Friday, June 29, 2012

Robert's Ruling On Obamacare - Leftist or Genius?

What a day Thursday was....the commentary about the Obamacare ruling was completely explosive and all over the map. I admit I thought there would be some surprises... but not one with Roberts siding with the usual big government Lefties of SCOTUS! (Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsberg, and Breyer)

So was Roberts in agreement that this type of Socialist healthcare scheme is actually in accordance with the Constitution or was he using this as a vehicle for other more important statements from the court?
There are many opinions floating around about this.

Peter Schiff had this to say:

On the other hand, some seem to think that this ruling by Roberts actually could be of some benefit, even though the onerous and Socialist legislation was left to stand.
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.
That being said; What is to prevent a future Congress from mandating the purchase of anything - like an American (union made) automobile and then monetarily punishing any citizen who doesn’t comply with that mandate via a "tax"? Certainly, it is understood that with his ruling, Roberts thinks that such a law is constitutional.
That isn't cool at all.

Kill the Bill (on FaceBook) had this to say:
Obama and the Democrat's health care law was declared 'constitutional' by the Supreme Court today. This decision was based on the argument that the constitution grants Congress the right to levy taxes. Unless the law is repealed, in 2014 every American will be required to purchase health insurance- or pay a tax for not doing so. What this essentially means is that the federal government now has absolute authority to require Americans to do anything they want them to do. Don't join the military? Pay a tax. Watch too much tv? Pay a tax. Use birth control? Pay a tax. Gay? Pay a tax. Use your freedom to assemble in a public square? Pay a tax. Don't submit all of your personal information, including detailed financial records, health records etc? That's right- it is all possible now- there is no longer a limitation on the power of the federal government. The congress' authority to levy taxes now supersedes all individual rights 'guaranteed' by the bill of rights. Am I surprised? No, absolutely not. This is always the inevitable result of giving someone the legal authority to levy taxes. It is just one more sign that we do not live in the America we thought we did.
My thoughts on this:
I thought it was a horrible ruling and Roberts should have sided with the other 4 Justices (Alito, Kennedy, Thomas and Scalia). He should have called it a mandate (because it is) and struck it down as being unconstitutional .. period.

But bottomline - this is a "tax" that can be repealed.

Anyone running in November with the message of repealing this onerous "tax", the biggest "tax" in US history, is most likely going to win their race given the anti-Obamacare sentiment nationwide. Chief Justice Roberts may have given Mitt Romney a campaign issue juggernaut (as if the economy wasn't already a campaign issue) on the basis that taxes are already too high and out of control. etc. etc.

also ... States can nullify this legislation... and we may very well see states do this. I will bet that money is flooding into the Tenth Amendment Center as you read this.

Lastly, it is of utmost importance that this ruling states that government mandates through the Commerce Clause, versus some sort of  "tax" levied by Congress to make you do or not do something,  are completely unconstitutional. That's actually a very good thing.
I can at least find solace in that.

I am hearing that 120 House members are already working to Repeal Obamacare and 26 states have started to work on Nullification of Obamacare.  

FYI: Members of SCOTUS.


Anonymous said...

I predicted that the Supremes would not declare Obama care unconstitutional but rather come out with a ruling that made this abominable legislation far worse. In my lifetime this is what the Supremes have done. They either split so closely that no one really knows what is or is not constitutional or worse they cut the baby in half and throw out some part of a unconstitutional law while leaving the most egregious part intact. But this time the Supremes made everything worse.

If congress is able to do the best possible thing, that is to over turn all of Obamacare, the government will in the meantime have spent 100's of billions to implement it (and pay off political cronies) that we will never get back. This while we are going bankrupt and unable to fund real needs. It will also have created at least four years of total confusion for employers, insurers and care givers causing some of them to go out of business and many of them to lose money and have to reduce services to American citizens. And lastly it will create a mish-mash of regulations, expired or retracted regulations, confused regulators and situations where patients die or who's illness becomes worse simply because of the confusion this law and the repeal created.

If congress, the president and the Supremes were to have gotten together three years ago over cocktails and pondered how they could totally destroy the worlds best healthcare system it is doubtful that even the most devious mind could have come up with this legal morass and regulatory disaster.

The Supremes could have prevented most of this with a clean ruling that the entire bill was unconstitutional. It also would have set a clear precident limiting the federal power to control every aspect of our lives. But it appears that instead they preferred obfuscation, judicial legislation and constitutional destruction.

CDP said...

Ok, lets call this a tax. When was the last time Congress did away with a tax?

Every time you pay your phone bill you are still paying for WW1.

Judy Aron said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Judy Aron said...

Interesting comment from Charlie McFreman: "{Obamacare}is already being torn to shreds. Check out Article 1, Section 7 of the constitution. All revenue generating bills have to originate in the house. This atrocity came from the senate. It's unconstitutional on its face. It won't survive the first challenge. Roberts was slicker than we thought by confirming that it is a revenue generating tax."

Anonymous said...

Any tax coming out of Congress has to originate in the House. Obamacare originated in the Senate, push through by Reconciliation, and approved by the House. Roberts, by calling this a tax, made the law unconstitutional by default. In doing so, saved the Commerce Clause and upheld States Rights as well.. Roberts just outplayed everyone. Both sides are completely missing the genius of this decision.