Quotes of the day

posted at 10:40 pm on July 2, 2012 by Allahpundit

In the wake of Chief Justice John Roberts’ stunning about-face in the Obamacare case, conservatives who follow judicial issues are asking themselves: Did we ever really know Roberts? Did we get him wrong?…

“His ideological opinions he certainly kept to himself,” says one of those former Senate aides. “He was a blank slate because he had represented so many different sides,” says the other.

The public debate over Roberts echoed those private doubts. As Roberts sought confirmation, conservative commentators as varied as Charles Krauthammer and Ann Coulter called him a “tabula rasa.”

***

That is the kind of sophistry we expect from liberals. The left sees the law as a tool of social justice — so they start with the desired outcome and then come up with legal reasoning to justify it. That is what Roberts did last week. He decided he wanted to uphold Obamacare and rewrote the statute to fit that outcome.

There is informed speculation in conservative legal circles that a close reading of the dissent shows Roberts had intended to strike down Obamacare, but flipped his position at the last minute. We don’t know if he was suddenly convinced by his liberal colleagues, or simply had a failure of nerve. But the challenge for conservatives is clear: We need jurists who not only have a philosophy of judicial restraint, but the intestinal fortitude not to be swayed by pressure from the New York Times, the Georgetown cocktail circuit and the legal academy.

***

“Bush v. Gore is an example of a decision the left didn’t respect in part because they thought it was political motivated,” said Randy Barnett, a Georgetown University law professor who worked with the National Federation of Independent Business on its case against the law. “What the left says of Bush v. Gore, I think is true of this decision.”…

“He’s an umpire that seemed worried that people from the stands would be hollering at him,” said Chapman University law professor John Eastman.

“If he changed his vote because he was persuaded by the argument in favor of the health care bill, then I think he’s wrong but that’s fine,” Eastman said. “If he changed his vote because people were critical of the court and he was afraid of those criticisms and nevertheless was of the view the bill was constitutional, then yeah, I think he should resign.”

***

The problem is that Roberts’s interpretation is not fairly, or even remotely, possible. If the law had been written in the Roberts version — as a regressive federal tax on the uninsured — there is no chance it would have passed Congress. More to the point, the law that Roberts describes would have covered a different number of the uninsured. Academic studies indicate that people respond differently to tax penalties than they do the legal mandates. “When the imperative to buy insurance,” notes Yuval Levin, “is instead presented as a choice between two options, more people will likely choose the cheaper option (which, for almost everyone, will be paying the tax rather than buying the coverage).”

Why did Roberts not account for this policy distinction? The most natural interpretation is that he didn’t know anything about it. Which is precisely the point. Roberts is not a health policy expert. His clever reinterpretation of the health law would actually change its outcome. This is not an alternate reading but an alternate universe.

***

Chief Justice John Roberts, a good man who apparently thought he was doing the right thing, is increasingly taking on the character of a lone figure from classical Greek tragedy. If one collates all the news reports, rumors, and scuttlebutt, and if they are mostly credible, one learns of his tortured switch. It was perhaps prompted by a genuine desire to mitigate the Court’s “partisan” reputation, or to establish Roberts in the long tradition of a Warren or Souter, as a jurist who “evolved” on the Court in a fashion that pleases the influential in Washington and New York—or both. (And indeed, those who were vilifying him before the verdict were the first to heap praise on his judicial statesmanship—at least for now.) The tragedy is that, as the story comes out, the reputation of the Court will sink not rise, as—fairly or not—it appears overly sensitive to public opinion and liable to capitulate to such pressures in mediis rebus.

Roberts, who wanted to cement his reputation as a sober and judicious jurist, through his Hamlet-like deliberations ended up seeming incoherent, tentative, and unsure of himself. And if it’s true that rumors of Roberts reconsidering his vote swirled in Washington prior to the final outcome, and that such perceptions of hesitation prompted renewed venom and pressure — from not just the media, but from those such as Senator Leahy (who had voted to confirm Roberts) on the floors of Congress, and the president himself (who attacked the Court even earlier in his State of the Union address) — then the Court comes off as far more suspect after the opinion than before. Everything Roberts wished to prevent he ensured.

***


***



Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

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

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Can.I.be.in.the.middle on July 3, 2012 at 12:57 AM

You know, we took enough crap from the Mittwits during the primary, insulting us because there was no great candidate is not going to help your cause. Whatever your cause is, which isn’t very clear.

Cindy Munford on July 3, 2012 at 1:07 AM

Cindy Munford on July 3, 2012 at 12:54 AM

I likey. Lubbock gets VERY hot-and since I don’t wear shorts or short sleeves due to religious modesty I NEED a way to keep cool .

annoyinglittletwerp on July 3, 2012 at 1:08 AM

Flora Duh on July 3, 2012 at 1:01 AM

Dave might vote for Johnson, is he for the legalization of drugs?

