WH chief of staff: ObamaCare not a tax even if our own lawyers said it was, or something

posted at 9:21 am on July 2, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Via Gateway Pundit, here’s a moment that will live in the Cross-Examination Hall of Fame.  Fox News Sunday’s Chris Wallace interviewed the current White House chief of staff, Jacob Lew, who served as OMB chief briefly before taking over for William Daley in the West Wing, about the Supreme Court’s ruling that ObamaCare can only stand constitutional muster as a tax.  Wallace strings Lew along beautifully for almost three minutes, allowing Lew to argue multiple times that ObamaCare isn’t a tax, wasn’t passed as a tax, and was never intended to be a tax, before playing a recording of the Obama administration’s Solicitor General arguing to the Supreme Court that, by golly, ObamaCare can and should be considered a tax:

The money moment comes at the very end of the clip, but don’t skip ahead to it, or you’ll miss the masterful way Wallace brings Lew to the point of no return.  For his part, Lew does as well as he could under the circumstances in responding to Donald Verrilli’s argument, but the eventual response hardly helpful.  Lew basically tells Wallace that, hey, lawyers make lots of arguments in court, but that doesn’t make them true! Funny, we were just thinking the same thing about arguments made by chiefs of staff on television on behalf of an administration that’s desperate to spin their way out of a very bad spot.


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

Watching these losers spin is almost entertaining. They “won”, but at what cost?

TXMomof3 on July 2, 2012 at 9:23 AM

It’s amazing how hard the Obama “administration” works at lying.

You’d think since they do it every moment of every day, telling lies would come easy for them.

At least they work hard at something.

NoDonkey on July 2, 2012 at 9:23 AM

Not a tax? So it’s unconstitutional then?

forest on July 2, 2012 at 9:24 AM

Now Governors are saying that their states will ‘Not Comply’…this SOB is going to bring us to the point of Civil War…and dammit…I’m in Illinois behind enemy lines…

PatriotRider on July 2, 2012 at 9:27 AM

The Obama Tax man cometh.

TN Mom on July 2, 2012 at 9:27 AM

Hogwash . . . it’s clear that Obama’s goons believe we are all idiots.

rplat on July 2, 2012 at 9:27 AM

So the lawyers were simply lying — I mean, making arguments — but it’s really not a tax, except that it has to be a tax or it’s unconstitutional, but God bless that John Roberts for being such a statesman and agreeing with our position, which really wasn’t our position…I’m sorry. My head is about to explode. We really are beyond the looking glass here.

We know the media won’t take Obama to account for this mendacity. Will enough voters?

lowbush-lightning on July 2, 2012 at 9:29 AM

Hey, guess what? I read a bunch of stuff on the interent this morning and here’s what I think about it!

I get it you guys hate Barry! But isn’t Willard awesome! More Willard!

tommyhawk on July 2, 2012 at 9:29 AM

Boehner needs to hold a vote to uphold the “individual mandate tax” and let the Dems record their support for a tax increase or deny the law…either way, they’ll finally take ownership for their mess and the Repubs will get an endless stream of campaign video….

powerpickle on July 2, 2012 at 9:30 AM

Now if only Mitt and the rest of the Republicans will actually have the courage to call Obama and the Dems a liar to their face.

I would love to see Mitt in a debate with Obama call him a liar, and not beat around the bush.

MityMaxx on July 2, 2012 at 9:30 AM

It wasn’t called a tax when it was ‘set up’, and so it isn’t a tax. Is anyone stupid enough to believe that? Apparently so, since Obamacare’s popularity apparently is on the rise in the aftermath of the Supreme’s ruling.

ProfessorMiao on July 2, 2012 at 9:30 AM

rplat on July 2, 2012 at 9:27 AM

this

they got the kool-aid drinkers believing their tripe

cmsinaz on July 2, 2012 at 9:30 AM

Not a tax? So it’s unconstitutional then?

forest on July 2, 2012 at 9:24 AM

“What?

Oh..ummm..It’s a tax..”

Then you lied….

“Ummm.. it’s not a tax.”

Repeat to step 1..

Electrongod on July 2, 2012 at 9:32 AM

Watching these losers spin is almost entertaining. They “won”, but at what cost?

TXMomof3 on July 2, 2012 at 9:23 AM

The cost is not to them, and that’s all that counts in a political sense. Stunning that there appears to be no political cost, but the latest poll indicates Obamacare’s popularity is on the rise. Cake. Eat it. Too.

ProfessorMiao on July 2, 2012 at 9:32 AM

Boehner needs to hold a vote to uphold the “individual mandate tax” and let the Dems record their support for a tax increase or deny the law…either way, they’ll finally take ownership for their mess and the Repubs will get an endless stream of campaign video….

powerpickle on July 2, 2012 at 9:30 AM

Since it’s already law, that would be stupid.

ProfessorMiao on July 2, 2012 at 9:33 AM

So Free Riders is the new talking point buzz word.

docflash on July 2, 2012 at 9:34 AM

Liar, Liar, Pants on fire! (Best said in your Gomer Pyle voice)

Herb on July 2, 2012 at 9:34 AM

What is so infuriating about this is that it had NOTHING to do with the Court’s insane ruling. This is just about the Dog-Eater’s own people arguing that it’s a tax. This sort of interview and questioning should have been done to every despicable slimeball from the White House and every disgusting dem America-hater every single day since the feral government made that argument – which was some time ago.

Only now, when it’s all over and America has been formally beheaded do these idiots finally come around to pointing out the duplicity, underhandedness, and totally disgusting lying nature of the criminals holding the levers of power.

