Article

2012-06-29 -Election 2012

I'm not down on John Roberts (along with 380 comments)

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Besoeker 2012-06-29 00:00|| || Front Page|| [3 views ] Top

#1 Nor am I.

Posted by newc 2012-06-29 00:34|| 2012-06-29 00:34|| Front Page Top

#2 The Court is trashed.

Posted by newc 2012-06-29 03:02|| 2012-06-29 03:02|| Front Page Top

#3 No, the court did the right thing. Obama has been pushing this as a tax since 2010. He calls balls and strikes, doesn't pass judgement on the manager's strategy. If they want to push it as a tax, it actually is a tax. They passed the law as a tax bill, the IRS collects it, the rules are based in the income tax laws.

The court ruled 7-2 that the commerce clause would not cover this.

When the Democrats wake up this morning they will own the largest middle class tax increase in history after saying they would never increase your taxes if you make less than $250,000.

Read my lips, Obama hoodwinked the public.

Posted by crosspatch 2012-06-29 05:29|| 2012-06-29 05:29|| Front Page Top

#4 To hell with that.

Benedict Roberts has, in one fell swoop, put the final nail in the coffin of what used to be America.

We all woke up today in the USSA. Anyone who believes otherwise is a deluded fool.

Due to the differences in technology, the Dark Ages after the fall of Rome will be an anthill compared to the one we now will enter. In fact, due to technology, we may never exit.

Won't be celebrating Independence Day this year, or any time going forward, methinks.

Thanks for ripping my heart out. Another Bush family ruling class elite appointee that was a stealth Manchurian justice.

Posted by no mo uro 2012-06-29 05:43|| 2012-06-29 05:43|| Front Page Top

#5 A rather complex theory, a bit too complex for my simple mind.

My plan for Saturday afternoon is to wear an old boonie hat bedecked with medals I never earned, hop along on a cane until I reach the curb in front of an Atlanta gay bar, and sit there winking at patrons and handing out Obama bumper stickers until I can regain my self esteem.

Posted by Besoeker 2012-06-29 06:38|| 2012-06-29 06:38|| Front Page Top

#6 I'll join you Besoeker and bring my donation hat. Obama suckers give it all away don't they?. Oh!, I forgot they might take from our collections.

Posted by Dale 2012-06-29 07:12|| 2012-06-29 07:12|| Front Page Top

#7 I understand the counter-argument advanced by some that Justice Roberts was trying to put limits on the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause, by reminding people that there limits on the powers of Congress.

I don't think this ruling will do that and I think he'll fail, because too many people in this country WANT Congress (and the President) to have all-encompassing, microscopic powers over everyday life.

But I understand the theory.

What bothers me is that while Mr. Roberts might be correct about the third fallback: that Congress does have the power to levy a tax, he then could have tossed Obamacare simply by saying, "and nowhere in this bill is the mandate described as a tax. Congress should try again."

But he didn't do that, having bought the soap advanced by the Solicitor General that the mandate was a tax, after Congress and Champ said it wasn't.

Thus Chief Justice Roberts' major legacy with this ruling: he has allowed the Congress and the President to lie, and get away with it. They may now use any euphemism they wish to describe a tax, and the Supreme Court will okay it.

That is his legacy.

Posted by Steve White 2012-06-29 07:44|| 2012-06-29 07:44|| Front Page Top

#8 I fear the good doctor is once again correct.

Posted by Besoeker 2012-06-29 07:54|| 2012-06-29 07:54|| Front Page Top

#9 I think Roberts cleverly gave conservatives a gift, without straying from his philosophy of judicial self-restraint.

He knew he'd take a lot of heat, regardless of which way he decided. The way he chose allowed to him to call the ACA a "tax," four million times. Almost no one understands the ACA, but everyone understands what a tax is.

And, voila: look at how furious and motivated we all are. How determined we are to pull out all the stops for the November elections, and fix this abomination through the elected branches. To a conservative judge, that is exactly the right answer.

I suspect Roberts loathes this law, and Ogabe, as much as the rest of us. Certainly he's aware that his decision would galvanize the right, even if he's getting called a lot of names right now. If Roberts had struck it down, it would have given Dems a lot of traction to whine about evil Republicans and continue confusing the public. He didn't do that. Instead, Dems are preening in the vanity mirror, taking an obnoxious victory lap, secure in their delusion that the ACA is something to brag about. All that is only going to alienate voters even more.

In sum, Roberts basically just handed the election to Pubs, which I believe was his intention.

Just my $0.02.

Posted by RandomJD 2012-06-29 08:09|| 2012-06-29 08:09|| Front Page Top

#10 I'll join you Besoeker and bring my donation hat.

Don't hold your breath, Dale. The homeless populations are the first ones to tell you that folks wearing/showing Obama (or other liberal) stickers and pins almost never drop coins in the can.

