obamataxmageddon.

The best round up I’ve seen of the SC decision on obamacare is at American Thinker.

FWIW I agree with this take on it:

Tom Rowan sees Chief Justice Roberts as a hero:
God Bless John Roberts!

That crafty devil knows America is teed off and is Taxed Enough Already…

Time to party fellow travelers! John Roberts just handed Obama everything he asked for. Fine, we will legislate from the bench fer ya Obamo…Taxmaggedon came in June today.

You wanna see a real million man march…just wait a fer it.

Our beloved Chief Legislator John Roberts has shown us the way and just flushed ObamaCare down the drain.

Gotta love that ole crafty devil Roberts, eh?

You’ll remember that for a fair number of months, obama hasn’t mentioned obamacare, wanted to hide it and pretend it never happened, so now it’s up there like a fluorescent barrage balloon for everyone to see and be reminded of. Even the LSM touting it as a great victory for dear leader will be a giant megaphone blaring out OBAMACARE!!
There will be nowhere for obama to hide and the Tea Party will be fired up even more than they were in 2010.
Call it John Robert’s revenge for the time obama insulted the judges at the SOU address.

This entry was posted in Politics, US. Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to obamataxmageddon.

  1. Brian says:

    Don’t try to spin this turd sandwich. A terrible, horrible, no-good, very bad monstrosity of a bill was given the A-OK by the court. This is a horrible day for America. There’s only a couple of things to do now:
    1) Hold our noses and vote for Mitt. His EOs will be infinitely preferable to Barry’s EOs. (One good thing Barry has accomplished is to demonstrate that you can cheerfully order the Executive Branch to ignore the law, so Mitt should be able to pretty much gut Obamacare that way).
    2) Vote for GOP candidates at every level, as long as they promise to fight local, state, and federal implementation of this monstrosity.
    That’s all WE can do, but the GOP can also do these:
    3) Repeal the mandate the second the GOP has all 3 branches. Since the mandate is declared by the court to be a tax, it can be repealed with a 51 vote majority through the budget process. No filibuster possible.
    4) Defund everything else about Obamacare.
    5) Move to eliminate employer-based health insurance. Again, much of this is tax-law stuff (transfer employer tax credits to individuals), so it should be doable pretty simply without being subject to filibuster.
    6) Grant blanket waivers to all states and employers from all coverage mandates. High-deductible HSA-style plans are where we need to get, and we can get there by EO if need be.

    The liberals on the Supreme Court think that the government can take your house and give it to a corporation, can order you to purchase a product from a corporation, and can prevent you from speaking out against the filthy politicians who support this madness. They are trash with no right to deference or respect.

  2. Terry says:

    The text of the 16th amendment:

    The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

    It is hard to see how any tax levied by the congress, for any purpose, applied in any way, could be unconstitutional. Roberts has kicked it back to the congress, which would not be my choice, but I can see why he did it. I don’t see how this can be interpreted as limiting congress’ power under the commerce clause, since (I think) although congress may not be able to force you to buy broccoli under the commerce clause, it would be within its rights to penalize you with a tax if you chose not to buy broccoli.

  3. Ligneus says:

    You know all the huffing and puffing obama and co have been doing lately on how voting down obamacare would be a political move on the part of the SC and people thought maybe he was laying the ground work for an assault on the legitimacy of the court, well maybe it was just a Br’er Rabbit strategy and with the SC ruling they’ve called his bluff.

    btw, Newt Gingrich has some sensible words on the subject.

  4. Terry says:

    Ann Althouse is a must-read on reasoning behind the court’s decision:
    http://althouse.blogspot.com/2012/06/how-chief-justice-roberts-reenvisioned.html
    Althouse shows why the court considered the mandate justified under congress’s taxing power, but not under its power to regulate commerce. If I am reading her right, if congress had ordered people to get insurance from a private carrier or be in violation of the law (the way that states require car insurance, for example), it would have thrown the mandate out.

  5. Ligneus says:

    Erickson makes a very interesting point:
    With John Roberts’ opinion, the repeal fight takes place on GOP turf, not Democrat turf. The all or nothing repeal has always been better ground for the GOP and now John Roberts has forced everyone onto that ground. Oh, and as I mentioned earlier, because John Roberts concluded it was a tax, the Democrats cannot filibuster its repeal because of the same reconciliation procedure the Democrats used to pass it.

  6. Ligneus says:

    From Joshuapundit.

    This election just became about obamacare.

  7. Ligneus says:

    This election just became about obamacare.

    The question is whether either candidate will convey that he knows what this election is really about. Obama can’t say it’s about Obamacare — even though that’s what he considers it to be about — because he’ll lose if he does. Romney so far hasn’t said it’s about Obamacare — perhaps because that’s not what he considers it to be about — even though he’ll likely win if he does.

    Regardless, the Court has cleared the field. The stakes are historic. The citizenry will decide

  8. Ligneus says:

    Janet Daley in The Telegraph.

    Obama’s Poll Tax.

  9. Ligneus says:

    While Prof Jacobson says: Stop the self-delusion.

  10. Tim Murphy says:

    A sorry day for the Constitution.

  11. SwampWoman says:

    My suggestion list of who should go up against the wall when the revolution comes just got longer.

  12. ligneus says:

    Look at the long term.

