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:
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
Viele wurden dem nicht zustimmen! Many would disagree with that sentiment - no?
German and mess of other things - Scottish, French, a little Ojibwa Indian, and a whole bunch Ridge Runner! Mostly mutt. Ich spreche ein weinig Deutsch.
The in-the-know political guys (Dick Morris, etc) seem to think the mood of the country is leaning rightward. There are a lot of factions mad at Obama for different reasons. I think the move was gutsy but probably not very dangerous.
If John Roberts did this to make Obama admit this was tax(s)., then he violated his oath of office as a supreme. That is a political maneuver that has NO place in the court's decision. I don't know why John Roberts did what he did, but I agee with the minority opinion. It was BAD law and opened all kind of new doors on taxing authority. I am not quite ready to write Roberts off as a conservative interpreter of the constitution, but this did not boost my confidence in him. Don't forget we have watched republican presidents for 60 years appoint justices who suddenly become very liberal when they get to the court.
Exactly, Robert M. Reynols.
Interesting how liberal presidents don't seem to have that same problem.
Robert, if the Colonial soldiers had followed the rules of 'war etiquette' (as in Redcoats?) we'd be bowing to the Queen today. At some point we have to choose our leaders and trust their judgement.
The continued success of this great experiement has basically rested upon three principles - 1) a well-constructed foundation (the Constitution), 2) men of virtue in positions of leadership (Madison), and 3) a knowledgeable and involved citizenry (Jefferson/Franklin).
The first principle was done for us, the last two fall under the responsibility of the people. When you look at it that way, then should this great experiement fail where would the blame lay? Hint: it ain't Washington, DC!
Cogent observation, Juls!
I've heard the Budget Reconciliation mentioned by several conservative talking heads--I'm not sure I completely understand how this would work--would this have to be voted on by both the House and Senate or only in the Senate--my concern is that Dirty Harry Reid won't let anything come up for a vote like this in the Senate--I'm confused as to how this could proceed--thanks for the education/explanation.
Budget Reconciliation required only 51 Senate votes, filibuster prevention requires 60.
Couldn't get 60, even with control of both houses and the Executive in 09!
Hope that clarifies the reason that it was not presented as a tax. As a new tax, dems couldn't even get 51 in '09.
Got it--thanks I appreciate the education :)