Posted by Mullah Richard 2012-06-29 08:33|| 2012-06-29 08:33|| Front Page Top

#11 Congress doesn't have to call it a tax in order for it to be a tax. Congress only has to call it a tax to make it subject to the Tax Anti Injunction Act. They didn't. So this suit was justiciable. Good work by Roberts. There's only one way to get rid of this law. (And now it can't be filibustered)

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2012-06-29 08:40|| 2012-06-29 08:40|| Front Page Top

#12 So as a tax it goes to the House, from HHS oversight?

Second, those businesses granted given exemptions, do they now owe back taxes and such?

Posted by swksvolFF 2012-06-29 08:52|| 2012-06-29 08:52|| Front Page Top

#13 So, if I understand this ruling, the Congress can impose a tax for failure to engage in a certain type of behavior (in this case, buying insurance).

So, could a future Congress tax someone for failing to vote Dem?

Do we now have a dhimmitude analog in our judicial precedent?

Posted by no mo uro 2012-06-29 09:04|| 2012-06-29 09:04|| Front Page Top

#14 So, could a future Congress tax someone for failing to vote Dem?

Already fully underway:

Video shows Obama at a political rally, shouting, "Because we fought together, we had worked together, they walked doors (door-to-door) for me, they made phone calls for me, they turned out the vote for me."

Text on the screen then says, "Over 185 union waivers. All exempt from Obamacare mandate. If unions dont have to comply with Obamacare, why should we?"

Posted by Besoeker 2012-06-29 09:09|| 2012-06-29 09:09|| Front Page Top

#15 http://theulstermanreport.com/2012/06/29/wall-street-insider-liberte-egalite-fraternite/

Posted by Uncle Phester 2012-06-29 09:22|| 2012-06-29 09:22|| Front Page Top

#16 Link to Oom Phester's post.

Posted by Besoeker 2012-06-29 09:26|| 2012-06-29 09:26|| Front Page Top

#17 It's a tax, it's not a tax. It's a tax, it's not a tax. I've seen this before.

Posted by Procopius2k 2012-06-29 09:39|| 2012-06-29 09:39|| Front Page Top

#18 I'm saddened by the decision but in one aspect I'm happy. The supreme court should judge the law against the constitution and should leave their own personal biases out of it as much as possible. Roberts appears to have done that.

Posted by rjschwarz 2012-06-29 09:58|| 2012-06-29 09:58|| Front Page Top

#19 Yes, it appears so Richard. Bailing the boat with one's hat is indeed chivalrous. But if the others simply sit on their arses smiling..... the boat still sinks.

Posted by Besoeker 2012-06-29 10:05|| 2012-06-29 10:05|| Front Page Top

#20 Roberts is a clown. It's not his job to get involved in politics or help w/electing either party. It's his job to uphold the U.S. Constitution. Period. This goes beyond the current political environment, and, if that was in his thinking when he wrote that garbage of a decision it sets a very dangerous precedent....and, how the hell do you regulate or TAX someone's inactivity in commerce?

As Mark Levin so aptly put it in a response to George Will's positive spin of the ruling:
"it is not a tax under the Constitution -- not a direct tax, not an excise tax, not an income tax. That's why Roberts was unable to apply any of those taxes to the penalty in any rational way. Thus, regulating inactivity is out (for now, as the four liberal justices were prepared to expand the commerce clause), but taxing inactivity is in, even where Congress insists it is not taxing but penalizing, and even where the tax/penalty does not meet any of the definitions of permissible taxation under the Constitution. The civics lesson, Mr. Will, is that Roberts's arguments are specious and an example of absurd judicial activism. (I note you defended judicial activism the other day, but you confused judicial review with judicial activism, a matter I can take up another day, assuming I care to.)

Roberts and the other justices had a duty to strike this law because it is not supported by our history, the Constitution, or reason. Roberts had to rewrite the statute, alter the penalty provision, and make a mess of the federal government's taxing powers to get where he wanted to go.

Posted by Broadhead6 2012-06-29 10:06|| 2012-06-29 10:06|| Front Page Top

#21 Just posting to say "me too" to BH6's comment.

Posted by Thing From Snowy Mountain 2012-06-29 10:14|| 2012-06-29 10:14|| Front Page Top

#22 Levin was on fire and one of the best constitutional lawyers in the land.

Posted by bman 2012-06-29 10:21|| 2012-06-29 10:21|| Front Page Top

#23 About all those waivers: Correct me if I'm wrong but I didn't think the executive branch had the authority to grant tax exemptions. If this whole thing is really a tax isn't that what the waivers really are?

Posted by Ebbang Uluque6305 2012-06-29 11:28|| 2012-06-29 11:28|| Front Page Top

#24 And taxes have to begin in the House. The PPACA began where? Might be another problem.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2012-06-29 11:30|| 2012-06-29 11:30|| Front Page Top

#25 In sum, Roberts basically just handed the election to Pubs, which I believe was his intention

Doubtful, especially given the 'political Unitarian' wing of the GOP is in charge.