Cindy Munford on July 3, 2012 at 1:09 AM

Axe: You do realize that Judaism is passed on through the mother-that means that any future young-uns are gonna be mini-Jooos!
Bwahahahaha!

annoyinglittletwerp on July 3, 2012 at 12:47 AM

Hmm … now I have to run all this by Jesus ’cause Joos-ism is really complicated. :) Heh.

Axe on July 3, 2012 at 1:09 AM

Roberts gained the praise of those who have contempt for him and the contempt of those whose praise would have been from respect.

Had his decision not been a mess of pottage.

profitsbeard on July 3, 2012 at 1:09 AM

Whether is is true or not, the liberals think he can be played now and they will ratchet up their attacks from inappropriate to down right threatening. He is a joke to them now.

Cindy Munford on July 3, 2012 at 1:04 AM

Exactly! If John Roberts thought that his switch-in-time-that-saved-ObamaTax was going to make him beloved and his Court immune from criticism by the Legal Left and Progressives, in general, he was sadly mistaken. His legal reasoning that the mandate penalty was a tax was specious. His rulings on the Commerce Clause and Necessary & Proper Clause, as well as his acknowledgment that government’s power is not unlimited nor is its ability to spend, are detested by those from whom he sought approval — or, at least, a momentary respite from criticism. Unless Chief Justice John Roberts becomes John Paul Stevens or Earl Warren, he will always be the “reactionary, radical, and conservative” Chief Justice, who presided over the Citizens’ United Court. Period. Story. End of. If he believed otherwise, he is both naive and foolish.

Rather than protecting the reputation and integrity of the Court, his actions have undermined both and brought into question whether he has the judicial temperament and constitutional fidelity that warrants his remaining as Chief Justice of the United States of America. If Chief Justice Roberts is more interested in upholding the “sanctity and reputation of the Court” than the Constitution, which he swore to defend, then he should resign. His role is not to protect the Court’s reputation, but the Constitution and the people.

At Constitutionalist level, he had an opportunity to remind the Federal government that it was one with limited powers whether such concerns the Commerce and Necessary & Proper Clauses or taxation and penalisation and that the people are primary and the government subservient. Instead, sadly, his decision to uphold this monstrosity allows for a fundamental change in the relationship between government and citizen. No longer must Washington govern with the consent of ‘We the People.” It is enough for the Federal government just to slap a tax label on something in order to be able to pummel, threaten, and coerce the population into submission and we have a “Conservative” Justice of the Supreme Court to thank for it.

When you get right down to it, one must ask: If this is where we are going as a country, then what, exactly, was the point of the last 236 years?

Resist We Much on July 3, 2012 at 1:09 AM

Dire Straits on July 3, 2012 at 12:40 AM

Thanks Dire! :) S’cool.

Axe on July 3, 2012 at 1:09 AM

Gohawgs on July 3, 2012 at 12:59 AM

Dire better not be slacking off. He is supposed to remind us about what the GOP will do.

SparkPlug on July 3, 2012 at 1:10 AM

INC,

I’ve asked kj to send you my email addy…

Gohawgs on July 3, 2012 at 1:10 AM

annoyinglittletwerp on July 3, 2012 at 1:08 AM

They work pretty good and they are big enough to cut in half so you always have one cooling down. Please look into one. I’d love to send you one.

Cindy Munford on July 3, 2012 at 1:10 AM

Cindy Munford on July 3, 2012 at 1:04 AM

I thought he might have learned from the insulting State of the Union remarks he had to endure. I thought there was a man and a constitutional scholar in those robes. There is neither.

AshleyTKing on July 3, 2012 at 1:11 AM

Most of the Hotair commentators that were here back in ’07 – ’10 don’t seem to comment much here anymore, and I’d bet that a lot of them are probably contemplating Gary Johnson even if they haven’t committed yet.

If Gary Johnson surges I hope people will jump on board.

Let’s leave Obama and Romney in our dust in November.

FloatingRock on July 3, 2012 at 12:07 AM

..sorry, but I gotta say this: do you need a couple of quarts of Jack to publish this stuff or do you just sit down and type? I am sorry to thump you like this — especially since your missive above is not written in your usual obdurate, intransigent, belligerent tone — but, under the present set of circumstances, it’s extremely delusional.

The War Planner on July 3, 2012 at 1:13 AM

… I’ve been wondering. Your quest for truth reminds me. :) This question might be too brittle, but … we did just expand the taxing authority, not affirm an already-happened expansion of it, right?