And Barky has been lying about just about everything since Day One. Lies every single day, essentially. But all that ever gets covered is when one GOPer gets a set for two seconds and says “You LIE!” – which was the truth – after which the media (and the rest of the GOP cowards) go after that person and force him to apologize for saying that the Emperor King Admiral Dog-Eater has no clothes and no brains.

What is sad about this interview is that it should have happened a long time ago – before America was put down – and it should have happened every day, to very despicable, lying, scumbag dem (which means all of them). Now, it’s too late and doesn’t matter. Now we live in the American Socialist Superstate. How’s Benedict Barky Roberts’ A.S.S. taste?

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on July 2, 2012 at 9:34 AM

isnt this contempt of court or something? it just defies logic that they can go around disputing what the court found and still be the winner in this. good job there roberts. you found out the hard way the libs are gonna mock you no matter what. i guess the next step is to go full fledged reinhardt if leftie approval is your goal

chasdal on July 2, 2012 at 9:35 AM

Yes – its bizarro-world time, and CJ Roberts is gonna end up looking like the dufus here.

There is NO WAY team Ocommie can allow ObieCare it to be called a Tax or funded by a Tax, and will indirectly say Roberts was incorrect to call it a tax. Go figure.

The Kardashian/AmerIdol voters won’t know the difference. Dumbing down does have consequences.

FlaMurph on July 2, 2012 at 9:37 AM

If we could just harness the spin of Liberals to turn generators, we probably could cut our oil imports to zero.

ProfShadow on July 2, 2012 at 9:38 AM

I get it you guys hate Barry!

tommyhawk on July 2, 2012 at 9:29 AM

Why would we hate such a nice guy? He is a charming and honest individual that does great credit to his elementary school teacher, tailor, and tanning salon.

Archivarix on July 2, 2012 at 9:38 AM

If Obamacare isn’t a tax, then it’s not constitutional as per Justice Roberts’ twisted ruling. So… these morons are insisting that their unconstitutional view be accepted as law by arguing that its not a tax. As usual, they reject constitutional government, even when the ruling goes their way.

Murf76 on July 2, 2012 at 9:39 AM

The Supreme Court did not rule on whether or not the mandate is a tax. They ruled on whether or not it was constitutional.

Roberts is the only one who said it was constitutional because A) it is a tax and B) Congress can legislate such taxes.

Ginsburg, Souter, Kagan, and Sotomayor rules the mandate was constitutional under the Commerce Clause.

Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito ruled the mandate is unconstitutional under any interpretation of the Constitution. they ruled all three of the government’s arguments were invalid.

Roberts is the only one who said it was a tax.

The government’s lawyers simply presented three arguments for the Justices to consider in ruling whether or not the mandate is constitutional. Arguing that it could be considered a tax may be disingenuous, but it only needs to be considered constitutional under one of the three arguments for a Justice to rule it constitutional. Roberts’ chose the tax argument. Ginsburg and the others chose the Commerce Clause argument.

farsighted on July 2, 2012 at 9:40 AM

I saw Pelosi making the argument that this wasn’t a tax, it was a fine on the “free riders” which I guess it the latest talking point dealing with those who opt out of buying health insurance. Free riders should not be confused with the deadbeats that make up a core constituency of entitlement junkies for the Dem party.

Happy Nomad on July 2, 2012 at 9:40 AM

If Obamacare’s popularity is on the rise it’s only until people understand that now the IRS stands between them and their doctor. More IRS agents, not more doctors. That’s Obamacare!!

monalisa on July 2, 2012 at 9:40 AM

It’s official, The Supreme Court has ruled: “Obama and all Democrats are LIARS…It’s a TAX…LIARS….it’s a TAX…They are and were LIARS!! It’s from the court of last resort..LIARS….LIARS…LIARS..!! We knew all along….NOW Proven beyond all appeal and dispute.. Obama and all Democrats who voted for this monstrosity are..LIARS…LIARS…LIARS!!!!Liars keep lying but it’s a TAX..It’s a TAX..LIARS!! Remember in November!!

Marco on July 2, 2012 at 9:40 AM

Loved the “oh sh*t” look on ol’ Jack’s face when he realized he had been out-FOXED by Wallace.

Here’s another good one. The dingbat explaining that it’s not a tax but a tax penalty.

Pelosi: Mandate is a tax penalty but not a tax

Flora Duh on July 2, 2012 at 9:42 AM

WH chief of staff: ObamaCare not a tax even if our own lawyers said it was, or something

.
.
…um…what did the Supreme Court say it was again?

KOOLAID2 on July 2, 2012 at 9:42 AM

Patriot Rider
Don’t worry, the free loaders should push the price of your home up enough to be able to move, buy a new house, and put money in your pockets, before the SHTF. So your probably better off then ppl who are stuck living near the border of your state……..;)

angrymike on July 2, 2012 at 9:42 AM

I watched a bit of the spin yesterday and heard on more than one occasion and by several Obamacare advocates that this law was to reign in the 1% who can afford health insurance but clog the emergency rooms of our hospitals.

Really? All dems do is lie now.

DanMan on July 2, 2012 at 9:42 AM

So Free Riders is the new talking point buzz word.

docflash on July 2, 2012 at 9:34 AM

Yep the progressive left’s talking point: Being a Free American Citizen is a bad thing. And this is right before the 4th of July, the timing couldn’t be better….Land of the Free – Home of the Brave. Not if Nancy Pelosi has anything to say about it. That Free Rider is going to be taxed for not engaging in commerce.

