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.
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.
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?
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????
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!
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.
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!
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.
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.
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?"
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.
Ed its who counts the Votes that makes the final decision ..