July 4, 2012
-
Obamacare
Why Chief Justice Roberts Made the Right Long-Term Decision With ObamaCare
Bert Atkinson Jr. June 28, 2012 3:59 pm
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 threw his windshield. Oh, and he’ll be home in time for dinner.
Brilliant.
What are your thoughts on this article?
Comments (33)
I am SO GLAD you posted this. I’ve been looking at the pundits and saying ‘what is this all about, really?’. They just are not giving us the true north of this decision. Thank you thank you thank you.
The people want universal health care and are willing to be taxed or to pay a penalty. Bert, who ever he is, is off the mark. If Romney is elected it will be because people will gather that he will continue some sort of universal health care such as what he supported as governor. From the little I know about you, one who cares and works for the poor, I would think you would be in favor of UHC. Is this your opinion or are you just sharing someone else’s opinion?
The Chief Justice employed the dictum: ”Don’t get mad, get even”. He has gotten even with the Prez, in spades.
Roberts did not rule on the commerce clause. What he said about the commerce clause wasn’t even in his official ruling.
His official ruling was that the Obama Care mandate was a tax, which no one on the Court nor the President, nor anyone in Congress ever argued for. In fact, the Obama Administration argued vehemently that the Obama Care mandate was NOT a tax.
And they still are!
So not only did Justice Roberts eviscerate the Constitution by giving the government the right of unlimited taxation, he provided the Obama Administration with political cover for what should have been a slam dunk ruling of unconstitutionality.
Because of Justice Roberts, the government now has unlimited power to tax what every human being and business in the country does and does NOT do.
So if you don’t act the way the government acts you get taxed.
Justice Roberts just enshrined tyranny into the Constitution effectively killing it. We now live in a post Constitutional nation.
Thank you, Justice Roberts.
@feedwaterclean - YW – Makes one think.
@vexations - That was not my opinion – someone eles. I want responsible health care that works. There is a scare right now among the poor I work with. They are very concerned that their medicare will be cut off because of the Surpreme Court ruling. Here’s what I think might happen: Large companies that now give health care will think they could just pay the 2000 dollar tax per employee and save a lot of money. When the people try to get health care they will look to the state, the state will say the court ruling did not make them responsible. If the Congress does not make a way to federally fund Obamacare well we have a health care system that is now worse than what it was before. Yes, I think everyone should get health care. How do to it, well that’s another question.
@RighteousBruin - I believe he did.
@PrisonerxOfxLove - Obama argued to the American people that it wasn’t a tax. Obama’s lawyers whispered it to the court that it was a tax and Roberts shouted out his argument.
@PrisonerxOfxLove - In effect Roberts allowed the largest tax increase to go forward in the history of America. Or should I say he left it up to the American people? I believe it’s the latter.
@Randy7777 - If the states do not follow the law but cop-out on some loop hole the plan may be screwed up. I grant you that but states that drag their feet are playing politics instead of solving problems.
Randy, this was a bit of an eye opener for me, as I hadn’t heard or seen more that a few news blurbs on the subject. I often temper my judgements with reason and this post gives me reason to temper my temper.
@PrisonerxOfxLove - Why do you always seem so angry? I enjoy reading your thoughts and opinions but your words are often interlaced with intollerance, hatred and bigotry. Peace be with you child of God.
@Aloysius_son - Free people are always made angry by the raw assault of tyranny. Even uncivilized brutes become angry at their slave masters.
So the question is: are you so stupid that you can’t see your liberty ruthlessly stolen out of your hands? What’s wrong with you?
Roberts sold himself as a Constitutional originalist. He lied.
Are you so stupid that you don’t get angry when someone who swore to tell the truth, lied?
You’ve become a self righteous, sanctimonious bore, governed by the dictates of ingrained stupidity.
@PrisonerxOfxLove - Your kindness is only exceeded by your love.
@Aloysius_son - I think it’s a good thing to look at things from different angles.