If you listen you can hear the Universe talking to us….it’s saying, scrape off the barnacles that have formed on our Republic. Nancy Pelosi and her cohorts are weighing down our ship of state….and while we are at, we should throw John Roberts over board, since he thinks he’s some kind of anchor anyway.

Dr Evil on July 2, 2012 at 9:44 AM

I get it you guys hate Barry!

tommyhawk on July 2, 2012 at 9:29 AM

Hate is such a strong word. Not even close to being able to express my loathing for the jug-eared Kenyan but a strong word nonetheless.

Happy Nomad on July 2, 2012 at 9:44 AM

It’s official, The Supreme Court has ruled: “Obama and all Democrats are LIARS…It’s a TAX…LIARS….it’s a TAX…They are and were LIARS!! It’s from the court of last resort..LIARS….LIARS…LIARS..!! We knew all along….NOW Proven beyond all appeal and dispute.. Obama and all Democrats who voted for this monstrosity are..LIARS…LIARS…LIARS!!!!Liars keep lying but it’s a TAX..It’s a TAX..LIARS!! Remember in November!!

Marco on July 2, 2012 at 9:40 AM

…heck!…I was pulling MY HAIR out…while I was reading your post!

KOOLAID2 on July 2, 2012 at 9:44 AM

Embarrassing for Lew, but it does confirm what Team Obama’s strategy is going to be on this for the campaign — spin it to try and claim that that Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s concurring, but annoyed, opinion is the true majority opinion, and that Roberts is just Crazy Uncle John in the corner, muttering about too much fluoride in the water or something like that. And if given the chance, most of the big media outlets will be perfectly willing to go along with that spin — they’ll mention that Roberts sided with the left of the Court to uphold ObamaCare, but they’re going to stop telling anyone why he sided with the left, and go back to talking about individual mandates under Commerce Clause being upheld.

That’s where Romney and his people, along with Boehner and other Republicans in the House, are going to have to make sure that the Roberts’ ruling that ObamaCare=ObamaTax remaining in the minds of the swing voters through Nov. 6 (and the irony is that as much as conservatives hate Roberts’ ruling, the only way it will have any lasting standing is if Obama loses in the fall. If he wins and gets to fill 1-2 more Supreme Court spots, Roberts’ opinion will end up being just Crazy Uncle John in the corner, because a larger liberal majority will simply usurp it with a revived affirmation of the Commerce Clause in the near future).

jon1979 on July 2, 2012 at 9:44 AM

So, if the administration says it’s not a tax, then the IRS won’t come after those who don’t pay the penalty?

I trust that as much as I trust these jokes – NOT AT ALL!

jackal40 on July 2, 2012 at 9:44 AM

Everything the government takes from you is a tax, even if they call it a fee or a penalty.

Axion on July 2, 2012 at 9:44 AM

Boehner needs to hold a vote to uphold the “individual mandate tax” and let the Dems record their support for a tax increase or deny the law…either way, they’ll finally take ownership for their mess and the Repubs will get an endless stream of campaign video….

powerpickle on July 2, 2012 at 9:30 AM

Already scheduled for July 11.

Flora Duh on July 2, 2012 at 9:45 AM

Jack Lew has to be the most foolish — or deluded or both — man ever to be employed in any Administration.

PERHAPS he, like Obama, like Pelosi, like Schumer, like Ted Kennedy, et al., assumes that their followers will believe anything and everything said by them, but what Lew did on t.v. yesterday was so blatantly a defiance OF REALITY as to be astounding evidence of mental illness. Or utter depravity of character.

Whatever his reasons, he’s clearly not reliable and his statements should be incorporated into an ad by the GOP in writing beside the written contents of the Roberts’ majority decision for proof of just how awful Lew and the Obama Admin. are.

Lourdes on July 2, 2012 at 9:46 AM

I get it you guys hate Barry!

tommyhawk on July 2, 2012 at 9:29 AM

No, we distrust liars and those who support them. You hate those that distrust liars. Hate filled liar, tough way to go through life son.

DanMan on July 2, 2012 at 9:46 AM

Liar, Liar, Pants on fire! (Best said in your Gomer Pyle voice)

Liar, Liar, Constitution on Fire!

Liar, Liar, Freedom on Fire!

SCOTUS has shown time after time, that is does not like individuals’ or states’ freedoms. SCOTUS is, after all, part of government, flexing its muscles.

uber-con on July 2, 2012 at 9:46 AM

ObamaTax is a tax. SCOTUS said so. Own it dems. You are raising taxes by billions on the middle class.

Weight of Glory on July 2, 2012 at 9:47 AM

Remember when breaking and entering by political hires was outrageous and earned operatives (and those who hired them) actual prison time and a Presidential resignation?

And then we have what’s taking place today and…no consequences as of yet to their offenses, which are far worse — far, far worse — than breaking and entering.

Lourdes on July 2, 2012 at 9:47 AM

The most dangerous argument for a lawyer…..they’ve made a circular argument and they’re desperately scurrying to find a corner. ;-)

itsspideyman on July 2, 2012 at 9:48 AM

If Obamacare isn’t a tax, then it’s not constitutional as per Justice Roberts’ twisted ruling.

Murf76 on July 2, 2012 at 9:39 AM

It’s not a tax and it’s not Constitutional. Period. Roberts was wrong on all accounts.

The idea, though, that the administration wants to call it a tax at the same exact time that the administration and the despicable, lying scumbag dems also want to claim that it isn’t a tax, didn’t require waiting for the SCOTASS to take America down, but was open to the media to interrogate these azzwipes about just from the feral government’s OWN ARGUMENT. To wait until it’s all over to just bring up what the America-haters have been arguing for some time now – that it’s a tax – is pathetic.

