CHIEF JUSTICE A GENIUS? Did the Obamacare "tax" originate in the Senate??

[Harry Riley]

http://www.imcitizen.net/chief-justice-roberts-is-a-genius/

Chief Justice Roberts Is A Genius

 Posted by I. M. Citizen on June 28, 2012  Healthcare

Jun 282012

 

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.

If You Need More On The Topic: Charles Krauthammer / Joshua Hawley

[Robert James Burkholder]

Someone-- I think Mark R. Levin,On KNZZ am 1100 asked by what authority did Justice Roberts rewrite  the case?

He  rightly said it would be unconstitutional for Congress to mandate everyone purchase insurance. But where was ObamaCare  presented as a tax? I seem to recall the Democrats /Progressives INSISTING.it was not a tax.I am not angry at Roberts  so much as disappointed. I agree with Mark Levin --and Rush Limbaugh.But Harry I can and do agree with you as well the responsibility is OURS. Obama says we need to respect the Law(which he does NOT DO )  I say "we the people" need to accept the responsibility to act to secure a Congress that will make RIGHT what it has broken.I cannot accept the "change" this evil one has brought to MY Country.the enemy creeps in when we are asleep to hold stong men captive and lead silly women filled with diverse lusts astray.

[Johnny Smith]

While you may be correct that Robert's description of the individual mandate as I tax, I would submit to you. He first ruled that the individual mandate was unconstitutional under the commerce clause, then ruled it a tax and constitutional, he should have then ruled that because the bill was originated in the senate and not the house that it was not constitutionally passed, since revenue bills must originate in the house. He failed to carry his ruling out to the full logical conclusion. Can we now bring this to the court to show that it was passed wrongfully and get the entire bill thrown out?

[wayne smyly]

Len Miles has a good point ..

  It seems it is another judge legislating from the bench ..In this case Roberts .

If the American  people decide to re elect Obama does that mean the Obamacare Order for mandatory healthcare insurance is Constitutional as a TAX ?? 

   Is the $100.00 plus  we pay for Medicare part B  , a Tax or a healthcare premium or a penalty ??? Are Tri Care,Medicare,Medicaid , & VA  Co- pays  a TAX  too ???   Is  it a spin of words to just confuse us????

[Harry Riley]

Krauthammer makes it about as clear as it gets.......bottom line.  "We the people" act in November and put legislation back in Congress.

June 28, 2012 4:30 P.M.

Why Roberts Did It ; He’s the custodian of the Court’s reputation.

By: Charles Krauthammer

 

It’s the judiciary’s Nixon-to-China: Chief Justice John Roberts joins the liberal wing of the Supreme Court and upholds the constitutionality of Obamacare. How? By pulling off one of the great constitutional finesses of all time. He managed to uphold the central conservative argument against Obamacare, while at the same time finding a narrow definitional dodge to uphold the law — and thus prevented the Court from being seen as having overturned, presumably on political grounds, the signature legislation of this administration.

 

Why did he do it? Because he carries two identities. Jurisprudentially, he is a constitutional conservative. Institutionally, he is chief justice and sees himself as uniquely entrusted with the custodianship of the Court’s legitimacy, reputation, and stature.

As a conservative, he is as appalled as his conservative colleagues by the administration’s central argument that Obamacare’s individual mandate is a proper exercise of its authority to regulate commerce.

 

That makes congressional power effectively unlimited. Mr. Jones is not a purchaser of health insurance. Mr. Jones has therefore manifestly not entered into any commerce. Yet Congress tells him he must buy health insurance — on the grounds that it is regulating commerce. If government can do that under the Commerce Clause, what can it not do?

 

“The Framers . . . gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it,” writes Roberts. Otherwise you “undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers.”

 

That’s Roberts, philosophical conservative. But he lives in uneasy coexistence with Roberts, custodian of the Court, acutely aware that the judiciary’s arrogation of power has eroded the esteem in which it was once held. Most of this arrogation occurred under the liberal Warren and Burger Courts, most egregiously with Roe v. Wade, which willfully struck down the duly passed abortion laws of 46 states. The result has been four decades of popular protest and resistance to an act of judicial arrogance that, as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg once said, “deferred stable settlement of the issue” by the normal electoral/legislative process.

 

More recently, however, few decisions have occasioned more bitterness and rancor than Bush v. Gore, a 5–4 decision split along ideological lines. It was seen by many (principally, of course, on the left) as a political act disguised as jurisprudence and designed to alter the course of the single most consequential political act of a democracy — the election of a president.

 

Whatever one thinks of the substance of Bush v. Gore, it did affect the reputation of the Court. Roberts seems determined that there be no recurrence with Obamacare. Hence his straining in his Obamacare ruling to avoid a similar result — a 5–4 decision split along ideological lines that might be perceived as partisan and political.

