THE GOOD NEWS ON THE ROBERT'S OPINION....

[Whirlaway]

I am sure there will be more analysis in the days ahead; but here are two opinion pieces that identify strong positives out of the Robert's opinion. Coming from 2 sides of the political spectrum, these commentaries make strange bedfellows:

From George Will on the right (well, really center)...............

"Conservatives won a substantial victory on Thursday. The physics of American politics – actions provoking reactions – continues to move the crucial debate, about the nature of the American regime, toward conservatism. Chief Justice John Roberts has served this cause. . ."

"When Nancy Pelosi, asked where the Constitution authorized the mandate, exclaimed “Are you serious? Are you serious?” she was utterly ingenuous. People steeped in Congress’ culture of unbridled power find it incomprehensible that the Framers fashioned the Constitution as a bridle. Now, Thursday’s episode in the continuing debate about the mandate will reverberate to conservatism’s advantage. By sharpening many Americans’ constitutional consciousness, the debate has resuscitated the salutary practice of asking what was, until the mid-1960s, the threshold question regarding legislation. It concerned what James Q. Wilson called the “legitimacy barrier”: Is it proper for the federal government to do this? Conservatives can rekindle the public’s interest in this barrier by building upon the victory Roberts gave them in positioning the court for stricter scrutiny of congressional actions under the Commerce Clause."

And from Ezra Klein on the left at the Washington Post:

"The 5-4 language suggests that Roberts agreed with the liberals. But for the most part, he didn’t. If you read the opinions, he sided with the conservative bloc on every major legal question before the court. He voted with the conservatives to say the Commerce Clause did not justify the individual mandate. He voted with the conservatives to say the Necessary and Proper Clause did not justify the mandate. He voted with the conservatives to limit the federal government’s power to force states to carry out the planned expansion of Medicaid. ”He was on-board with the basic challenge,” said Orin Kerr, a law professor at George Washington University and a former clerk to Justice Kennedy. “He was on the conservative side of the controversial issues.”

“We won,” said Georgetown law professor Randy Barnett, who was perhaps the most influential legal opponent of the Affordable Care Act. “All the arguments that the law professors said were frivolous were affirmed by a majority of the court today. A majority of the court endorsed our constitutional argument about the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. Yet we end up with the opposite outcome. It’s just weird.”

If Conservatives can keep the momentum; this can be turned into a positive. The Robert's opinion sets up some positive constitutional issues in favor of conservatism.

[TheDaliLama]

Laz got it right...

It was a Pyrrhic victory for BO.

[I B Hankering]

These are articles in other journals expressing similar sentiments and explanations:

While the chief justice deemed the mandate constitutional as a tax, he did point out that it would not be constitutional under the commerce clause, which allows the federal government to police interstate commerce.
http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-why-the-conservative-chief-justice-found-the-insurance-mandate-was-constitutional-2012-6

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.
http://www.ijreview.com/2012/06/9398-why-chief-justice-roberts-made-the-right-long-term-decision-with-obamacare/

Roberts' opened his opinion today by declaring, unequivocally, that the individual mandate — which requires people to buy insurance or pay a penalty — is not constitutional under the Commerce Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clause. It's a direct shot at the Obama administration's defense of the law's constitutionality, which largely relied on those two clauses, which give Congress the power to regulate commerce and to enact provisions that are necessary to carry out its laws, respectively.
Here are the key excerpts:
"Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open anew and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Congress already possesses expansive power to regulate what people do.Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clause would give Congress the same license to regulate what people do not do. The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers. The individual mandate thus cannot be sustained under Congress’s power to 'regulate Commerce.'"
http://www.businessinsider.com/actually-justice-roberts-demolished-obama-in-his-supreme-court-ruling-2012-6

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

Laz got it right...

It was a Pyrrhic victory for BO.

I think this is the second "victory" that required a massive investment of political capital by Obama. The first Pyrrhic victory was the so called stimulus bill. The stimulus bill failed miserably. Obama used up a lot of good will on that boondoggle. Passing Obamacare, against the will of the people, and I believe in violation of the Constitution, is the second "victory" that will insure the demise of Obama.

A Zen parable from "Charlie Wilson's War"
(My apologies, I couldn't find any Tibetan Buddhist parables that fit)

Gust Avrakotos: There’s a little boy and on his 14th birthday he gets a horse… and everybody in the village says, “How wonderful. The boy got a horse!” And the Zen master says, “We’ll see.” Two years later, the boy falls off the horse, breaks his leg, and everyone in the village says, “How terrible!” And the Zen master says, “We’ll see.” Then, a war breaks out and all the young men have to go off and fight… except the boy can’t ‘cause his legs all messed up. and everybody in the village says, “How wonderful.”
Charlie Wilson: Now the Zen master says, “We’ll see.”