Axe on July 3, 2012 at 1:06 AM

From reading the decision, this is an expansion of taxing authority that is really not constitutional. He permitted a direct tax on people that could be tied to individuals as a penalty for not behaving in a certain manner. Under this ruling, there is nothing to prevent Congress from determining that maintaining the US auto industry is a critical national need and passing legislation the people “refresh” their automobiles with a US built model every so many years or pay a penalty tax for not doing so. .. or any other similar scenario. Take a look upthread, somebody enumerated what types of taxation are really granted to Congress by the Constitution and how this tax does not fit in any of those definitions.

Roberts really did expand federal power and this ruling has once again trampled on the Constitution’s original intent. It is not a ruling that preserves liberty and freedom.

AZfederalist on July 3, 2012 at 1:13 AM

SparkPlug on July 3, 2012 at 1:10 AM

AshleyTKing is here now. Dire has the morning off…

Gohawgs on July 3, 2012 at 1:14 AM

The four Republican-appointed justices behind the unsigned dissent — Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito — did not directly address Roberts’ majority opinion, but did address Ginsburg’s dissent. The CBS story said it was a deliberate attempt to shun the chief.

In the ObamaTax SC saga Justice Kennedy is the unsung hero.

The result of all the pre-Revolution taxation abuse was the inculcation into our Constitution the notion of limited taxation powers granted to Congress, in three forms only:

1. A direct tax, which must be apportioned,
2. An indirect tax [such as an excise or 'event-oriented' tax] which is voluntary, like a sales tax, and
3. by the 16th Amendment, an Income Tax.

By judicial fiat, the Roberts Court has created and conferred an extra-Constitutional unlimited taxation power upon the Congress.

This new power is exactly like the taxing power of old; the power of applying a mandatory, non-apportioned direct tax upon all citizens, based upon an indirect-tax construct, that enriches a set of private, government-sanctioned monopolies as well as the government itself, and sets up a bureaucracy that can freely grant exceptions and immunities to politically connected favorites.

The lawless injustice of the Roberts decision and its future destructive consequences are immeasurable.

Beyond the scope of the ‘Affordable’ ‘Care’ Act, aka Obama’care’, aka ObamaTax, is now the standing taxing authority granted to Congress to duplicate this taxing methodology to any part of human behavior that can be imagined.

The ballot box is now considered the mechanism that can be best used to reverse an out-of-control and lawless government bent upon trashing the Constitution.

But even with Conservative and principled office holders, a stretch for all, the Roberts decision would still stand, and our Republic would remain damaged and altered.

A Constitutional Amendment to correct this offense would be inadequate, since the Roberts Court has thrown the Rule of Law into the gutter/sewer, or as I favor, the latrine. There was no- and is no– authority for Roberts to do what he did, yet he did it; and it is now considered “law”.

Obama can’t wait to be re-elected, to repeat this, over and over, in myriad of way, just because he now can. Make sure he is stopped.

Schadenfreude on July 3, 2012 at 1:14 AM

Resist We Much on July 3, 2012 at 1:09 AM

I think it is safe to say that Justice Roberts has been Alinsky’d.

Cindy Munford on July 3, 2012 at 1:16 AM

annoyinglittletwerp on July 3, 2012 at 1:04 AM

Don’t let FR know. He thinks us old fogies are voting for the only person that has a chance to win against the boy king, just to protect all the goodies we get from the government.

Dave might vote for Johnson, is he for the legalization of drugs?

Cindy Munford on July 3, 2012 at 1:09 AM

In the 34 yrs we’ve been married, no, I’ve never heard him support legalization of drugs. :-)

Flora Duh on July 3, 2012 at 1:17 AM

AshleyTKing on July 3, 2012 at 1:11 AM

And that was just the beginning, Obama and the Democrats have been very inappropriate in their treatment of what is suppose to be a co-equal branch of the government. If Justice Roberts thought he could change them, he is going to be very very sad.

Cindy Munford on July 3, 2012 at 1:18 AM

I no longer care hy Roberts ruled the way he did. No matter how mch AP twists himself into a pretzel, trying to give Roberte the benefit of the doubt, he still voted to uphold an unconstitutional law.

The only chance to change our circumstance is to vote Republican and take the WH, Senate and add to the House. I don’t care who is running, if he/she is Republican, I’m voting for them.

Vince on July 3, 2012 at 1:18 AM

And, Lucky Pierre arrives…

Resist We Much on July 3, 2012 at 12:59 AM

You are awesome. The things they never taught me in Pixley, CA. :)

arnold ziffel on July 3, 2012 at 1:19 AM

AZfederalist on July 3, 2012 at 1:13 AM

I understand. I was unclear if it really was as fresh and new as it struck me. Some commentators have been expressing a belief that the taxing authority was “unlimited” (grain of salt) to begin with, and I was starting to wonder if I had missed something in the history between Resist’s enumeration of how it was (and should be) and this court’s ruling on how it’s going to be now. :)

Axe on July 3, 2012 at 1:19 AM

Flora Duh on July 3, 2012 at 1:17 AM

LOL! (oops) I was taking about the Dave from Cheech and Chong’s comedy routine. “Dave’s not here.”