 

National health care has been a liberal dream for a hundred years. It is clearly the most significant piece of social legislation in decades. Roberts’s concern was that the Court do everything it could to avoid being seen, rightly or wrongly, as high-handedly overturning sweeping legislation passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the president.

 

How to reconcile the two imperatives — one philosophical and the other institutional? Assign yourself the task of writing the majority opinion. Find the ultimate finesse that manages to uphold the law, but only on the most narrow of grounds — interpreting the individual mandate as merely a tax, something generally within the power of Congress.

 

Result? The law stands, thus obviating any charge that a partisan Court overturned duly passed legislation. And yet at the same time the Commerce Clause is reined in. By denying that it could justify the imposition of an individual mandate, Roberts draws the line against the inexorable decades-old expansion of congressional power under the Commerce Clause fig leaf.

 

Law upheld, Supreme Court’s reputation for neutrality maintained. Commerce Clause contained, constitutional principle of enumerated powers reaffirmed.

 

That’s not how I would have ruled. I think the “mandate is merely a tax” argument is a dodge, and a flimsy one at that. (The “tax” is obviously punitive, regulatory, and intended to compel.) Perhaps that’s not how Roberts would have ruled had he been just an associate justice, and not the chief. But that’s how he did rule.

 

Obamacare is now essentially upheld. There’s only one way it can be overturned. The same way it was passed — elect a new president and a new Congress. That’s undoubtedly what Roberts is saying: Your job, not mine. I won’t make it easy for you.

 

[Cathy Gardino]

I agree...I don't think Chief Justice Roberts "turned"...I do think he is 'conservative'..and smart! I believe he is giving US the chance we need to get to the polls in in record numbers. He cannot and should not "save us" from ourselves. (Better to keep the natives from getting so restless so early!)

 

He achieved  "definition" of the word "tax", ( which the Dems bo not "accept" hahaha), "commerce clause" is contained, medicaid (the very poor, and now middle class) saved from being de-funded...And showed the power of the Scotus...Now we have 3 more chances,...Repeal on July 11th with 50 votes...and elect Romney get more Republicans in the Senate....and have a Tea Party!...

 

Risky?,,,Yes!...But invigorated? Energized? YOU BET! Be sure everyon you know is registered, has a ride to the polls, and above all, watch out for ANY Intimadation tactics at the polls and report or stand up, then report! It isn't easy to maintain our Republic, but it is very much worth while! Endeavor to enlist more people to help and stay involved until we get the government we want back on track!

[Ed Watts]

Roberts told the New York Times that his only concern was how he could "..save the act."  I think Krauthammer and many on this forum are giving him a lot more credit than he deserves.  I do, however, think that you are right in that he hasn't "turned" -- he has, almost without doubt, been a leftie all along.

I don't trust any of 'em; they don't get into national office if they don't play with the devil.

[Cathy Gardino]

Remember ED,..Not many were awake then...many more are now. In addition, DON"T GIVE UP!

I say "trust but verify".. Ahhh, we play different games here...What if it was more like, "taking the basket off your lamp?"..and..." if you play with fire you must be willing to get burned"...SOMEONE HAS TO DO IT!

[Marvin Green]

Ed I suspect you are probably correct.  He has been a wolf in sheep's clothing ever since appointed.  Rush Limbaugh mentioned the other day that he has sided with the left more often than with the people.

[Len Miles]

All this brilliant mental gymnastics is too complicated and now this legislation still lingers in the balance. In the simplest form, this one vote changed everything. CJ Roberts gave analytical legal advice, instead of ruling on the issue as presented and allowed this legislation to take a life-saving breath instead of a final gasp. CJ Roberts is a judge, not a legal consultant. Maybe there’s a future for him on MSNBC. If CJ Roberts voted on the issue as presented, he would have had to vote Obamacare unconstitutional and we would be on to other issues that need attention.

[Harry Riley]

I hear you Len............we're where we are........

Now.....given none of us like any part of Obamacare, the SCOTUS decision, how do we kill both of them? 

In my opinion, we attack the ballot box with common-sense, conservatism, motivation, less govt, less tax, less intrusion in our lives, and rid ourselves of trash in Congress and the Executive Branch.

I'm going to be standing along the road this weekend and until the 4th of July with a sign:  "IS THIS THE LAST INDEPENDENCE DAY FOR AMERICA?"

[Ed Watts]

I don't think we have had an honest election in this country for a long time; that's how "progressives" get elected and then stay in office.  In addition, have you ever noticed that, no matter who wins what in an election, America continues down the Progressive River toward the falls?

I have a theory, and it goes like this:

"If voting could really change anything, they wouldn't let us do it."

Think about that.

[wayne smyly]

  Ed its who counts the Votes that makes the final decision ..