Too bad, but at least we’ll be spared all that drivel from the left about the “politicized” Supreme Court – they’re back to being reasoned, principled jurists. Until the next case.
UPDATE: Upholding it on Congress’s power to tax, rather than the Commerce Clause. That might be significant for the next massive extension of federal power but I think not: the power to tax is the power to destroy and all other protections fall under this sledge hammer.
The irony of this ruling is that the government spent most of its time in oral argument denying that it was a tax yet that’s what saved their bacon.
we are doomed
Supreme Court rules that Bummer is the greatest tax increaser in World history adding to his record as the greatest deficit spender in World history.
Bacon has been banned, sorry.
The only plus – but – I do think it’s a big one….. the right will be fired up beyond imagination. An obomination to impose this much guvment on us all.
BTW – I have never had strong opinions as to how the Court would rule. I am not shocked by Roberts’ position, either. No Constitutional scholar, I – so, I leave it up to the experts of experts. My bottom line is this: we get the government that we elect. Don’t like this result? Then get policitians in who will restore liberty and choice to we, the people!!
Sad day for our country. We not only need to vote out a whole bunch of D’s, but a whole bunch of RINOs to recover from this mess. Given the apparent stupidity of many voters, that won’t happen in my lifetime…or perhaps ever.
Didn’t Obama promise America he wouldn’t raise taxes on middle-class people? Now that the Supreme Court has upheld Obamacare on the grounds that its core provision is in fact a tax, has Obama’s promise been exploded?
Here come the arrows – fire away Liberterian Advocate, Inaqua, Cobra, Balzac, but isnt the individual mandate to buy health insurance a sound policy and perhaps even more of a conservative notion (individual responsibility to find insurance) rather than a liberal notion which would be just plain “free” healthcare for all?
Most who become seriously ill or even moderately illl are a financial burden to society and the tax payer when they seek services without the aid of an insurance program and managed health care.
The only solution is to throw the bums out. Start locally with the execrable Himes. The traditional remedies were: Tar & Feathers! Pitchforks!
Burn an effigy of Himes in front of Town Hall.
Laughing out loud at the idea that was only the left that has accused the judiciary of being too political. Did you miss, I don’t know, the last 40 years of American politics? Funny, too, that you’re now willing to describe the view that this law is constitutional as principled and reasoned. Took a while, but nice to see it.
Double dilemma for Willard:
First, he is backtracking furiously on his immigration stance. You know, he didn’t really mean all those stupid comments about self-deportation, etc.
Second, since this is now “settled law”, and he just runs as an anti-anything Obama, how does he appear positive on anything?? I know…he will say Chief Justice Roberts suffers from insanity!!
So Congress and the President have the right to let lobbyists, or in this case, insurance companies, write legislation that favors themselves with your money. And Congress and the President have the right to tax the American Citizen to death, even if he doesn’t have it, no matter what they call it, and will be happy to throw him or her in a privately owned prison, again at your expense, if he can’t cough up the dough. So what else is new?
And now we’re stuck with a 2700 page health care bill that the insurance companies wrote and no one in Congress read before they voted into law — you’ll have to pass it to know what’s in it… Are there any parallels in history we can look to, to how this usually ends? Of course there are:
In this video presentation of two articles: the first, written in 1979, and the second, a 2009 update. We see how the Welfare State in Rome destroyed a thriving economy and led to corruption that made inevitable its collapse, and how that parallels our current situation:
And what is the source of all this insanity? What does the MSM say is the source of our inevitable destruction and downfall into utter chaos for which the FEMA internent camps that await you? CNBC admits: We’re all SLAVES to CENTRAL BANKERS:
The only good thing about this ruling is that it has made me lose my appetite – maybe I’ll be able to lose a few pounds. Greenwich Old Timer
MSNBC is having a dancing in the streets party! Worse, Nancy Pelosi is shouting at the rooftops “see, I told you it was constitutional”. Anchors at Fox are wearing black arm bands.
I hate to say this, but I think right here and now clinches the election for Obama. Romney doesn’t have much of a comeback other than to get people to see it as a tax but I’m betting more people would rather healthcare on the backs of the wealthy than worry about some piddling tax.