Cindy Munford on July 3, 2012 at 1:19 AM

Vince on July 3, 2012 at 1:18 AM

Man! Sorry about the typing attempt.

Vince on July 3, 2012 at 1:19 AM

Cindy Munford on July 3, 2012 at 1:04 AM

I thought he might have learned from the insulting State of the Union remarks he had to endure. I thought there was a man and a constitutional scholar in those robes. There is neither.

AshleyTKing on July 3, 2012 at 1:11 AM

..Ashley, not to sound like a silver lining type — the decision stinks like an non-functioning Botswana sewage disposal plant — but I got this nagging feeling down in the below the cockles of my heart (in the sub-cockle area) that we may look back on this with some kind of hyper-zen nod and a wink after 55 of the 57 states go for Romney and the Hatchet-Asssed Metrosexual POTUS gets ejected.

Maybe then, Roberts whimsical sardonic grin will have significance.

Still stinks though.

The War Planner on July 3, 2012 at 1:20 AM

we did just expand the taxing authority, not affirm an already-happened expansion of it, right?

Axe on July 3, 2012 at 1:06 AM

Yes, sir. Expanded it dramatically. There is no tax like the ObamaTax in the COTUS. In fact, Roberts writes that it is a tax for the purposes of upholding Obamacare, but not a tax as it relates to the Anti-Injunction Act, which would have forbid the Court’s ruling on it since it was yet in effect and, therefore, not ripe for review.

Think of it as the equivalent of the Warren Court discovering the “right to privacy” in the Constitution. He looked and looked and “Wow! There’s a tax in the COTUS that no one has noticed in 236 years!”

Talk about judicial activism…plus, he actually rewrote the damn statute in order to uphold his creation.

Resist We Much on July 3, 2012 at 1:20 AM

LOL! (oops) I was taking about the Dave from Cheech and Chong’s comedy routine. “Dave’s not here.”

Cindy Munford on July 3, 2012 at 1:19 AM

I knew that’s who Spark Plug was talking about. Just trying to give him a WTH moment? LOL

Flora Duh on July 3, 2012 at 1:22 AM

Resist We Much on July 3, 2012 at 1:20 AM

And now he wants his participation trophy.

Cindy Munford on July 3, 2012 at 1:23 AM

arnold ziffel on July 3, 2012 at 1:19 AM

lol

Now, where do I pay the Roberts’ Tax?

Resist We Much on July 3, 2012 at 1:24 AM

In his op-ed, Governor Romney suggested that the federal government learn from Massachusetts how to make healthcare available for all. One of those things was “Using tax penalties, as we did, or tax credits, as others have proposed, encourages “free riders” to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others.”

Friends, if Mitt Romney is the nominee, we will be unable to fight Obama on an issue that 60% of Americans agree with us on.

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/03/02/breaking-mitt-romney-urged-obama-to-embrace-the-individual-mandate/

Can.I.be.in.the.middle on July 3, 2012 at 1:25 AM

Now, where do I pay the Roberts’ Tax?

Resist We Much on July 3, 2012 at 1:24 AM

Is that the Dread Pirate Roberts, or the evil dude who shredded the Constitution?

AZfederalist on July 3, 2012 at 1:25 AM

Flora Duh on July 3, 2012 at 1:22 AM

Did you see the Obama talking head that said Factcheck.org was wrong about the Obama ad and their proof was that the Post didn’t retract the story? I wish I knew who that was, so very funny.

Cindy Munford on July 3, 2012 at 1:26 AM

Ok folks, I’m really outta here now.

Goodnight all.

INC. and upinak, want you to know you’ll both be in my prayers.

Flora Duh on July 3, 2012 at 1:26 AM

And now he wants his participation trophy.

Cindy Munford on July 3, 2012 at 1:23 AM

Yep. His opinion was like Obama’s foreign policy. Coddle your enemies and alienate your allies. Is there a domestic Nobel Peace Prize we can give him?

Resist We Much on July 3, 2012 at 1:26 AM

Did you see the Obama talking head that said Factcheck.org was wrong about the Obama ad and their proof was that the Post didn’t retract the story? I wish I knew who that was, so very funny.

Cindy Munford on July 3, 2012 at 1:26 AM

Yes, I saw it, can’t remember myself who it was. If you remind me I’ll try to find it tomorrow.

Flora Duh on July 3, 2012 at 1:27 AM

It’s time to get very serious. It is now down right scary.

If Roberts decided this on his own, he’s not competent, or is sick.

If he did this out of fear, from the WH and/or the press, we are in deep, deep trouble and no longer a free country.

Talk about judicial activism…plus, he actually rewrote the damn statute in order to uphold his creation.