In the end, there is no such thing as a tax on inactivity in the United States and ObamaCare’s individual mandate is totally and completely un-Constitutional. Of course, we don’t live in the United States, anymore, so all of that is moot and worthless. We live in the American Socialist Superstate, now, where the feral government is a national, all-powerful government.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on July 2, 2012 at 9:48 AM

If they had a brain cell, they would simply say something along the lines of “we are content O-care has been upheld and will move forward, even if the SC called it a tax”…trying to one-up the SC (again)with a “we are smarter than them” attitude will not curry votes from the Indies…

hillsoftx on July 2, 2012 at 9:48 AM

they believe we are idiots because 54% of us who vote ARE IDIOTS!

SDarchitect on July 2, 2012 at 9:48 AM

Do they realize how ridiculous they sound claiming it isn’t a tax when that was the only basis it was upheld on?

This is why the Roberts opinion is so patently ridiculous, though. The administration that pushed the law explicitly stated it was not a tax, so why he saw the need to jump in and make it one is beyond me.

changer1701 on July 2, 2012 at 9:49 AM

So Free Riders is the new talking point buzz word.

docflash on July 2, 2012 at 9:34 AM

and there is only 1% forcing this law according to them when we know it’s closer to 50%. Truth and math are so hard for liberals.

DanMan on July 2, 2012 at 9:49 AM

I get it you guys hate Barry!
tommyhawk on July 2, 2012 at 9:29 AM

Did MMFA promote you to the day shift? Congrats!

kevinkristy on July 2, 2012 at 9:49 AM

Two year olds caught red handed and balling their eyes out claiming they didn’t do it.

NotCoach on July 2, 2012 at 9:49 AM

I saw Pelosi making the argument that this wasn’t a tax, it was a fine on the “free riders” which I guess it the latest talking point dealing with those who opt out of buying health insurance. Free riders should not be confused with the deadbeats that make up a core constituency of entitlement junkies for the Dem party.

Happy Nomad on July 2, 2012 at 9:40 AM

It does sound as if they are going after their own core constituency, doesn’t it? I wonder how that’s going to work out.

Night Owl on July 2, 2012 at 9:49 AM

It all depends on how you define the word “TAX”, right Jacob-baby?

pilamaye on July 2, 2012 at 9:50 AM

That was, bar none, the most pathetic spin sundae I think I’ve ever seen in American politics. That was painful.

MadisonConservative on July 2, 2012 at 9:50 AM

I am not a Rick Santorum fan….

But he was right on this issue…if Mitt is the candidate, then he will not be able to argue Obama on Obamacare.

Mitt implemented a tax when he implemented RomneyCare…

So what will be Mitt’s come-back line when Obama looks at him and says “You implemented a tax too on the middle-class when you passed RomneyCare.”

Enjoy Obamacare people, it is here to stay. :(

MityMaxx on July 2, 2012 at 9:50 AM

Rasmussen-just this morning posted obamacaretax is still just as hated now as before the decision 52-39%. Also, Obama is only getting 44% of vote versus Romney’s 46%. Anyone who is telling you that this law is more popular now that it has been determined to be a huge tax is delusional. We’ll see how popular it is on Nov 6.

Ta111 on July 2, 2012 at 9:52 AM

I’m in complete shock! You mean Robert’s genius move to make Democrats admit to the largest and most regressive tax hike in history isn’t going to work? You mean liberals are going to lie about it and the media’s going to aid them in doing so? It’a astounding – who could have predicted this!?!

Roberts isn’t playing 3d chess – he’s playing pocket pool.

gwelf on July 2, 2012 at 9:52 AM

The Supreme Court did not rule on whether or not the mandate is a tax. They ruled on whether or not it was constitutional.

Roberts is the only one who said it was constitutional because A) it is a tax and B) Congress can legislate such taxes.

Ginsburg, Souter, Kagan, and Sotomayor rules the mandate was constitutional under the Commerce Clause.

Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito ruled the mandate is unconstitutional under any interpretation of the Constitution. they ruled all three of the government’s arguments were invalid.

Roberts is the only one who said it was a tax.

The government’s lawyers simply presented three arguments for the Justices to consider in ruling whether or not the mandate is constitutional. Arguing that it could be considered a tax may be disingenuous, but it only needs to be considered constitutional under one of the three arguments for a Justice to rule it constitutional. Roberts’ chose the tax argument. Ginsburg and the others chose the Commerce Clause argument.

farsighted on July 2, 2012 at 9:40 AM

With DISGUST, I completely agree. That is exactly the point that the D’s are now making. Only Roberts, IN HIS MIND, manipulated the text to mean “tax”. The text of the law remains “penalty”.

It will take 60 votes in the Senate to overturn, not 51. If that issue were to make it to the SCOTUS, it would be ruled a penalty by an 8-1 vote (or even 9-0 since Roberts ruled it was not a tax per the anti-injunction act).

Carnac on July 2, 2012 at 9:52 AM

Hey, guess what? I read a bunch of stuff on the interent this morning and here’s what I think about it!

I get it you guys hate Barry! But isn’t Willard awesome! More Willard!

tommyhawk on July 2, 2012 at 9:29 AM

You seem upset, yet you are still able to put forth a really convincing argument for your side in spite of your apparent butthurt. /

Night Owl on July 2, 2012 at 9:53 AM

Roberts’ wonky decision declares that:

– “mandate” is NOT constitutional under Commerce Clause as per it was argued before the Court by Obama Administration;

– that “mandate” as concept could only be “Constitutional” IF it’s “a tax”, is applied via Congress’ ability to tax as it wills.