Where does the federal government get the power to impose a “tax” like this? The 16th amendment allows only income taxes. The consitituion itself allows only “direct Taxes” apportioned among the states based on population (and that was held not to apply to taxes on rent, for example, because the tax would lose its proportionality; yet, with this tax/penalty for the non-insured, there would likely be even less connection to proportionality…)
The Roberts agrument really seems stupid. But Roberts is genius, so I must be missing something.
Dude –
This decision is a bunch of BS. This is not a tax. They are going to tax you for NOT doing something? A tax needs to apply to all. And be attributed to doing something. Buying gas, earning income, capital gains. This is a “tax” on people exercising free will, and against everything this country is about. It is the government FORCING you to do something THEY WANT, just because you are BREATHING!! It is not the same as requiring folks to buy car insurance. You don’t have to own a car.
So it is clearly not a tax, and should have been struck down by the courts. We are adopting the European, socialist model, and look how good that is working out for them.
American Republic, meet banana.
Your Pal,
Walt
I don’t get it. Doesn’t the tax (penalty for not having health insurance) kick in if you don’t buy health insurance? That would make it more of a “threat to tax”.
The irony of this post is that, no, the government spent exactly none of its time in oral argument denying it was a tax and a great deal of its time explaining that one of its core arguments was that, yes, Congress can pass this legislation under the taxing power.
Here’s a transcript: http://www.npr.org/2012/03/27/149465820/transcript-supreme-court-the-health-care-law-and-the-individual-mandate.
Here’s what you’ll find there:
too bad… my tax goes to irresponsible teen pregnancy medial bill? man… this country is hopeless
I agree: the country is doomed and the end will come sooner than most of us,but not the left. The triumph of the looters.
4 more years I guess
John Roberts caved to the pressure of not wanting his court to be seen as partisan
I don’t think Roberts caved – he just decided that, under precedent, the governments power to tax is unlimited. And that;s why I finally give up – as of this month we’ve seen the EPA continue its assault on the economy with its new CO2 rules, a new tax on the middle class and an addendum to the transportation bill that will trap taxpayers in this country by rescinding their passports.
Glenn Reynolds quoted his former law professor at Yale this morning, who said, “the constitution ends where the Internal Revenue Service begins”.
The truly depressing thing about this is that the hoi polloi is cheering as they lose their liberty. They never wanted it in the first place, I suppose.
What seems to be missing in the comments is an understanding that if the Dems. had just come clean to begin with and called it a tax there wouldn’t have been a basis to challenge the law. J. Roberts is in the right (and kudos to him for standing above the politics). Take comfort in the rule of law and hope that Congress gets some sense knocked into them in the next round of elections – I’m with Walt on finding taxes for being alive offensive.
What disturbs me is that Congress never relinquishes new power, regardless of which party rules. The worst of EPA regulations, just as one example, have been upheld by the Court as a reasonable exercise of legislative power and the Court invites the legislators to change the law if they don’t like the result. Never happened, never will. No going back once another piece of liberty is lost.
Its seems the people who it affects the least, meaning the wealthy, seem to be the most upset by it.
I’d take all this posturing seriously if the same anti-health care lobby, would scream from the rooftops about the costs of endless global wars and the costs of security theater we’re subjected to in the name of “freedom”.
In the end, the dems and repubs arent that different. They both extract their dues from all of us, and just put different labels on it.
CF – importantly J. Roberts also said that the law was beyond the power of the Commerce Clause. That’s a pretty big ruling and in the long run perhaps the start of something more meaningful.
Obama promises millions will be locked up in new prisons to be built in your neighborhood: http://www.spnheadlines.com/2010/03/obama-jail-for-health-insurance_01.html
A tax with no teeth.
“What can the government do to make you pay?
Well, unlike if you refuse to pay your taxes, it can’t throw you in jail or put a lien on your home or other property (page 336 of the legislation). It can potentially reduce your tax refund, but that’s really it. If you’re not getting a tax refund, you’re free and clear.”
http://news.firedoglake.com/2012/06/26/reminder-individual-mandate-carries-a-weak-easily-evaded-penalty/
“Here’s what a day at the hospital cost: $48,499. Here’s what I’m going to pay: $1,868.