Resist We Much on July 3, 2012 at 1:20 AM

I can’t, and never will the land, get over this precedent being set. My brain can’t work this through.

Schadenfreude on July 3, 2012 at 1:28 AM

Is that the Dread Pirate Roberts, or the evil dude who shredded the Constitution?

AZfederalist on July 3, 2012 at 1:25 AM

I don’t know. It’s the guy who put the tax on using “lol” on HA.

I am calling Roberts “Shrub’s Warren” now.

Resist We Much on July 3, 2012 at 1:28 AM

Friends, if Mitt Romney is the nominee, we will be unable to fight Obama on an issue that 60% of Americans agree with us on.
Can.I.be.in.the.middle on July 3, 2012 at 1:25 AM

Who is this “we” you mention? I seem to remember that you are a lefty.

Vince on July 3, 2012 at 1:28 AM

Did you see the Obama talking head that said Factcheck.org was wrong about the Obama ad and their proof was that the Post didn’t retract the story? I wish I knew who that was, so very funny.

Cindy Munford on July 3, 2012 at 1:26 AM

IIRC, Factcheck.org is funded by the same foundation which used to once funded Obama and that guy from his neighbothood, in Chicago ?

burrata on July 3, 2012 at 1:28 AM

I don’t know. It’s the guy who put the tax on using “lol” on HA.

Resist We Much on July 3, 2012 at 1:28 AM

LOL

Axe on July 3, 2012 at 1:29 AM

If you remind me I’ll try to find it tomorrow.

Flora Duh on July 3, 2012 at 1:27 AM

Hmmmm, chances of me remembering are slim to none. But at least we have it in print.

Cindy Munford on July 3, 2012 at 1:30 AM

*

s***.

*puts quarter in jar*

Axe on July 3, 2012 at 1:30 AM

Can.I.be.in.the.middle on July 3, 2012 at 1:25 AM

Who is this “we” you mention? I seem to remember that you are a lefty.

Vince on July 3, 2012 at 1:28 AM

..but he’s ver-r-r-r-r-y concerned for us.

The War Planner on July 3, 2012 at 1:30 AM

Out of here for the evening.

AZfederalist on July 3, 2012 at 1:30 AM

Axe on July 3, 2012 at 1:06 AM

Theoretically, I guess a GOP-led Congress and Republican President could enact a law that said a woman must undergo a vaginal ultrasound before an abortion, but if she chooses not to, she has to pay a tax.

Such intrusiveness and power have been created by Roberts that it is breathtaking.

Resist We Much on July 3, 2012 at 1:30 AM

Resist We Much on July 3, 2012 at 1:20 AM

o, and thanks.

Axe on July 3, 2012 at 1:31 AM

burrata on July 3, 2012 at 1:28 AM

I know! If they say Obama’s ad about Romney was b.s., it must be some serious b.s..

Cindy Munford on July 3, 2012 at 1:31 AM

Out of here for the evening.

AZfederalist on July 3, 2012 at 1:30 AM

*waves*

It’s midnight. I should go to.

Axe on July 3, 2012 at 1:32 AM

The first LOL is a much higher “mirth” tax followed by a “merriment” tax on lol.

arnold ziffel on July 3, 2012 at 12:54 AM

This deserves LOL & lol! :)

Bizarro No. 1 on July 3, 2012 at 1:32 AM

What about ROTFLMAO?

Cindy Munford on July 3, 2012 at 1:01 AM

In the dark times coming that will warrant road camp.

On a lighter note, neighbors had two 4-6 month old stray pups walk in and plop down in the living room last week. Looked up and said “yep we’re here.” They look to be pointer pit bull mix. The male has way shorter legs than sis. I took her and they are watching him while I try to find Clyde a home. I named ours Emmylou.

Another neighbor said that she thinks people sometimes intentionally dump dogs because they know that we have a nice neighborhood where people are decent and reluctant to take em to the pound.

arnold ziffel on July 3, 2012 at 1:32 AM

Resist We Much on July 3, 2012 at 1:26 AM

We are going to look back on these last four years and laugh and laugh. I don’t know how long it will take for that to happen but someday this will all be a funny story.

Cindy Munford on July 3, 2012 at 1:33 AM

I can’t, and never will the land, get over this precedent being set. My brain can’t work this through.

Schadenfreude on July 3, 2012 at 1:28 AM

Same here…and, to think, he bought all of the arguments that we’ve been making for 3 plus years on the Commerce and N&P Clause when everyone in the MSM and the ruling, legal class said that they were frivolous and would be laughed out of court.

Truly tragic.

Resist We Much on July 3, 2012 at 1:33 AM

I knew that’s who Spark Plug was talking about. Just trying to give him a WTH moment? LOL

Flora Duh on July 3, 2012 at 1:22 AM

Hey did you see that everyone? Flora Duh was messin’ with my bwain. She gave me a tiny WTH moment whereas Roberts gave us a ginormous WTH moment.