Obama and Left go, “hooray,” “mandate is Constitutional.”

Sane people go, “no, that’s not what the Court says, despite the Roberts’ decision being irrational, it’s still not what is stated in it.”

Obama and the Left go, “it’s not a tax, it’s a penalty.”

Sane people go, “Roberts wrote that it is only Constitutional if it’s a tax, so, he declares it a tax in order to declare it Constitutional” (which is Roberts’ irrationality on display, but, carrying on here…)

Obama and the Left go, “it’s Constitutional but it’s not a tax.”

Sane people go, “It’s only Constitutional if it’s a tax, per what Roberts has declared.”

Obama and the Left go, “call it whatever you want. HOoray, we won.”

Sane people left staring into the abyss that is the Left’s irrationality and corruption.

Lourdes on July 2, 2012 at 9:54 AM

Boehner needs to hold a vote to uphold the “individual mandate tax” and let the Dems record their support for a tax increase or deny the law…either way, they’ll finally take ownership for their mess and the Repubs will get an endless stream of campaign video….

powerpickle on July 2, 2012 at 9:30 AM

Already scheduled for July 11.

Flora Duh on July 2, 2012 at 9:45 AM

Even if this gets done, and the House Dems are on record as to their vote, McConnell HAS TO find a procedural method through Reid’s inevitable stonewalling to get a Senate vote. We know O’Butthead would veto it, we need the Senate Dems on the record just as much as the House – turning the Senate is the key.

ICanSeeNovFromMyHouse on July 2, 2012 at 9:55 AM

I think Congress should abandon this Roberts decision as being some sort of craziness from a dubious process that the country cannot honor. I don’t know the legal process involved, but, I hope I made the point otherwise.

Lourdes on July 2, 2012 at 9:55 AM

It’s amazing how hard the Obama “administration” works at lying.

You’d think since they do it every moment of every day, telling lies would come easy for them.

At least they work hard at something.

NoDonkey on July 2, 2012 at 9:23 AM

It always takes more work to hide truth and make a lie convincing. That’s one of the basic truisms taught in recovery groups.

Pazman on July 2, 2012 at 9:56 AM

The fact that every one of Obama’s lies has not been put on an endless loop (hell they’re nearly endless on their own anyway) for the voting public to judge his character is pure failure on the part of media and on Romney’s campaign team. And I’m just thinking of the 2008 campaign promises as a start. It’s conceivable that there’s video out there of him lying through his teeth on every issue he’s ever dealt with and simply not getting called on it. I’ve seen his surrogates brush the truth away and replace it with a talking point and rarely get challenged by sycophantic media enablers.

The old adage of politicians runs true with Obama: How can you tell he’s lying…? His ____ are _______!

CitizenEgg on July 2, 2012 at 9:56 AM

It will take 60 votes in the Senate to overturn, not 51. If that issue were to make it to the SCOTUS, it would be ruled a penalty by an 8-1 vote (or even 9-0 since Roberts ruled it was not a tax per the anti-injunction act).

Carnac on July 2, 2012 at 9:52 AM

We spend way too much time talking about 51 votes vs. 60 votes. The Senate will do whatever the Fluke it wants to do, but we run the risk of letting too many Republicans dodge the issue entirely if we get bogged down in debating Senate rules. If the Senate wants to create a rule exclusive to ObamaTax the Senate can do so. These rules we argue about are nothing but procedure the Senate imposes upon themselves.

NotCoach on July 2, 2012 at 9:57 AM

Jack Lew is a national embarrassment.

Philly on July 2, 2012 at 9:58 AM

Mitt implemented a tax when he implemented RomneyCare…

So what will be Mitt’s come-back line when Obama looks at him and says “You implemented a tax too on the middle-class when you passed RomneyCare.”

Enjoy Obamacare people, it is here to stay. :(

MityMaxx on July 2, 2012 at 9:50 AM

He can’t do that, because he’d be admitting it is a tax and that he broke his promise. Granted, the issue is a potential minefield for Romney, but it’s not the slam dunk for Obama that is thought.

changer1701 on July 2, 2012 at 9:59 AM

Hey, guess what? I read a bunch of stuff on the interent this morning and here’s what I think about it!

I get it you guys hate Barry! But isn’t Willard awesome! More Willard!

tommyhawk on July 2, 2012 at 9:29 AM

You write with the flippancy of a cheerleader at a junior highschool basketball game who has just not been asked to the prom by his favorite player.

This issue of the Court — decision and what is involved in it and the desperate deception taking place by Obama and Dems about it afterward — are serious, life-affecting, nation-affecting issues and you ought to try and take it seriously instead of making fun of people who are.

Lourdes on July 2, 2012 at 9:59 AM

There’s nothing constitutionally sound about a Court decision which affirms the legality laws that legislators pass on the basis of bald-faced lies.

Terp Mole on July 2, 2012 at 10:01 AM

Mitt implemented a tax when he implemented RomneyCare…

So what will be Mitt’s come-back line when Obama looks at him and says “You implemented a tax too on the middle-class when you passed RomneyCare.”

Enjoy Obamacare people, it is here to stay. :(

MityMaxx on July 2, 2012 at 9:50 AM

Axelrod is relying on your Straw Man.

