Thank you, John Roberts! Well, maybe, at least....
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:
- Strike down ObamaCare with his single vote.
or,
- Find a way that it could be found Constitutional, and agree with the Left!
What would the first option have precipitated?
- The Liberals would have (perhaps correctly) made accusations of a Right Wing Conspiracy.
- Attacks of Right Wingers throwing Granny under the bus (again). The poor, the downtrodden thrown into the streets, to die in misery.
- ObamaCare would off of the table for November! No longer a talking point. Except that Republicans are still mean and nasty.
Roberts chose the second option, allowing ObamaCare to stand for the moment. What does this do?
- Energizes the Tea Parties, as in 2010 again. Remains a core issue!
- Energizes the Republicans, should they so choose to fight. (Something about no new taxes?)
- Correctly identifies a Tax as a Tax. Called a Spade a Spade.
- Obama continues to say it's not a tax. The hypocrisy is obvious to all most certainly.
- Socialists couldn't get enough support to pass as a tax in '09. Hence the subterfuge.
- This ruling disabled the term "Individual Mandate".
- Affirmed that the Commerce Clause cannot be used to force purchase of anything.
- Budget Reconciliation: ObamaCare can be repealed with only 51 votes. Dems couldn't get 60 votes in 2009...Perhaps couldn't find even 51 today that would vote favoring a new tax!
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?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Vern Shotwell on -
Ha!
Under "Roberts to the White House" I find this little gem on the first page!
John Roberts Is No Fool "The White House tries to put one over on the Supreme Court."
I had forgotten about that incident...a big Obama screw-up, really!
But I couldn't find the indecent referenced above.
-
Permalink Reply by Juls on -
"You can call it what you want" Carney said, "but it is affecting 1 percent of the population. Because most people either have health insurance or people do the responsible thing and if they can afford health insurance they will purchase it."
This entire mess, the entire DEBACLE - for one percent of the population? Are you kidding me? I say we hang 'em.
-
Permalink Reply by Agi Yaeger on -
I agree. But it affects more than 1%.
-
Permalink Reply by Steve Bang on -
I thought the SCOTUS was supposed to interpret law, not make political decisions.
Steve
-
Permalink Reply by Nancy on -
Not certain that Mr. Einstein has the SCOTUS in mind when he made this statement, but it does (IMO) apply to Justice Roberts:
If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts.
Albert Einstein
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Goodfellow on -
That they are. One has to wonder, I believe, if they made the decision based on the law and the Constitution or if they made the decision based on the threats made by the Obama administration.
-
Permalink Reply by Herrmann Glockler on
-
Obamacare was passed to ostensibly reduce the number of uninsured.
At the same time we have laws on the book, that force our most expensive treatment centers to provide treatment to uninsured walk in traffic, without regard to insurance.
Does anyone see, like me, a conflict between these two laws??
A far better way would be to make treatment of walk in traffic to emergency centers voluntary, if that person can not demonstrate possession of any insurance.
This legislation would need to be combined with some low cost catastrophic insurance policy availability, with or without a personal medical savings insurance account that allows payment of routine medical visits outside of the much hated insurance payment for essentially co-payment expenses.
Elimination of the incentive for not getting insurance by exploiting legislation that encourages this abuse of emergency centers, would go a long way to eliminate uninsured problem in America.
-
Permalink Reply by Agi Yaeger on
-
I'm not a gambler nor a chess player. If indeed Roberts is calling Obama's bluff, there must be room left for this move to be a total failure.
Conservatives have great difficulty counteracting the progressive corruption and wickedness.
-
Permalink Reply by Vern Shotwell on
-
Politics is always gambling! We cannot ever assign exact values to anything here.
My gainful life has always been involved in the sciences and engineering, with precise predictions of the results. Not here! Make your bet. Want to buy more chips, Agi?
-
Permalink Reply by Vern Shotwell on
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Goodfellow on
-
Jeder ist Deutsch, haben Sie nicht gewusst?
© 2013 Created by Judson Phillips.