The Dimo's think that SCOTUS's upholding of Obamacare is a great victory for the cause of socialism.

We'll see.

Let the Dimo's celebrate; they will soon realize that they have awakened a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve.

[joe bloe]

Other than that, Mrs Lincoln, how'd you like the play. If Obamacare is not repealed, we're screwed. A few conservatives are trying to put a happy face on this thing. There's nothing good about this legislation except that it's mortal.

[Whirlaway]

JB: There is no happy face to what happend yesterday. If not for Robert's opinion, ObamacareTax would have been thrown out in it's entirety.......I do not know what the political fall out from that decision would have been, but I agree with you (and others) that Obama is in a worse political position now than had ObamacareTax been tossed.

Here's hoping that Obama was mortally (electorally speaking) wounded by the Robert's opinion.

[Sidewinder]

The problem, as I see it, is this: The Roberts Doctrine says that the government cannot actually compel a citizen to buy something, but there is very little restriction on the "tax" the government may assess on someone who chooses not to buy something. There is language in the opinion about the tax having to be low enough that there is a reasonable alternative to buying the not-actually-mandated something, but "reasonable" and "government" tend to be mutually exclusive terms.

The real question is this: What, if any, limits are there on what the government can tax you for doing or not doing? Can the government tax you for going to church? Can they tax you for NOT going to church? Can they tax providers for offering BBFS to all customers? Can they tax providers for NOT offering BBFS to all customers? Can they tax you for not having auto insurance, even if you don't have a car or a driver's license? Can they tax you for owning a firearm? Can they tax you for NOT owning a firearm?

Consider that last for a moment. Kennesaw GA once passed a local ordinance requiring every head of household to own at least one firearm. (They subsequently saw their local crime rate plummet, but that's another story.) Can the Federal Government now mandate that every head of household in the United States own at least one firearm, and impose a tax on any person who does not provide proof of ownership? Alternatively, can the Federal Government now pass a law banning all private ownership of firearms, Second Amendment notwithstanding, and impose a (presumably very high) tax on anyone who insists on keeping their gun(s)?

Chief Justice Roberts has, in my opinion, opened a very large can of very energetic, very wriggly worms, and putting them back into their can is going to prove challenging.

[Laz]

Congress can tax just about anything they want unless it violates another provision of the constitution. That is why churches are tax exempt.

Congress cannot use the commerce clause to force you to buy something.

Bottom line... Elections matter. If you do not want what congress is doing vote for people who support your positions.

[CuteOldGuy]

Actually, according to the Obamacare opinion, Congress can tax anything, regardless if it is constitutional or not. The individual mandate is unconstitutional under the commerce clause, but it is still ok if we call it a tax.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Actually, according to the Obamacare opinion, Congress can tax anything, regardless if it is constitutional or not. The individual mandate is unconstitutional under the commerce clause, but it is still ok if we call it a tax.

Roberts put the onus back on the politicians and the people who elect them.

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Actually, according to the Obamacare opinion, Congress can tax anything, regardless if it is constitutional or not. The individual mandate is unconstitutional under the commerce clause, but it is still ok if we call it a tax.

A rose, by any other name, would smell as sweet. Whether we uphold Obamacare by calling the funding mechanism a tax or a mandate, it still stinks.

[TheDaliLama]

Look at the bright side fellas...

Isn't fun to see Nancy Pelosi in the news again.???

She truly is the gift that keeps on giving.

[Whirlaway]

There is an interesting discussion going on at PJ Media (McCarthy story) about Robert's opinon opening the challenge to ObamacareTax because all revenue bills (tax legislation) have to originate in the House. ObamacareTax did not.

Did Roberts not want to discredit the courts by over turning ObamacareTax; but was clever enough to open the door for additional consititutional challenges with legitmacy ?

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

There is an interesting discussion going on at PJ Media (McCarthy story) about Robert's opinon opening the challenge to ObamacareTax because all revenue bills (tax legislation) have to originate in the House. ObamacareTax did not.

Did Roberts not want to discredit the courts by over turning ObamacareTax; but was clever enough to open the door for additional consititutional challenges with legitmacy ?

It seems to me, that Roberts should have voted to overturn Obamacare, because of his belief that the so called mandate is actually a tax. If it's a constitutional requirement that all revenue bills originate in the house, then it follows, that Obamacare is not constitutional and should have been overturned.

Obamacare should have been overturned whether its funded by a tax or mandate. There shouldn't be a need for "additional constitutional challenges" One should have been enough.

Hopefully, we can kill this monster, by repealing it next spring. We've got to elect Romney, increase our majority in the House, and gain a majority in the Senate.