Lourdes on July 2, 2012 at 10:01 AM

Stunning that there appears to be no political cost, but the latest poll indicates Obamacare’s popularity is on the rise. Cake. Eat it. Too.

ProfessorMiao on July 2, 2012 at 9:32 AM

It’s not surprising that ObamaTax has had a bump up in the public’s opinion. What have they been hearing the last few days? That the Supreme Court say’s its constitutional, and that it’s going to give millons more people health insurance coverage, and make sure nobody with a pre-existing condition can be denied coverage. LOL. What’s not to like about that?

What most people don’t understand is that all these great new “benefits” come at a huge cost — in money, efficiency, privacy, liberty, etc. Most of these costs don’t fully kick in until 2014 (to give the responsible Dims enough time to distance themselves from the mess they’ve created). Most Americans have short attention spans and little information about what the law really entails. The Democrats bet on peoples’ ignorance, and so far, that bet has paid off.

AZCoyote on July 2, 2012 at 10:03 AM

Boehner needs to hold a vote to uphold the “individual mandate tax”

Not at all. That would be the worst thing to do. The individual mandate and penalty is NOT A TAX. I don’t know what illusory advantage you think you’d get, but it would be a stupid move and just plain wrong.

The penalty is NOT A TAX. It’s also not Constitutional.

I don’t know what some of you people are thinking.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on July 2, 2012 at 10:04 AM

Not a tax? So it’s unconstitutional then?

forest on July 2, 2012 at 9:24 AM

That’s the simple point I’ve posed on twitter and elsewhere since last Friday’s decision, and yet no one’s responded to that while the Left has amped up it’s declarations that “it’s not a tax, it’s a penalty.”

As if repeating that over and over again makes it a lucid statement (which it doesn’t because it isn’t).

Lourdes on July 2, 2012 at 10:04 AM

Lets help call out all Democrats on #TaxorNoTax

Already picked up by Instapundit and Jim “Obama ate a dog” Treacher

ChrisL on July 2, 2012 at 10:05 AM

George Orwell, call yer office.

locomotivebreath1901 on July 2, 2012 at 10:05 AM

Boehner needs to hold a vote to uphold the “individual mandate tax”

Not at all. That would be the worst thing to do. The individual mandate and penalty is NOT A TAX. I don’t know what illusory advantage you think you’d get, but it would be a stupid move and just plain wrong.

The penalty is NOT A TAX. It’s also not Constitutional.

I don’t know what some of you people are thinking.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on July 2, 2012 at 10:04 AM

Until the Roberts’ decision is “dealt with” (however, whatever, I don’t know how, Congress does know how), then, what it states is that the mandate IS A TAX, THAT IT’S ONLY CONSTITUTIONAL AS A TAX.

I don’t agree that the GOP House should uphold that, though, except to insist that, per the Court, otherwise it’s not Constitutional. THEN denounce any more “tax”.

Lourdes on July 2, 2012 at 10:06 AM

C’mon…RULE 44!!!

http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/330634.php

Czar of Defenestration on July 2, 2012 at 10:09 AM

ProfessorMiao on July 2, 2012 at 9:32 AM

It’s not surprising that ObamaTax has had a bump up in the public’s opinion. What have they been hearing the last few days? That the Supreme Court say’s its constitutional, and that it’s going to give millons more people health insurance coverage, and make sure nobody with a pre-existing condition can be denied coverage. LOL. What’s not to like about that?

What most people don’t understand is that all these great new “benefits” come at a huge cost — in money, efficiency, privacy, liberty, etc. Most of these costs don’t fully kick in until 2014 (to give the responsible Dims enough time to distance themselves from the mess they’ve created). Most Americans have short attention spans and little information about what the law really entails. The Democrats bet on peoples’ ignorance, and so far, that bet has paid off.

AZCoyote on July 2, 2012 at 10:03 AM

Noting that in that awful series of declarations Pelosi just made, she “errs” in her speech on two occasions (and corrects what she initially starts to express):

(1.) when she addresses “so people can get their bene…uhhh, their (something else here like “care” or “insurance”…)”

(2.) when she starts to refer to “pay their taaa…uhhh, pay the penalty” when she starts to state “tax”.

Lourdes on July 2, 2012 at 10:10 AM

I watched this when it aired late yesterday afternoon. I kept thinking that this Lew guy would eventually give in to Chris Wallace’s prodding, when it was obvious that he was being made to look like the total lier that he is. Absolutely amazing to see a grown man lie like a teenager caught rehanded smoking behind the barn! These people really have no shame.

Susanboo on July 2, 2012 at 10:10 AM

They say what they mean but don’t mean what they say. You see the same thing in lunatic aslyums all the time. It’s great being a leftie.

arand on July 2, 2012 at 10:11 AM

Ya know, this is law. The states should follow in the WH’s footsteps and only enforce what they prefer to enforce. Much like voter fraud, illegal immigration, and contempt of congress. Yeah, that’s the ticket.

jake49 on July 2, 2012 at 10:11 AM

Further proof the Obama Administration are the creepiest bastards to infest Washington since the Nixon era.

RobertE on July 2, 2012 at 10:11 AM

ProfessorMiao on July 2, 2012 at 9:32 AM

AZCoyote on July 2, 2012 at 10:03 AM

Noting that in that awful series of declarations Pelosi just made, she “errs” in her speech on two occasions (and corrects what she initially starts to express):

(1.) when she addresses “so people can get their bene…uhhh, their (something else here like “care” or “insurance”…)”

(2.) when she starts to refer to “pay their taaa…uhhh, pay the penalty” when she starts to state “tax”.