By the way, just a couple of breakdowns on the nut cited above: Dr. Bluestein billed $26,750 for his work on April 5. . . My Cigna negotiators knocked **$24,952** off that total, then paid $1,610, leaving me to pay $189.
http://www.greenwichtime.com/default/article/Michael-J-Daly-Staying-well-is-going-to-cost-you-3655986.php
Obama’s primary arguments for his healthcare reform are those of most liberals: reform will solve the uncompensated care problem and the pre-existing condition exclusion (remember that one?) Uncompensated care is when the uninsured get care that others must pay for. But uncompensated care is tiny, 4% or less of healthcare spending. Does fixing uncompensated care justify comprehensive government-based “reform” of the other 96% of healthcare spending? Being a liberal means you never have to do math…..
Pre-existing condition exclusions are another micro-issue that can be covered by specific, modestly-scaled legislation. Private insurers are already fixing them. They certainly doesn’t justify the leviathan that is Obamacare.
Liberals run from analysis and numbers. For example, we often hear the liberal argument that the government needs higher taxes to carry out its noble missions of fixing bridges and educating our youth. Well spending on infrastructure and education is what, 5% of Federal spending? About 60% of the spending is Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. The libs, being allergic to numbers, just cite their noble aspirations, and are silent when the government’s finances drown in the tsunami of entitlement spending which they created and they decline to analyze and repair.
The comment that made me puke today was from Nancy Pelosi. She said she called Vicki Kennedy and told her “Ted can rest now.”
Hey Vicki, can Mary Jo Kopekne rest too?
TILT. GAME OVER.
Looks like we will run out of Other People’s Money sooner than expected. Then – the real fun begins… no matter how any court rules.
Balzac, my son was denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions (for autism). This happens more than you will ever know. It is difficult to look at me and talk “math”. You talk about “modest” legislation. Well, gee, how to pay for it? According to right wingers, all taxes are BAD! And if you honestly think insurance companies are fixing this by themselves, well, go ahead and keep watching Fox News.
EOS – Since you mantioned Mary Jo I thought you might enjoy this limerick:
An amorous sot name of Teddy
Lost control when things got a bit heady.
He went over the side,
Left his ride in the tide,
And his squeeze giving head to an eddy.
Bob A – here you go:
http://reason.com/blog/2012/06/27/you-dont-have-to-support-universal-healt
Ways to help people like your son and many others who needed assistance that was not there – yet – without usurping our basic freedom and liberty to choose.
Stop for a moment and consider that Roberts just might be a genius and history will see him that way, at least from the center-right perspective. Consider the following:
If you read Clarence Thomas’ dissent, it is actually written in the tone of a concurring majority opinion. Why?
Within the last several weeks, Justice Ginsburg has been focusing public comments on severability of the balance of the ACA as if the mandate was already doomed. Head fake or that’s what she ought at the time? Why?
Obama, on the day the initial decision was discussed internally and voted on by the Justices, became quite pissy and put his warning shot across the SC’s bow. Why? Did Kagen give him a heads up that the mandate was in trouble?
In recent weeks, it has been reported that Obama was privately telling monied supporters that he might need a second term in order to “get healthcare right”? Why? Did he think it doomed in the SC?
Did Roberts sense that an invalidation of the mandate would make the SC a target of withering attacks and further diminish the stature of the Court in the eyes of the public? He is a very smart guy and that threat would not have been missed by him. Never mind the impact on the balance of his tenure and his legacy.
So now let’s look at what Roberts’ vote and opinion has done both directly and indirectly, in no specific order.
By successfully arguing that the penalty for not paying for insurance is a tax, he took the argument out of the Commerce Clause and therefor did not expand the interpretation of the Commerce Clause any further. Congress received no more power in this decision.
By making this penalty a tax, Roberts puts it back in the hands of the Congress and not HHS or some other agency.
By making it a tax, he gives Congress a potential opportunity to repeal a tax, which it can do. While that might never pass a Dem/Reid Senate, a small GOP majority in the Senate (and continued control of the House) might allow the tax to be repealed. That would undo a good chunk of the law. Oh yeah, I understand that tax repeal votes can not be filibustered so the GOP needs just 51 votes in Senate (or 50 if the VP is a Republican).