Posted by Pappy 2012-06-29 11:51|| 2012-06-29 11:51|| Front Page Top

#26 I agree Pappy. Certainly wishful thinking, but definately not in his charter. If Mitt wins, and that is a big "if".... his work is definately cut out for him. Weaning the entitlement crowd from their gov't cheese will be very, very painful. It has gone on far too long.

I did get a good head shaking chuckle out of the odious Geraldo Rivera last night, blaming the pubs for the ethnic capital steps walk-out during the Holder vote. I really liked Geraldo better when he had finger tats.

Posted by Besoeker 2012-06-29 12:27|| 2012-06-29 12:27|| Front Page Top

#27 I don't think the Commerce Clause portion of the ruling represents a big win for us. The Court said that doing nothing can't be regulated as Commerce. Ok, but you do, no matter how local, still is Interstate Commerce. The Court drew a line in the sand where we already are. They did not move the line back at all.

What the Court should have done was reverse Wickard v. Filburn, throw out the entire law and start us back on the noble path of limited, enumerated powers. I guess the feeling was that this was not politically possible.

So let's assume that's Erick's theory is correct. If so, that's a huge gamble. A HUGE gamble. It means we have to win the white house campaigning against ObamaCare, when our guy invented it. Great. It means we have to win the Senate and keep the House. Ok. And then it means that all our guys, every last one of them, has to keep their nerve and overturn this thing. That's where Erick loses me. I don't trust our guys to pull it off.

Posted by Iblis 2012-06-29 12:39|| 2012-06-29 12:39|| Front Page Top

#28 So, could a future Congress tax someone for failing to vote Dem?

Isn't that pretty much what's been going on for years?

taxes have to begin in the House. The PPACA began where?

Began in the house. As some bill about military housing, as I recall. Then the Senate removed all that text from it and replaced it with the Obamacare text. It was a legalistic sleight-of-hand, but it's not uncommon.

Posted by Glenmore 2012-06-29 12:42|| 2012-06-29 12:42|| Front Page Top

#29 If Mitt wins, and that is a big "if".... his work is definately cut out for him.

As long as he's standing behind those podiums with 'repeal and replace' I would maintain that he doesn't even really know what his work is, which is part of the problem.

Posted by Thing From Snowy Mountain 2012-06-29 12:46|| 2012-06-29 12:46|| Front Page Top

#30 I looked at the case befor scotus as this: does the govt have the power to force citizens to purchase insurance against their will or be fined if they do not . Basic liberty stuff. Roberts et all played head games and sidestepped the issue. The law needed to be struck down for just that. Congress needs a lesson in civics but they are too far gone for that.

Posted by Alaska Paul 2012-06-29 12:50|| 2012-06-29 12:50|| Front Page Top

#31 It's a tax? 50 votes down in the Senate and it's history.

Posted by newc 2012-06-29 14:56|| 2012-06-29 14:56|| Front Page Top

#32 My plan for Saturday afternoon is to wear an old boonie hat bedecked with medals I never earned, hop along on a cane until I reach the curb in front of an Atlanta gay bar, and sit there winking at patrons and handing out Obama bumper stickers until I can regain my self esteem.

I'll join you if you let me bring my upside down American flag.

As Doc Steve said. Justice Roberts could have have made a judgment on what was in front of him. If he did, he would have said the mandate was unconstitutional. He basically rewrote ObamaCare from the bench. Once he deemed OC unconstitutional, he should have dumped the entire legislation because of the lack of a severability clause; end of story. What comes out of Washington is truly astonishing.

Posted by JohnQC 2012-06-29 17:34|| 2012-06-29 17:34|| Front Page Top

#33 Having read all of these, I hope RandomJD (#9) is closest to correct.

I'll pray she's correct.

Posted by Bobby 2012-06-29 17:43|| 2012-06-29 17:43|| Front Page Top

#34 We should not be satisfied, nor should we desire electoral "gifts" from the Custodian of our Supreme Court. Nor should we desire some sort of egalitarian balance of decision making (liberal vs conservative) from the court. What we should receive is juriprudence based upon a learned intrepretation of the constitution.

Origins and outcomes do matter! A Morton's menu listing a cheaper cut of sirloin taken from an animal with Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy would be most unpopular. Obamacare is no less tainted.

Posted by Besoeker 2012-06-29 19:33|| 2012-06-29 19:33|| Front Page Top

23:26 Water Modem
22:28 Halliburton - Mysterious Conspiracy Division
21:55 swksvolFF
21:21 Angie Schultz
21:09 Besoeker
21:02 Frank G
21:00 Frank G
20:17 JohnQC
19:55 Wholuter Flinenter2181
19:33 Besoeker
19:15 Angie Schultz
18:29 Glenmore
18:11 Ebbang Uluque6305
18:10 swksvolFF
18:04 Dale
17:57 JohnQC
17:57 SteveS
17:53 crosspatch
17:53 American Delight
17:52 Glenmore
17:50 Thaise the Younger8704
17:49 Alaska Paul
17:43 Bobby
17:34 JohnQC