SparkPlug on July 3, 2012 at 1:33 AM

Cindy Munford on July 3, 2012 at 1:33 AM

I wasn’t around for Carter so I guess I’m in on “the joke” now.

Resist We Much on July 3, 2012 at 1:35 AM

Another neighbor said that she thinks people sometimes intentionally dump dogs because they know that we have a nice neighborhood where people are decent and reluctant to take em to the pound.

arnold ziffel on July 3, 2012 at 1:32 AM

How I got “Splotches” and her impending litter. She picked me, at a gas station.

Later most excellent dudes, dudettes, and dires.

Axe on July 3, 2012 at 1:36 AM

arnold ziffel on July 3, 2012 at 1:32 AM

I think that happens more than you would think. My Dalmatian was a N.C. dog (had tags) with heart worms that was dumped in a nice neighborhood in Virginia Beach. I assume the owners didn’t have the funds to treat her, it was pretty expensive. I’m struggling to type tonight because Riot is lounging in my lap with her head on my arm.

Cindy Munford on July 3, 2012 at 1:36 AM

I can’t, and never will the land, get over this precedent being set. My brain can’t work this through.

Schadenfreude on July 3, 2012 at 1:28 AM

Schad, I knew we were probably in trouble after the AZ decision. As a man who deeply loves this country and what it used to stand for I am just stunned—-and mucho enojado.

arnold ziffel on July 3, 2012 at 1:39 AM

Resist We Much on July 3, 2012 at 1:35 AM

Jimmah is a hoot until he decides to do some freelance foreign diplomacy. Less likely under Democrat administrations. I think he annoyed Clinton a couple of times. Obama is so young and narcissistic that he will be the gift that keeps on giving for a very very long time.

Cindy Munford on July 3, 2012 at 1:39 AM

I’m struggling to type tonight because Riot is lounging in my lap with her head on my arm.

Cindy Munford on July 3, 2012 at 1:36 AM

It ain’t love, it’s what treat Cindy has. OK, they can multi-task.

arnold ziffel on July 3, 2012 at 1:41 AM

arnold ziffel on July 3, 2012 at 1:41 AM

She wants me to call it a night.

Cindy Munford on July 3, 2012 at 1:42 AM

She wants me to call it a night.

Cindy Munford on July 3, 2012 at 1:42 AM

Man, I wish I could have a dog…

OmahaConservative on July 3, 2012 at 1:43 AM

Resist We Much on July 3, 2012 at 1:09 AM
AZfederalist on July 3, 2012 at 1:13 AM
Schadenfreude on July 3, 2012 at 1:14 AM
Resist We Much on July 3, 2012 at 1:20 AM

Excellent posts. I’d imagine that at this point justices Alito, Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas would relish the opportunity to overturn this taxation expansion decision. Another reason that Obama must be defeated– necessary in its own right– and in addition to repealing Obamacare is that the next President likely will have to fill a SCOTUS slot. If Romney were pressured to nominate a conservative justice, you’d have a court that might be willing to reverse the Roberts decision.

Question (well, several): Is there a case that could be brought to the court that would address the expanded taxation authority issue? Are any of the other Obamacare-related cases pending in the appeals courts up to making this challenge?

If Obamacare is repealed, so that the Roberts decision is moot, is there another way to bring about judicial review of the expanded taxation authority– short of appealing another Obamacare monstrosity law?

Or are we really going to have to slog through the Constitutional amendment process to deal with this?

de rigueur on July 3, 2012 at 1:44 AM

de rigueur on July 3, 2012 at 1:44 AM

um… just realized it’s almost 2 a.m. for most of you… take your time…

de rigueur on July 3, 2012 at 1:45 AM

Obamacare?

Doctor?

I Don’t Need No Doctor!

novaculus on July 3, 2012 at 1:46 AM

From reading the decision, this is an expansion of taxing authority that is really not constitutional. He permitted a direct tax on people that could be tied to individuals as a penalty for not behaving in a certain manner. Under this ruling, there is nothing to prevent Congress from determining that maintaining the US auto industry is a critical national need and passing legislation the people “refresh” their automobiles with a US built model every so many years or pay a penalty tax for not doing so. .. or any other similar scenario. Take a look upthread, somebody enumerated what types of taxation are really granted to Congress by the Constitution and how this tax does not fit in any of those definitions.

Roberts really did expand federal power and this ruling has once again trampled on the Constitution’s original intent. It is not a ruling that preserves liberty and freedom.

AZfederalist on July 3, 2012 at 1:13 AM

Where do you believe Congress gets it authority to offer tax write-offs? How is giving someone a tax break if they donate their used underwear to Goodwill materially/effectively any different than taxing non-activity, in your opinion?