As a tax, it is collectible by the IRS but, I believe, the IRS is given no power to enforce (ie can’t garnish wages, seize assets). Thus, young and healthy folks just won’t pay.
Roberts’ opinion also calls the law faulty and is unabashed in his criticism of the law as a practical matter. He warns that insurance companies are doomed, etc. This, if the ACA is ultimately repealed entirely or dies by repealing the tax or fails over the long term, Roberts is vindicated on that front.
The bipartisan result also insulates the Court from general attacks and helps cement Roberts’ own legacy as a fair and balanced arbiter of the law.
By giving Obama a “victory”, Roberts has deprived Obama and the Left of the election argument that the Roberts’ Court was being ideological, activist and right-leaning. The Dems were going to fund raise on that basis and their argument has effectively evaporated.
Conversely, the Right is energized and united behind a cause which transcends the priority interests of the GOP’s patchwork of constituencies.
Further, the losing side was always going to be the fund-raising and other enthusiasm winner hear. The Tea Party, while active but lying low, will be invigorated. The GOP and Romney campaign will likely bring in far more incremental dollars than the Dems and Obama in the wake of the decision.
And Romney is handed a huge campaign argument even as he tip toes around the Romneycare issue.
And Obama, already having questions asked about his truthiness, will have to explain to voters why he swore the ACA/mandate was not a ax when selling it, yet had his Solicitor General argue before the Court that it was indeed a tax and that the only reason it survived judicial review was it indeed being a tax. Karl Rove is already preparing the ad “Obama, the largest tax raising president in history”.
I could go one but up think I have made my point. Those thinking Roberts caved should look at the bigger picture. Those Dems basting in scheudenfreude (sp?) should consider the old adage “be careful what you wish for”.
Now I am no expert nor infallible so please feel free to tell me where I am wrong.
For my part, I think Robert s is playing 3-D chess while everyone else is thinking in terms of checkers. If I am even close to being correct, Roberts might go down as the most Machiavellian Chief Justice in the history of the Court.
I don’t fault Roberts – he followed the law as he said it. If he also gutted the commerce clause while he was at it well that’s nice but irrelevant, I fear – we’ve lost to the age-old scourge of the world, fearful peasants who treasure security over freedom, magic over reality and who look for leaders who will lie to them all the way to the gallows. For a brief moment in time we had people in this country who could resist that mob but the scum has breached the barriers and is rushing pell mell to their doom, dragging our children with them
Maybe I’ll be more cheerful tomorrow – after all, look at that crying fool in Wisconsin the night Walker won, sniveling that democracy was dead. Sadly for us, he was promptly proved wrong in so far as he feared for the destruction of a democracy and by and for the looters. May I be proved just as wrong.
OK Fly, I will tell you where you are wrong. You ignorant slut!!
“By successfully arguing that the penalty for not paying for insurance is a tax, he took the argument out of the Commerce Clause and therefor did not expand the interpretation of the Commerce Clause any further. Congress received no more power in this decision”.
You are correct. IT IS A PENALTY – FOR NOT DOING SOMETHING THE FED’s WANT. The only way to avoid the penalty is to stop breathing. He CERTAINLY provided the Government to TAX OR PENALIZE – call it what you want –TO DO ANYTHING THEY WANT!! I call that punishment. Which the Fed’s should not be allowed to do to ANYONE FOR DOING NOTHING!! If that doesn’t scare you all you are blind.
They can tax or penalize if you buy, sell, or DO NOTHING!! I think this effectively gives the Government, and more importantly THIS PRESIDENT to whatever the F%^k he wants. That is frightening.
You are wrong on other points but now I am too pissed off to rebut your other drivel. Besides, no more should be required
Those looking for a silver lining in the decision just don’t get it: if the federal power grab via the commerce clause is temporarily blocked until the next court appointments, the taxing power comes in – picture a stream rushing downhill – if it encounters a large boulder in its channel it simply flows around it and carves a new channel.
Under the Robert’s decision, there is no limit to the government’s power to compel behavior by imposing tax penalties for non-compliance.It makes no difference to me, and will make no difference to this country’s demise, what law is used to crush citizens; the effect is what matters and the effect is the same.