Lourdes on July 2, 2012 at 10:10 AM

OBVIOUSLY, the Left doesn’t want to use the words, “benefit” and “tax.”

Because they’re more accurate terms for what they’re attempting to implement, they’re unpopular among voters and they know it.

So, like Pelosi displayed, they’re trying to “rework” these concepts into something opposite of what they are to mislead — fool — gullible voters.

Lourdes on July 2, 2012 at 10:12 AM

I don’t agree that the GOP House should uphold that, though, except to insist that, per the Court, otherwise it’s not Constitutional. THEN denounce any more “tax”.

Lourdes on July 2, 2012 at 10:06 AM

That’s all they can do … until we start the nation anew, which is the only way to go from here. All possibilities of a Rule of Law has been irreparably sabotaged by this insane decision. The nation has been totaled and no longer runs, at all.

The only appropriate reaction of the GOP (though it won’t fix the damage) is to impeach Benedict Roberts (or at least openly discuss the need to do so). Judges are only to sit so long as they stay within the bounds of “good Behaviour” and Benedict Roberts has gone so far outside of that that it boggles the mind.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on July 2, 2012 at 10:13 AM

Further proof the Obama Administration are the creepiest bastards to infest Washington since the Nixon era.

RobertE on July 2, 2012 at 10:11 AM

Much worse than Nixon. Nixon didn’t hate the USA and he WAS ethical, despite his misdeeds: he resigned from Office for the right reasons and admitted why.

Obama won’t ever do that, neither will any of the current Democrats who have blighted the nation with their mess.

Lourdes on July 2, 2012 at 10:14 AM

p s, it’s not a tax, it’s a penalty. If you do not do X you are fined. But Roberts couldn’t, wouldn’t touch that one. How is a “tax” applied for voluntary non-action on some while those that comply avoid it? B S

arand on July 2, 2012 at 10:17 AM

The only appropriate reaction of the GOP (though it won’t fix the damage) is to impeach Benedict Roberts (or at least openly discuss the need to do so). Judges are only to sit so long as they stay within the bounds of “good Behaviour” and Benedict Roberts has gone so far outside of that that it boggles the mind.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on July 2, 2012 at 10:13 AM

There appears to be adequate basis to question Roberts’ state of mind, his ability to serve. I’d have never affirmed Kagan, with Sotomayor a hesitant affirmation due to obligation to confirm capable nominees (but her views as a Justice of the Constitution, in my view, rendered her, as also Kagan, not capable to serve, what with the “living document” ideas and their preferences for “international law” as superior to our own).

However, as to Roberts, there’s reason there to question his mental functioning. He’s issued a concept or theory instead of a decision as a justice, it’s utterly unacceptable that he’d even TRY to author anything from the bench as he has now done.

Lourdes on July 2, 2012 at 10:18 AM

Not at all. That would be the worst thing to do. The individual mandate and penalty is NOT A TAX. I don’t know what illusory advantage you think you’d get, but it would be a stupid move and just plain wrong.

The penalty is NOT A TAX. It’s also not Constitutional.

I don’t know what some of you people are thinking.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on July 2, 2012 at 10:04 AM

Look, you can argue until you’re blue in the face that it’s not a tax, the point is it has been ruled as such by the highest court in the land.

In spite of the Dems now trying to say it isn’t, within moments after the ruling came out EVERY TV news broadcast was reporting the ruling as such and EVERY newspaper article that I saw reported it as such.

In most of the public’s mind, the perception has been set, the mandate is a TAX. Why do you think people like Jack Lew are arguing so hard that it isn’t? They realized the sh*it storm this would create for the boy king so they’re trying everything they can to change the perception.

Hell yeah we want to get House Dems on record as either being in favor of the largest tax increase in history, in spite of the boy king swearing that taxes wouldn’t be raised, or being against it.

Flora Duh on July 2, 2012 at 10:19 AM

p s, it’s not a tax, it’s a penalty. If you do not do X you are fined. But Roberts couldn’t, wouldn’t touch that one. How is a “tax” applied for voluntary non-action on some while those that comply avoid it? B S

arand on July 2, 2012 at 10:17 AM

You’re right but the decision states “it’s a tax,” so, well, Roberts’ irrational assumptions stand, so far.

HOWEVER, Roberts AT LEAST declared that the mandate isn’t Constitutional under any other context, the Commerce Clause specifically.

So the Left is now stuck with their lies about this. They either accept that they lied all along to the voters, that they have, indeed, implemented the largest tax increase in our history, and that they’re now lying to try and continue their ruse, OR, they disagree with the Roberts decision and declare as he did that their idea of the mandate is NOT Constitutional.

Lourdes on July 2, 2012 at 10:21 AM

I recall the one time I went to the ER (it was an emergency) without insurance.

Within days, I received this thing they called a “bill” and they insisted I pay it, which I did.

Some free ride.

Mr. Grump on July 2, 2012 at 10:24 AM

farsighted on July 2, 2012 at 9:40 AM

Only Roberts, IN HIS MIND, manipulated the text to mean “tax”. The text of the law remains “penalty”.

Carnac on July 2, 2012 at 9:52 AM

Doesn’t the text of the law set itself a superior to anything else?

I mean, testimony and “claims” aside by whomever during the Hearing, isn’t what is IN the “law” itself what is the issue?

Lourdes on July 2, 2012 at 10:28 AM

Barack Hussein Costanza Obama.

profitsbeard on July 2, 2012 at 10:29 AM

I recall the one time I went to the ER (it was an emergency) without insurance.

Within days, I received this thing they called a “bill” and they insisted I pay it, which I did.