Bizarro No. 1 on July 3, 2012 at 1:46 AM

Cindy Munford on July 3, 2012 at 1:42 AM

Dave is voting for Gary Johnson..But Sparkplug is right..It has to be by absentee ballot because Dave is not here!..:)

Dire Straits on July 3, 2012 at 1:48 AM

Hey OC, were you the one who mentioned Zatoicihi the other night?

novaculus on July 3, 2012 at 1:48 AM

OmahaConservative on July 3, 2012 at 1:43 AM

I wish you could to, they are the best.

Sweet dreams everyone!!!

Cindy Munford on July 3, 2012 at 1:48 AM

Dire Straits on July 3, 2012 at 1:48 AM

I know that’s right.

Cindy Munford on July 3, 2012 at 1:49 AM

When you get right down to it, one must ask: If this is where we are going as a country, then what, exactly, was the point of the last 236 years?

Resist We Much on July 3, 2012 at 1:09 AM

1. To know that true freedom was possible and lasted for a time in the USA.

2. That the freest of all the people in the world, the ones who had that most wonderous and short constitution, gave it all up and reversed volens into bondage.

Truly tragic.

Resist We Much on July 3, 2012 at 1:33 AM

Schadenfreude on July 3, 2012 at 1:51 AM

Later most excellent dudes, dudettes, and dires.

Axe on July 3, 2012 at 1:36 AM

Night, sleep well.

arnold ziffel on July 3, 2012 at 1:52 AM

Later most excellent dudes, dudettes, and dires.

Axe on July 3, 2012 at 1:36 AM

Later..enjoyed it!..:)

Dire Straits on July 3, 2012 at 1:57 AM

Obamacare?

Doctor?

I Don’t Need No Doctor!

novaculus on July 3, 2012 at 1:46 AM

Doctor Doctor

Bizarro No. 1 on July 3, 2012 at 1:58 AM

Reading Hot Gas lately reminded me of this for some reason.

TitularHead on July 3, 2012 at 2:00 AM

lol

Now, where do I pay the Roberts’ Tax?

Resist We Much on July 3, 2012 at 1:24 AM

Roberts appointed me to collect… :)

Bizarro No. 1 on July 3, 2012 at 2:00 AM

Where do you believe Congress gets it authority to offer tax write-offs? How is giving someone a tax break if they donate their used underwear to Goodwill materially/effectively any different than taxing non-activity, in your opinion?

Bizarro No. 1 on July 3, 2012 at 1:46 AM

The Court has ruled previously in many cases that the Congress has the authority to grant deductions, exemptions, etc., pursuant to legislative grace. It does NOT — well, it didn’t until last week — have the authority to compel an inactive person to enter the stream of commerce so as to regulate him or force him to pay a tax should he fail to comply. One is positive. The other is negative.

The Constitution, specifically, provides for the four types of taxes that are permitted (capitation, which must be apportioned, excise, income, and impost). The tax associated with Obamacare is not any of them. Roberts’ opinion specifically states that it is not a direct tax. It is not an excise tax since there lacks a taxable event (positive). It’s not an income tax since income is not the trigger. It is certainly not a tariff or duty.

The tax is to be collected by the IRS. No one denies that the IRS can collect taxes and penalties, but this tax is, in reality, a penalty and the IRS only collects penalties when they are associated with underlying penalties. The IRS is not like the EPA, which can fine or penalise.

Tax deductions are not covered in the COTUS. Taxes are…explicitly.

Resist We Much on July 3, 2012 at 2:01 AM

Yep, the status quo R’s aren’t bothered much by Roberts’ decision…

Gohawgs on July 3, 2012 at 2:03 AM

Yep, the status quo R’s aren’t bothered much by Roberts’ decision

Gohawgs on July 3, 2012 at 2:03 AM

Linky now included…

Gohawgs on July 3, 2012 at 2:07 AM

Gohawgs on July 3, 2012 at 2:07 AM

Cool…

OmahaConservative on July 3, 2012 at 2:09 AM

And the tax vs. penalty debate is starting to sound like this.

(PG-13 content warning)

TitularHead on July 3, 2012 at 2:09 AM

Doctor Doctor

Bizarro No. 1 on July 3, 2012 at 1:58 AM

OK, how about:

Doctor, Doctor!

novaculus on July 3, 2012 at 2:10 AM

We’re gonna’ have 101 again tomorrow. I swear the AC is running nonstop…

OmahaConservative on July 3, 2012 at 2:11 AM

ObamaCare is going to cause a million Heart-A-Tax

SparkPlug on July 3, 2012 at 2:11 AM

novaculus on July 3, 2012 at 2:10 AM

How about this one??..80′s style!..:)

Dire Straits on July 3, 2012 at 2:13 AM

Reading Hot Gas lately reminded me of this for some reason.