The individual mandate was a republican idea, conceived by the heritage foundation and sponsored in it’s first two legislative forms by half of the republicans in the senate. They only claimed it was unconstitutional, violated states rights, equated it with communism etc when a democrat tried to implement it.
And what “childish” insults has obama made toward the supreme court? And if a supreme court justice makes a ruling based on something that petty and irrelevant to the law that would be a violation of their oath of office. Not exactly something to be applauded.
Judges are supposed to be the objective guardians of the law, not partisan political hacks.
@PrisonerxOfxLove - This is a “no name calling” site please.
@RighteousBruin - As I said, that would be deplorable and unbelievably childish if it were true.
@Randy7777 - “It includes a tax incentive” would be a more accurate depiction. And the point is to try to cut healthcare costs in half, so I think anyone who bitches about a slight tax hike is an idiot.
@Aloysius_son - prisoner of love is loborn if you don’t know.
@agnophilo - Never heard that before – about the individual mandate being a republican idea. As far as the “childish” insults. I don’t agree with that. I never heard Obama say anything to the SCOTUS that like that. He did challendge the court but I didn’t see anything wrong with that. It’s a nation of freedom of speech after all. Thanks for commenting.
@PrisonerxOfxLove - I would say I admire it when you resort to refering to those who disagree with you as stupid, but I don’t. I feel that it demonstrates you lack self awareness and compassion. I don’t wish to defame your character. Perhaps if you were to step away from the anger and wrath and seek the light of truth, you would be able to formulate and present dissertions of greater substance, more clearly expressing the subtle nuances of our reality, rather than these epic tirades of fanaticism. There is much truth in what you believe. There is much honesty in what you say, but you lack eloquence and social courtesy, which makes you come across as a thug and a bully. It is hard to take what you write in ernest, when you lace your thinking with twisted and hurtful emotions.
Ah, but you are who you are and only you can decide how you shall be. I shall leave you alone now.
@agnophilo - slight tax increase? hardly
@Randy7777 - I suppose I need to couch my self defense to suit your impeccable taste.
@Aloysius_son - Please stick to the issues.
@PrisonerxOfxLove - On the issue of health care then and Justice Roberts decision. Mind you I am of a particular opinion and it is not without error. Health care costs are excessive. Health care is necessary. Many Christian ministries recognize this and have fought to provide affordable health care to those in need, in particular the poor. Many in the industry have fought to make the governement fall into line with this ministry by encouraging the provision of affordable health care to all citizens. This is exacly what is being proposed. What is of concern is the manner in which we go about doing it and the logistics of how it is paid for. I think Roberts position actually coincides with the Christian philosophy in this regards.
@Randy7777 - It’s true, the republicans spent years smearing obama as an extreme liberal evildoer for putting a republican idea at the forefront of his agenda.
@Randy7777 - I meant relative to the problem it is meant to solve. Reducing healthcare spending by 10% of the GDP at the cost of about half a percent of the GDP in terms of tax increases. And the claim about it being the largest tax increase in history is another steaming pile of bull that started with rush limbaugh and was mindlessly repeated. Here is where it sits in terms of major tax increases.
@agnophilo - I don’t listen to Rush Limbaugh at all or Fox News much. I heard it one of the major news outlets.
@Randy7777 - Which was mindlessly repeating “the voice of the republican party” as he is called.
@PrisonerxOfxLove - LOLF -Laughing out Loud Flawlessly.
@agnophilo - Obama didn’t need much help being labeled a liberal.
“The notion is now officially and forever, unconstitutional.”
Well, at least until the precedent is overturned by a future court. These things do happen…
Regarding your article, I think you are right that there’s more to this ruling than a lot of folks initially understand. As is often the case, the media has a bunch of talking heads spouting their opinions about the ruling, but few of them know much about constitutional law. The result? A lot of people in the nation with strong emotions but little knowledge on the subject at hand.
@christao408 - True – spinning this way and that.
No matter which way you slice this pie it’s still awful.
@mcbery - Yup – We’ll see if the American people feel that way this fall.
@Randy7777 - Liberal isn’t a dirty word.