    (c) In the end Republicans have a sharp new limitation on the expansion of federal power, a very good political platform to run against the President and the Democrats , and as Erick Erickson notes we have both Justice Roberts and the terminally squishy, retiring Olympia Snow to thank for this:
    It seems very, very clear to me in reviewing John Roberts’ decision that he is playing a much longer game than us and can afford to with a life tenure. And he probably just handed Mitt Romney the White House.
    *A friend points out one other thing – go back to 2009. Olympia Snowe was the deciding vote to get Obamacare out of the Senate Committee. Had she voted no, we’d not be here now.
    Did you really ever think Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and Barack Obama could outsmart and outplay Justice Roberts? Really?

  13. suze says:

    My fear is that the election will be completely rigged. There will be so many dead people voting it will be ludicrous.

  14. Tim Murphy says:

    Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices. –Chief Justice Roberts

    • Brian says:

      Then read the damn law as written, chief. Don’t read the law upside down to try to find some possible way it might be permissible. Otherwise you give the congress the green light to blatantly lie about what they’re passing, secure in the knowledge that you’ll find any way necessary to give it the thumbs up.

  15. CL says:

    This is kind of ranty and repetitive, but you can get the idea without listening to the whole thing:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNCyEC9r_mk

  16. ligneus says:

    It’s all very tricky to put it mildly, but John Roberts just outsmarted the Dems.
    An Act of Great Cunning.

  17. N. says:

    From “An Act of Great Cunning,” linked above: “That having been said, the Supreme Court and Chief Justice John Roberts caved, and if the Republicans do not take the Senate and the Presidency we are cooked. FDR casts a long shadow. The Supreme Court will not defend the Constitution against a determined Democratic Party.”
    .
    .

    The “act of cunning,” then, is only a marginal possibility that the decision is not as bad as it looks. In the main, the article says, the decision is very bad.
    .
    I have read big chunks of the decision and was very disappointed. The supposedly bold Commerce Clause analysis leaves in place the horrible, sickening Wickard v. Filburn precedent as the outer limit of the Commerce Power. That’s the one where a farmer could be penalized for exceeding his production quota by producing for use on his own farm. In other words, the production of wheat that was not placed in interstate commerce, or even local commerce, could be regulated because in the aggregate, such production for personal use could affect interstate commerce.
    .
    That is coercive participation in the market. It robs a citizen of the right to opt out of economic activity when the market has been rendered unattractive, for example, by government controls. That is a fundamental violation. It is the birthright of Americans to opt out. It is a control on injustice, including governmental injustice. The farmer’s home production should have been regarded as unreachable by the commerce power because he did not put it into the market. Wickard is about as bad as what Roberts declined to do here, the difference being supposedly that the farmer was doing something, growing wheat, while people are required to buy insurance when they prefer to do nothing. In Wickard, however, he was also doing nothing with the produced wheat with respect to putting it into interstate commerce. So Roberts should have rolled back Wickard. He didn’t.
    .
    The whole discussion of the commerce power needs to be changed, a la Thomas’s brief individual dissent, to remove the Congressional power to totally regulate everything that “substantially affects” commerce. Let’s use common sense and say what regulating commerce really means: keeping interstate transport going, removing barriers to the national market, ensuring the quality of products in the interstate market and the truthfulness of representations about such products, etc. Regulating commerce is limited to seeking certain goals that are proper to the regulation of commerce. The commerce power is not a blank check to regulate everything just because it can be shown to have an economic impact.
    .
    Similarly horrible is the confirmation of the interpretation of the Tax and Spend Clause as not being limited by the enumerated powers of Congress. As the Scalia et al. dissent points out, Madison said the taxing and spending power was limited to the enumerated powers in Art. I, sec. 8 , while Hamilton said it wasn’t limited. Unfortunately the modern court bought the Hamiltonian interpretation, which grossly inflates the purview of the federal government beyond the enumerated powers carefully defined at the Consitutional Convention. Obviously, if the Congress can tax and spend for any purpose, it is no longer bound by the enumeration of Art. I, sec. 8. Doesn’t the Hamiltonian interpretation look like a bad-faith circumvention of the clear principle of limited national government? Yes it does. Roberts leaves that in place too.

    For me, the decision raises the perennial question: why can’t centrist Republicans grasp that the perversion of our constitutional system by New Deal legislation and New Deal and later courts is an evil from which our predecessors, our founding fathers and mothers, endeavored to protect us, as well as our descendants? The centrist Republican has bought into the New Deal, the national welfare state, and the omnicompetence of the federal government, which together are taking us toward bankruptcy, not to mention hastening social disintegration. Larry Auster at VFR would say it is because mainstream conservatives are actually “Right”-liberals, whose acceptance of the liberal critique of traditional concepts of national identity, justice, and the good makes them defenseless against the “Left”-liberal assault on every inherited aspect of American society. There is something to that. In any case, conservatives have to purge themselves of liberalism to realize that it is better to go without the goods that an omni-incompetent national government promises to deliver than to submit to the tyranny of such a government.
    .
    As a commenter wrote on VFR, this is something we have done to ourselves. I would like to appeal to the well-intentioned classical liberals here to start thinking about what federal government commitments you would be willing to send back to the states, and to what extent you have countenanced the growth of the federal Leviathan. Republicans need to get serious about Leviathan. As Michelle Bachmann says, this is not the end, but the beginning.

  18. John M says:

    According to a Gallup poll released on Friday, 46 percent of adults agree with the court’s decision, while another 46 percent disagree.
    OK, now what percentage of adults 1)understand the legal reasoning of the court’s decision, and 2) what percentage understand the provisions of the statue in question or even its correct name?

    My most optimistic guess (present company excluded of course) is maybe 5%.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>