Some free ride.

Mr. Grump on July 2, 2012 at 10:24 AM

You’re actually supposed to pay at the time of service, when you’re discharged (not before, they can’t demand payment before treating, but they’re supposed to at time of discharge, payment in full or whatever the “copay” is as assigned by an insurer).

One can always just walk away and refuse to pay, which is what some people do, or, as you did, pay the bill once it arrives — a lot of people just don’t pay the bill or at discharge.

Lourdes on July 2, 2012 at 10:31 AM

Look, you can argue until you’re blue in the face that it’s not a tax, the point is it has been ruled as such by the highest court in the land.

Wrong. Page 15: “The Affordable Care Act does not require that the penalty for failing to comply with the individual mandate be treated as a tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act.”

In spite of the Dems now trying to say it isn’t, within moments after the ruling came out EVERY TV news broadcast was reporting the ruling as such and EVERY newspaper article that I saw reported it as such.

I don’t care what EVERY TV news broadcast and EVERY newspaper article says.

In most of the public’s mind, the perception has been set, the mandate is a TAX. Why do you think people like Jack Lew are arguing so hard that it isn’t? They realized the sh*it storm this would create for the boy king so they’re trying everything they can to change the perception.

If you noticed, Lew wasn’t arguing against the laughable decision. He was arguing against the case that his despicable administration made.

Hell yeah we want to get House Dems on record as either being in favor of the largest tax increase in history, in spite of the boy king swearing that taxes wouldn’t be raised, or being against it.

Flora Duh on July 2, 2012 at 10:19 AM

You’re into pyrrhic victories. Good for you. I will never relent and allow the idea that the United States Constitution allowed for “taxes” for inaction. (“allowed” because we are not the United States, anymore) I will also not allow that English affords such a “tax” concept. “Taxes” are not on inaction. “Taxes” are not for complements of some pool of buyers of private products or services. You want to allow English to be destroyed because you think there is some small victory to be gained (after a total and complete loss)? Good for you. I won’t join you in that. English will be needed for other nations – for a new nation. I won’t participate in the destruction of the language, itself, along with everything else that has been torn asunder in this outrageous act of historical idiocy and duplicity.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on July 2, 2012 at 10:31 AM

Have fun trying to claim that even though the SCOTUS called the mandate a tax, and the SG called the mandate a tax, it’s not a tax.

But, also don’t forget, the mandate is only one of the 21 new taxes in Obamacare.

eyedoc on July 2, 2012 at 10:32 AM

So Free Riders is the new talking point buzz word.

docflash on July 2, 2012 at 9:34 AM

I think “Free Riders” is the new term from Pelosi, Obama, etc. for “taxpayers with private insurance.”

Or, maybe for just “taxpayers.”

“‘Cause it’s not a tax, you Free Rider!”

Making sense of the Left’s memes is an exercise in being insane.

Lourdes on July 2, 2012 at 10:35 AM

The Supreme Court did not rule on whether or not the mandate is a tax. They ruled on whether or not it was constitutional.

Roberts is the only one who said it was constitutional because A) it is a tax and B) Congress can legislate such taxes.

Ginsburg, Souter, Kagan, and Sotomayor rules the mandate was constitutional under the Commerce Clause.

Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito ruled the mandate is unconstitutional under any interpretation of the Constitution. they ruled all three of the government’s arguments were invalid.

Roberts is the only one who said it was a tax.

The government’s lawyers simply presented three arguments for the Justices to consider in ruling whether or not the mandate is constitutional. Arguing that it could be considered a tax may be disingenuous, but it only needs to be considered constitutional under one of the three arguments for a Justice to rule it constitutional. Roberts’ chose the tax argument. Ginsburg and the others chose the Commerce Clause argument.

farsighted on July 2, 2012 at 9:40 AM

This is precisely why this case will be cited and used as precedent as to the Commerce Clause and not as such on the Taxing Powers provision.

As to taxing powers, the vote was 1-4-4, so it will not be controlling authority as to any future attempt by Congress to impose a non-activity tax as here.

On the other hand, the vote was 5-4 holding that the ACA mandate was unconstitutional on Commerce Clause grounds, and this is why Roberts included that specific holding in the first part of his opinion. That is what lawyers in the future will cite to prevent a future attempt by Congress to expand government as the ACA attempts to do. In other words, this holding alone will suffice to strike down legislation that would “create commerce” in order to then regulate it under the Commerce Clause, a very significant thing.

TXUS on July 2, 2012 at 10:36 AM

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on July 2, 2012 at 10:31 AM

You. Just. Don’t. Get. It. Do. You?

Never mind, I already know your answer.

Flora Duh on July 2, 2012 at 10:37 AM

Doesn’t the text of the law set itself a superior to anything else?

I mean, testimony and “claims” aside by whomever during the Hearing, isn’t what is IN the “law” itself what is the issue?

Lourdes on July 2, 2012 at 10:28 AM

I agree with you. Despite what may be in Roberts mind as he manipulates the text, the actual text supercedes all. The fact is, the text never uses the word “tax”. They went out of their way not to use the word “tax”. Therefore, it remains a “penalty”.

That is what the D’s are arguing. It’s not a tax until the text says it’s a tax and even post-Roberts the text remains as it was. They’ll take the constitutional win any way they can get it, but they will not agree to change the text to match the decision.

Carnac on July 2, 2012 at 10:38 AM

So how many “Pinocchio’s” was this worth?

GarandFan on July 2, 2012 at 10:39 AM

Comment pages: 1 2