Walt – maybe you should give up the crack. “Slut” really, after all I have typed here you give me that Maher-esque response.
The primacy of the SC is something we should all be concerned about. Gore v Bush diminished the Court in the eyes of a good number of Americans. This decision, whether you like the outcome or not, repairs some of that in the least offensive way possible. For the Court to have found in your opinion, it would have destroyed the Court and could possible have given Obama enough wind to be re-elected. As a republic, we could afford neither of those.
We can disagree about whether Roberts was a genius, a coward or a traitor to his alleged ideology. The process worked as it was supposed to.
You are welcome to your opinion just as I am. There was no one hoping more than I that the entirety of ACA would be struck down. It wasn’t and no amount of bloviating or ad hominen attacks on those who are seeing things differently is going to change that.
If you are mad, go help get out the vote. Convince an undecided in a state that matters to vote against Obama. Give money in swing states to the local GOP get-out-the-vote efforts. Find a GOP call bank to man.
Go buy and AR and several thousand rounds of 223. Get a CCW and a Glock or SIG. Learn how to use them properly and prominently. [clearly meant in a figurative sense and in no way is this writer to be considered a threat to society in general or the imaginary Evil GAR Princess - Ed]
Go kiss a kid or pet a puppy. Whatever it takes to get the endorphins flowing.
Just don’t call me a slut because I am trying to find a lining of any type in this disappointment. And if you don’t want to consider my drivel then go listen to Rush or Savage or Beck or any of the others who are out raising the blood pressures of folks who are pissed today.
Or, you can read the links at the center column of Drudge right now and see that I am not alone in seeing this with a more positive angle then you see.
Dude -
That may be the most cogent thing you have ever written. In fact, it may be the only cogent thing you have ever written!!
I am duly impressed.
Your Pal,
Walt
“Balzac, my son was denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions (for autism).”
In other words, you didn’t feel it was desirable to get health insurance for your son until he was diagnosed with an expensive to treat condition. You gambled, you lost, why should the rest of us pay?
Fly –
The “slut” comment is not “Maher-esque”. It is a direct rip off from SNL. YES I ADMIT IT!! And if it offended you, I apologize.
When the SCOTUS reaches a decision, it should do so based on the law of the land, not to do damage control of its “image”. If you believe this, you do not understand the fundamental principles on which this country was founded.
“We can disagree about whether Roberts was a genius, a coward or a traitor to his alleged ideology. The process worked as it was supposed to”. I have no opinion on Roberts, other than to say his conclusion was based on neither logic or law. Maybe he had a bad day. Maybe he made a mistake. The process working as it should? I can agree with that under the premise no system is perfect, and sometimes you get it wrong. Roberts got this one wrong. By any level of common sense or law.
I don’t know how to use a gun. If it comes to that maybe I move in with the Weasel Boy. And if it DOES come to that I hope he shoots me first!!
I kiss a puppy every day. And a Hottie.
“Just don’t call me a slut because I am trying to find a lining of any type in this disappointment” Why do you need to find a lining in things that are obviously wrong? It is just ignoring reality, and that is never good. And so what do you want me to call you a slut for? I am happy to oblige.
Believing you are right because others agree with you is a sheep mentality, and has led to the demise of many a nation.
Now do you want to hear the one about the Priest, Doctor, and Ruth Bader Ginsberg at an orgy, or do you want to keep pushing forward a moronic point of view? You slut.
Yes Walt, I am delusional but others wiser than I are seeing silver linings. The from the WJS’s James Taranto:
“So what we have here is another 5-4 decision, just like Bush v. Gore and Citizens United. But as a political matter, NFIB v. Sebelius is different in two important ways. The obvious one is that this time the left loves the outcome. Somebody will have fun compiling a list of quotes from lefties bewailing 5-4 decisions yesterday, then praising this one. You can start with Reich.
The second difference is that the result in this decision is likely to be hated by people who aren’t immersed in politics. The left hated Bush v. Gore for partisan reasons and hates Citizens United for ideological ones. People who aren’t particularly partisan or ideological had no reason to care about either of those rulings. But this one will affect their health care, and a large majority of the public has long been hostile, and rightly so, to ObamaCare.
