Wow, the past day has been a wild ride, hasn't it? We were all prepared for a win, while steeled for a loss.
Then the Chief Justice threw a curve ball, stating ObamaCare was indeed constitutional, but only if funding is a tax!
One of the first reactions, within minutes, was a rather erudite, heavily linked, article here entitled "DID THE SCOTUS CREATE A NEW TAXING AUTHORITY NOT IN THE CURRENT CONSTITUTION?" Go here if you are interested.
Poor Judson Phillips has been hanging out at the Supreme Court for a couple of weeks in anticipation. Wasted money on an unused Football yesterday. Hope it was Chinese, so it didn't cost too much! See The football that was not spiked if you are interested.
I'll not list all the articles published here yesterday. Or the hundreds of emails I received.
Me? I said very little yesterday. I was too flabbergasted to say much.
Now, I've had a bit of time for introspection. Read bunches of articles. A good place to start is the Full text of US Supreme Court decision on health care law (193 pages)... you can find it right here. At a minimum, I'd suggest reading the Syllabus, and the Opinion of ROBERTS, C. J., (pages 50 through 65) He comes across as an irate blogger, IMHO! Attacks Ginsburg successfully, and much more. Entertaining, to say the least.
Nuclear waste(p.40) is on point too, I think.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, back to Roberts' options, which were either:
or,
What would the first option have precipitated?
Roberts chose the second option, allowing ObamaCare to stand for the moment. What does this do?
So, what was Chief Justice Roberts' best choice? Only history will tell us. He made his choice.
One of the highest stakes poker games ever played!
Was Roberts correct? On balance perhaps so. I hope all here agree with me!
Addendum: when you're done with this one, take a look at
Pennies from heaven...or from John Roberts? END the IRS?
Permalink Reply by Horse Thief on I don't know but time will tell
Permalink Reply by Angela T on Unfortunately this ruling has set a precedent that allows government to mandate anything as long as a non-compliance tax is attached. Think about the frightening possibilities there. What would a future Congress controlled by Progressives mandate? And there is nothing to prevent them from making the tax so high that middle-class Americans will, in effect, be forced to comply. This was a bad ruling that set a dangerous precedent. The fact that the true conservatives on the Court harshly disagreed with this ruling speaks volumes.
Permalink Reply by Sumsanity on A point that has been glossed over even by those critical of the decision. I'm glad someone else noticed, Angela. This is the single most important thing to take away from this disasterous decision. Now that the Supreme Court has given their stamp of approval the only thing that will stop the tax, borrow, and spenders is a wary informed public. And we know how well that works.
Permalink Reply by david chaney on Not only that, but they can force you into debt against your will. If you don't acquire debt to meet their mandates, they'll tax you and the government will spend money on your behalf. Imagine all the stuff the Government can find to waste money on. Worse yet, you'll go into debt, as you are forced to live beyond or taxed beyond your means. The Government can make you a slave to the ruling elite. Pick your poison, credit card debt or taxes.
Permalink Reply by Norma J. Sears on It's not constitutional for Supreme Court Justice to write a tax law; Notice I dropped the "chief." He absconded.
Permalink Reply by Angela T on Agreed, Norma! Roberts could not cite any Constitutional taxing power which allows the government to impose unconstitutional mandates as long as a non-compliance tax is attached.
Permalink Reply by JC Patriot on So Roberts voted for option 2. But still the left-wingers are never going to let the facts change their talking points. And trying to argue the facts with them on those accusations of theirs is only going to make them yell louder.
I vote for option 1. Do you think the left is willing to open this up to a popular vote like they want to do with the electoral vote? I doubt it, but now I wonder what Roberts would say to that in his bizarro world ...
Permalink Reply by Dennis L on I have no idea what Roberts thinking was in voting to allow the socialist heathcare law to stand. Perhaps this is a backdoor tactic to help energize conservatives to bring Obama down in Nov. We will never know what was in Roberts mind, but this ruling goes contrary to everthing that constitutional consevatism stands for. One thing for sure; money is now pouring into the Romney campaign,
Permalink Reply by Norma J. Sears on Whatever he meant we have not way to know. Remember that congress writes and enacts laws. The Supreme's have no power to do that..........period.
By so doing he is allowing them to tax us for everything which includes not doing anything.
Permalink Reply by Juls on Absolutely. Whatever his motivation or the intended/unintended consequences, Roberts was wrong.
Permalink Reply by Mary Creekmore on Once I read the article by Eric Erickson about Roberts being a "chess player" it gave me hope. By declaring it a tax, which is something all Americans hate, and knowing that the Bush tax cuts will soon expire, what better way to persuade the Independents to jump on board with the Romney Revolution. The Supreme court had it's chance to insult all the "Liberal Intellects" that think they know more than anyone else by remarking on how "unwise" Obamacare was. I've also heard that this was a way to appease all the whiney Lefties who still blame the Supreme court for crowning George Bush president back in 2000 by giving them what they want. Plus I agree with you, it lights the fires again under the Tea Party members.
Mary,
I agree with you. I liked the part where Roberts said, "It is not our job to protect you from your political choices."
Once I understood the reasoning I applauded Roberts' strength. AA would have called voting the other way 'enabling'. It's only when the drunk is allowed to fully experience the consequences of his drunkeness that he begins thinking about getting sober.
I'll bet there are a lot of people who are going to sober up and realize that if this is to get fixed it is UP TO US TO FIX IT!
© 2013 Created by Judson Phillips.
