I’m completely dumbstruck over the logic that was used to uphold Obamacare. I do understand Roberts’ opinion on its face after reading it, I just don’t understand how the Administration was allowed to make a “multiple choice” set of arguments and how the justices simply picked a, b, or c.
I was actually worried about this when the administration was allowed to keep trying on arguments until they found one that might work.
I think the fact that the one that the majority chose was the complete opposite of the one that Obama, Pelosi and Reid made to ensure that it passed – that the mandate wasn’t a tax, gives a strong campaign issue for the Republicans to run on. The differences are now clear, Democrats = Marxists = total control over you, Republicans = free enterprise = freedom for you.
I’m down as anybody over this but the worst thing to do is panic. We have lost a major battle but we have not lost the war. As I have pointed out, this is a long war. We have been headed to this point for over a hundred years and it won’t turn around in one election cycle.
I did see a couple of things in the majority opinion that can be used to start the climb back out of the well the Roberts Court just tossed us in. Roberts’ narrow construction of the limits of the Commerce Clause is a plus and the fact that by calling this a tax, mandates are fair game to attack.
I’ll have more after this has a chance to sink in. The rulings are complicated.
The Rio Norte Line 
Logic? What logic? No one who has read and understood the Constitution could have found this law constitutional. Hell, even Kennedy got this one right.
–John Quincy Adams
Due to my schedule, I won’t have time to read the opinion until this weekend.
I do think, this can energize the majority of America who is against nationalized healthcare. Also, people will realize how important controlling the Presidency and the Senate (with a super majority) is, with the power to appoint justices who either ignore or preserve OUR CONSTITUTION.
Since OWEbozo PROMISED that he would NOT raise taxes on the middle class and the SCOTUS affirmed that that is what OWEbozocare does, his highness should either repeal the law or admit to America that he is a liar.
It is enough to make a guy want to run for office.
I asked EBL this and I shall now ask you: Where can I read their opinions?
Oh, and run, baby, run! (What could possibly go wrong with your campaign with all of us behind the scenes?)
Click to access 11-393c3a2.pdf
Thanks, luv. EBL gave me the link and I copy/pasted it. Lots of fun legalise bullroy…… Commerce clause, anyone? Sorry, perhaps not. Read an interesting article: http://reason.com/blog/2012/06/28/most-of-the-justices-reject-the-commerce
Taxes, right? S’cuse me, I must go slay some dragons. I’ve not been the worthy conservative knight lately…..
The dissenting opinion (which is near the bottom) should have been the majority opinion.
Pingback: SCOTUS | The Rio Norte Line | American Political Blogs Watch
Roberts’ opinion was consistent with his previous ones, especially in Citizens United–it favored the corporations that will benefit most, in this case the insurance companies and the drug companies: http://jmcpherson.wordpress.com/2012/06/28/roberts-rule-the-order-in-obamacare-decision/
I will grant you that the health insurance companies are going to benefit from this, but it is only because they are as short-sighted as those Republicans who think they can still “fix” this ruling. Anyone who has bothered to read this monstrosity knows that, starting about 5-6 years from now – after it is too late to do anything about it – the health insurance companies will start going out of business because the ONLY thing people will be able to afford will be the “public option.”
I wonder how many people realize that jail time for people who “chose” not to but insurance was in a previous version of this bill. I’m not sure it was taken out, I haven’t read that section of the bill (it is 2700 pages with about 3 times that in references that need to be read as well).
“I wonder how many people realize that jail time for people who ‘chose’ not to but insurance was in a previous version of this bill.”
That’s simply false–I challenge you to find any version of the law that included jail time: http://www.factcheck.org/2010/10/health-care-spin-again/
LOL, man, the lengths people will go to.
IT WAS IN THE PREVIOUS VERSION!