What’s more, Roberts’s opinion has made a liar of President Obama, who in a 2009 interview with ABC News insisted that the mandate was “is absolutely not a tax increase.” He even lectured the network’s George Stephanopoulos, who had cited the dictionary definition of tax: “George, the fact that you looked up Merriam’s Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition.”
In 2008, Obama promised not to raise taxes on middle-class taxpayers. Oops. Maybe he can win back swing voters by telling them the word gullible isn’t in the dictionary.”
InstaPundit: Heh.
Whistling past the graveyard, Fly. We lost a huge battle today and all the false cheer that, with the Commerce Clause gone as a weapon for a year or two the looters will at least pause is just romantic nonsense. So they use the taxing power – it’s more powerful anyway – to further their goals and if for some reason they need to return to the commerce clause they’ll have it back after the next election when, assuming he’s still in office to do it, Obama will replace 3-4 justices with people of his persuasion.
But they won’t need it.
And then there is Timothy Dalrymple at blog Patheos. CF, be sure to note #1 and #2 below.
“Five Possible Silver Linings in the Obamacare Decision”
I have not been as overwhelmed with grief at the Supreme Court’s decision on the Affordable Care Act as some of my fellow conservatives. I was wondering whether I was just being naive, but since I just listened in person to a talk from Paul Clement, who actually argued the case on behalf of the states before the Supreme Court, and his feelings seemed to resonate with my own, I feel a little more confident now to share what might be some of the silver linings in this decision:
1. I know a lot of conservatives are writing now on how the power of the federal government just expanded dramatically, and they may be right. But I think it’s possible that the long term effect will be rather to narrow — not legally but practically and actually — the sphere of government power. First of all, placing the ACA under the Taxation power instead of the Commerce power places greater limits on how that power can be used and dramatically softens the penalty for non-compliance (you simply pay a tax, you cannot be jailed or otherwise punished for failure to purchase health insurance). Congress cannot compel you to purchase insurance; it can only compel you to pay a non-extreme, non-coercive tax if you wish not to purchase insurance. Second, by laying waste to the Commerce Clause argument and making clear that this sort of thing can only be done through the taxation power, the decision may make it harder to pass these sorts of laws in the first place. You cannot hide in the subterfuge of the Commerce Clause — or, if you try, everyone will say, “No, we know better now, this is and must be a tax.” Roberts’ decision will press new social welfare initiatives out of the commerce clause and into the tax code — and passing a new tax is much more difficult as a political matter than passing a new regulation.
2. By placing the ACA under the umbrella of the tax power, Roberts may have made the ACA easier to overturn by several orders of magnitude. The ordinary process, of course, requires 60 votes to overcome a filibuster in the Senate. But when it concerns budgetary matters, including taxes (like the Bush tax cuts), 51 votes are sufficient to put the law on hold for 10 years. So, theoretically, 51 Republicans will be capable now of overturning the ACA at least for ten years (at which point it could be reviewed again). Fifty-one Republicans could have attempted this in any case, but now they can do so with much greater plausibility because this is a matter of taxing and spending and not regulation of commerce.
3. The importance of the ruling on states and Medicaid should not be lost in all of this. The administration’s claim that it could remove all medicaid funding for the states that refused to expand medicaid in the way the administration wants was rejected. The administration can condition new, additional funding on states’ cooperation, but not the preexisting funding. This is a big difference. It will be much easier for states to opt out of the medicaid expansion.
4. The spin war will be interesting to watch. President Obama and his allies clearly did not want to label the mandate as a tax – he denied it in unequivocal terms to George Stephanopolous. Now they will have no choice. President Obama and Congressional Democrats just became the owners of a considerable tax hike – what one of my colleagues is calling “The most deceptive tax increase in American history.” The Obama campaign will frame it as a tax on “the rich” — since you only pay the tax if you are a taxpayer who is capable of purchasing coverage but chose not to purchase it. But look for Republicans to start referring to the “Obamacare Tax.” This is one way in which this can redound to the benefit of Republicans: everyone from Romney on down can now press his opponent with the question, “Are you for the Obamacare Tax or against it?”
5. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, I think this places the central issue of the election very clearly in front of the voters: Do you believe that the government ought to have more power over your life, or do you think it should have less? The Supreme Court is not going to save us against our own poor electoral decisions, if the people we elect go on to pass foolish taxes. Conservatives cannot rely on the Supreme Court as a backstop. So I think you will see the Tea Party movement revived, less focused on internecine battles and more focused again on the fundamental questions of the role of government.
fly angler has it right
And for just one more, quoting from Tom Scocca:
“By ruling that the individual mandate was permissible as a tax, he joined the Democratic appointees to uphold the law—while joining the Republican wing to gut the Commerce Clause (and push back against the necessary-and-proper clause as well). . . . Roberts’ genius was in pushing this health care decision through without attaching it to the coattails of an ugly, narrow partisan victory. Obama wins on policy, this time. And Roberts rewrites Congress’ power to regulate, opening the door for countless future challenges. In the long term, supporters of curtailing the federal government should be glad to have made that trade.”
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/scocca/2012/06/roberts_health_care_opinion_commerce_clause_the_real_reason_the_chief_justice_upheld_obamacare_.html
Chris, you are a lwayer and i am not so i should show deference but i can’t, sorry. From all i have read, while the taxing power may seem more powerful, it can not become onerous in scale or application or it become punitive and there is plenty of precedent against punitive taxes.
In practical terms, taxation against someone not doing something is NOT more powerful than the Commerce Clause because any future congress can overturn a tax with a simple Senate majority. Also, based on the reading of several law blogs, the Commerce Clause is actually being wound back with the Roberts ruling which is a slow reversal of its expansion over the past decades.
Further, should Obama get re-elected, he does not necessarily get 3-4 new judges, especially if the GOP takes a small Senate majority. Ginsburg and Breyer might chose to retire but Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas will have to be carried out in stretchers rather than retire under Obama.
I certainly hope you’re right of course, Fly, but experience suggests otherwise; we’ve been on the same downward track of ever-expanding government since FDR and I see no way off.
And while you know that I usually agree with you, I’m not with you on this one:
If only.
Walt, got the SNL riff and ignored it anyway since I am not Jane Curtin.
You are a smart guy so I am sure you do not forget that the Solicitor General argued that the mandate’s penalty was a tax. Conversely, the plantiffs argued that the Commerce Clause should not be operative I believe. If i understand howthis work, the plantiffs have the higher burden by arguing that they are in the right. Ruling as he did, Roberts looked at the Administration’s argument about it being a tax and agreed with them that it is indeed within Congress’ power to introduce a tax. If it is a tax, then the Commere Clause argument is set aside because the tax is within the laws. And without an unconstitutional finding on the CC, severability is also set aside.
Also, I am sure you realize that there is no Constitutional protection against taxation, for activity or non-activity. While punitive taxation might be considered cruel and unusual punishment, a $200 per alum tax/penalty would not breech the cruel barrier. Thus, there is really nothing the Constitution can offer as protection against a tax.
So help me out Walt, how is Roberts “wrong” if there is no violation of the Constitution in the existence of this “tax”?
What is interesting about the wording of the ACA is, as noted by anger reader, the lack of enforcement capability if someone choses to pay neither the tax nor the insurance premiums. So how badly does that interfere with our freedoms?
I appreciate that this does not sit well because I would have preferred this be tossed entirely. However, I think is a pyrrhic victory for Obama and the Left. Especially so if it provides enough of a push to remove Obama from office.
Goodnight.
Inagua, I was part of plan back in the 90′s, yes, a group plan, that decided after I was employed that they would not provide coverage. Just decided they did not want to pay, citing pre-existing conditions Yes, I paid for his coverage. There was no gamble…and I wound up paying, not the taxpayer.
Even Willard, “King of the Flip Floppers” Romney said yesterday this should be covered in a new law. Now let’s see, he has gone from RomneyCare, to against it with ObamaCare, to now I like many of the provisions.
All these rants about freedom and liberty…come say it to my face. No one should make comments like that if you have been in my shoes.
“Inagua, I was part of plan back in the 90′s, yes, a group plan, that decided after I was employed that they would not provide coverage.”
So your insurance plan did not cover your son’s condition. Too bad you didn’t get broader coverage on your own or to save up for unforseen contigencies. It is called taking responsibility. I repeat, why should the rest of us bail you out unless you are indigent?