TitularHead on July 3, 2012 at 2:00 AM

If either of these can’t lift someone out of their despair, not even God could!

The Ballad of Bilbo Baggins

Born To Be Wild

If that “Born To Be Wild” video isn’t one of the top 10 worst ever, I’d like to see the ones which beat it out! Oh, btw, yes, that is the Australian version of angry little Greg Gutfeld, after shaving his head, on vocals!

Bizarro No. 1 on July 3, 2012 at 2:14 AM

and mucho enojado.

arnold ziffel on July 3, 2012 at 1:39 AM

Works well at the barricades, good man.

Schadenfreude on July 3, 2012 at 2:14 AM

Is there a case that could be brought to the court that would address the expanded taxation authority issue?

Yes, it will be the gift that keeps on giving indefinitely since it sets a precedent that goes far beyond Obamacare and health insurance. Furthermore, the tax goes into effect in 2014 and can be challenged then by individuals. Whether the Court would grant cert and want to relitigate the tax issue is unknown, but there is an argument, at least, for an examination considering the novelty of Roberts’ reasoning.

Are any of the other Obamacare-related cases pending in the appeals courts up to making this challenge?

There are a lot of pending challenges to various parts of Obamacare, but none dealing with the tax expansion. Such would be premature.

If Obamacare is repealed, so that the Roberts decision is moot, is there another way to bring about judicial review of the expanded taxation authority– short of appealing another Obamacare monstrosity law?

If the new taxing power is used in new legislation, then it would certainly — I would think — give rise to challenges on the expanded taxing authority.

Repealing Obamacare would only make the mandate tax moot. A new case is going to have to be won, a law passed in Congress prohibiting such taxes, or a Constitutional amendment prohibiting them to prevent this precedent from gobbling up that which the Commerce Clause and General Welfare Clause have not.

Or are we really going to have to slog through the Constitutional amendment process to deal with this?

Possibly.

‘Nite everyone.

Resist We Much on July 3, 2012 at 2:15 AM

Oh, good! Friday is going to cool down to a balmy 98…

OmahaConservative on July 3, 2012 at 2:16 AM

Roberts appointed me to collect… :)

Bizarro No. 1 on July 3, 2012 at 2:00 AM

:-) ‘Nite.

Resist We Much on July 3, 2012 at 2:16 AM

Oh, good! Friday is going to cool down to a balmy 98…

OmahaConservative on July 3, 2012 at 2:16 AM

Quitcher whining. There are nice cool breezes blowing across the wide Missouri…

Gohawgs on July 3, 2012 at 2:19 AM

Quitcher whining. There are nice cool breezes blowing across the wide Missouri…

Gohawgs on July 3, 2012 at 2:19 AM

Front porch sleepin’ weather…

OmahaConservative on July 3, 2012 at 2:22 AM

Dire Straits on July 3, 2012 at 2:13 AM

Good one. Long time no hear Thompson Twins. har to top this one, though:

I Don’t Need No Doctor

novaculus on July 3, 2012 at 2:22 AM

Bizarro No. 1 on July 3, 2012 at 2:14 AM

Good stuff… worth the LOL tax/penalty.

LOL.

TitularHead on July 3, 2012 at 2:24 AM

OmahaConservative on July 3, 2012 at 2:22 AM

OC, I don’t know if you missed my question earlier. Were you the one who mentioned Zatoichi the other night?

novaculus on July 3, 2012 at 2:25 AM

novaculus on July 3, 2012 at 2:22 AM

Nice..Very nice tune!..:)

Dire Straits on July 3, 2012 at 2:26 AM

novaculus on July 3, 2012 at 2:25 AM

Coupla’ nights ago, right?

OmahaConservative on July 3, 2012 at 2:26 AM

Is anyone having Win7 issues? Or is it HP?

OmahaConservative on July 3, 2012 at 2:27 AM

Front porch sleepin’ weather…

OmahaConservative on July 3, 2012 at 2:22 AM

Yep, just add a bucket of ice and a fan…

Gohawgs on July 3, 2012 at 2:29 AM

Front porch sleepin’ weather…

OmahaConservative on July 3, 2012 at 2:22 AM

The back door is where it’s at.

TitularHead on July 3, 2012 at 2:31 AM

OmahaConservative on July 3, 2012 at 2:26 AM

Could be. I only know one other person who is familiar with Zatoichi. I have several of the original movies on disc, but I wasn’t familiar with the later movie. You posted the clip from it.

novaculus on July 3, 2012 at 2:32 AM

I remember Dad getting a huge block of ice and a powerful fan for us kids to camp in the basement, while they slept in a bedroom with a window AC. Good times…

OmahaConservative on July 3, 2012 at 2:34 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5