People who oppose the bloody bill made a big deal about it when they first had a chance to read it. But I’m sure it is OK to cite Fact Check, a left-leaning organization. I mean, ask Obama if he is a patriot and I’m sure he’ll tell you he is – BUT THAT DON’T MAKE IT SO!
“LOL, man, the lengths people will go to”
I’m not sure what you mean, but in fact, you’re partially correct, even if too lazy to find a citation. One House version could have allowed jail time under existing IRS code, but that was never part of any bill passed by Congress: http://www.factcheck.org/2009/11/imprisoned-for-not-having-health-care/
What the heck does it matter who funds Factcheck, if their facts are correct?
That’s more of that “right thinking” and “logic” some folks take pride in here. If you can’t counter the argument with facts, attack the messenger.
Chief Justice Roberts Is A Genius
Posted on June 28, 2012 by I.M. Citizen
Before you look to do harm to Chief Justice Roberts or his family, it’s important that you think carefully about the meaning – the true nature — of his ruling on Obama-care. The Left will shout that they won, that Obama-care was upheld and all the rest. Let them.
It will be a short-lived celebration.
Here’s what really occurred — payback. Yes, payback for Obama’s numerous, ill-advised and childish insults directed toward SCOTUS.
Chief Justice Roberts actually ruled the mandate, relative to the commerce clause, was unconstitutional. That’s how the Democrats got Obama-care going in the first place. This is critical. His ruling means Congress can’t compel American citizens to purchase anything. Ever. The notion is now officially and forever, unconstitutional. As it should be.
Next, he stated that, because Congress doesn’t have the ability to mandate, it must, to fund Obama-care, rely on its power to tax. Therefore, the mechanism that funds Obama-care is a tax. This is also critical. Recall back during the initial Obama-care battles, the Democrats called it a penalty, Republicans called it a tax. Democrats consistently soft sold it as a penalty. It went to vote as a penalty. Obama declared endlessly, that it was not a tax, it was a penalty. But when the Democrats argued in front of the Supreme Court, they said ‘hey, a penalty or a tax, either way’. So, Roberts gave them a tax. It is now the official law of the land — beyond word-play and silly shenanigans. Obama-care is funded by tax dollars. Democrats now must defend a tax increase to justify the Obama-care law.
Finally, he struck down as unconstitutional, the Obama-care idea that the federal government can bully states into complying by yanking their existing medicaid funding. Liberals, through Obama-care, basically said to the states — ‘comply with Obama-care or we will stop existing funding.’ Roberts ruled that is a no-no. If a state takes the money, fine, the Feds can tell the state how to run a program, but if the state refuses money, the federal government can’t penalize the state by yanking other funding. Therefore, a state can decline to participate in Obama-care without penalty. This is obviously a serious problem. Are we going to have 10, 12, 25 states not participating in “national” health-care? Suddenly, it’s not national, is it?
Ultimately, Roberts supported states rights by limiting the federal government’s coercive abilities. He ruled that the government can not force the people to purchase products or services under the commerce clause and he forced liberals to have to come clean and admit that Obama-care is funded by tax increases.
Although he didn’t guarantee Romney a win, he certainly did more than his part and should be applauded.
And he did this without creating a civil war or having bricks thrown through his windshield. Oh, and he’ll be home in time for dinner.
Brilliant.
Follow I.M. Citizen at IMCitizen.net
I’m coming around to this view as I re-read the opinions. Roberts’ majority opinion has so little in common with those of Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Kagan and Breyer that it almost looks like it was designed to be a majority opinion striking down the law and Kennedy’s dissenting opinion looks like a majority opinion, some have even pointed out that the wording of the opinions of Scalia, Alito and Thomas also look like they were written in support of the majority, not the minority.
These things are layered and complex – that’s why I’ve advised B3 to sit down, take a Prozac and lets think about this for a bit. The language about the mandate and the Commerce Clause is potentially devastating and could be used as a tool to dismantle many “progressive” agendas – if the Court has the will to stand behind it.