton says on judges suggest that aside from an all out war from the Senate judges should fear nothing from the other powers.

And here, Hamilton offers the people as the appropriate remedy to a misappropriation of taxes:

[We should] confine our attention wholly to the nature and extent of the powers as they are delineated in the Constitution. Every thing beyond this must be left to the prudence and firmness of the people; who, as they will hold the scales in their own hands, it is to be hoped, will always take care to preserve the constitutional equilibrium between the general and the State governments. Upon this ground, which is evidently the true one, it will not be difficult to obviate the objections which have been made to an indefinite power of taxation in the United States.

Now, I also hold to the opinion that the Federalists were in no way ratified by the States. Madison’s, Hamilton’s, and Jay’s opinions are impetus to tip the scale, but they are opinions no less. In many cases, Hamilton’s entire point is the invalidity of an Anti-federalist point. And one of Hamilton’s most common strategies is to say that we can imagine any number of ills whereby a Constitutional principle can be misused. As Hamilton’s main point in bringing up the Ottoman Empire is mainly to show how regional taxing power is no guarantee against abuse–but representative government is .

Although, I’m not completely happy with the outcome and it’s not like I don’t see some flaws in Roberts opinion, the independence of the court and the role of the people to be the limit on their own taxation is understandable within the Federalist framework. He threw it back to us, deal with it. No enforcement of Paulian Constitutional minimalism through impeachment will save our republic if we believe that the elected powers are already beyond our reach. (This is in a similar Spirit to how Hamilton argues that the argument that independent justices is flawed is a good indication that there should be no third branch. Strangely enough, it’s only Hamilton who answers on both the Judiciary and Taxation.)

Axeman on July 3, 2012 at 12:22 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3