The Supreme Court has declared Barack Obama a liar.
Yes, I’m as shocked as you are.
[Update a few minutes later]
What actually is surprising to me is that Kennedy would have thrown out the entire law, and Roberts saved it.
[Update a few more minutes later]
In reading, it seems like the good news is that Lopez is still alive, and that there really are limits to the Commerce Clause.
Obamacare is not valid under the Commerce Clause, so my understanding of the Constitution is affirmed.
I have a problem with the idea Congress can impose a tax on people who choose not to do a thing which Congress has no power to require by other means. The potentially limitless power under the Commerce Clause has merely been transferred to the taxing power.
That’s different, but it isn’t better.
DNC to the American people: it’s constitutional. bitches.
I guess when they see you as a bitch, they have no problem lying about what they are doing to you.
…and as every good Democrat knows, bitches ain’t shit but tricks and ho’s.
Kennedy, Alito, Scalia and Thomas ALL would have thrown the whole thing out. Unbelievable. Good news for Romney anyway…
I vote that we retire the epithat “Unbelievable” from the discourse on Right/Conservative/Libertarian blogs. I am not particularly happy with the decision, and you may be profoundly unhappy, but what is there not to believe? The sun came up this morning, it looks to set in the evening and rise once more the next morning.
As to the Impeach Earl Warren (er, John Roberts) movement, the after-the-fact explanation is simple. Chief Justice Roberts idea of conservatism is one of not legislating from the court, of deferring to Congress, which is directly elected by the people. Judge Bork drew a great deal of heat for believing the same way in criticizing the landmark Warren Court rulings that have become a kind of civil religion — let Congress or the States end segregation, let Congress or the States end restrictions on a abortion, let Congress or the States end rules that hamper gays.
It seems that John Roberts was nominated because he is a very smart guy, and that smart guy also believes in (conservative principle for) not blocking actions of Congress, especially if that involves making dangerous new court precedents, managed get the Court liberals to sign on to “OK, you can have your Health Care Mandate, but we are only letting you have it as a tax, and Congress can already levy a tax to support Medicare, and we are not going to make new law with an expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause.”
We got Health Care because we voted for a Liberal (i.e., pay little heed to individual liberty) President and a Liberal Congress, and we expect the Supreme Court to come in and save us from ourselves. We still have the political process to vote in a (somewhat more) Conservative President who campaigns on “giving the 50 states waivers the day I take office.”
In hindsight we were hoping for a miracle, and when the miracle didn’t happen, we are ultimately angry with where miracles come from.
Where Roberts is wrong is to say that taxes are not punitive. However, this may turn out to be the turning point for our country. Do we hold congress accountable?
Elections have consequences? Who’da thunk?
It’s just hard to imagine our lives in the hands of people that never grew up.
Paul, you’ll notice my epithat [sic] was not accompanied by the word “Roberts”. It was issued in reaction to the very near majority opinion that the entire POS be thrown out. Something very few people considered remotely possible.
This is the problem with intellectualism. Looking at things from some perspectives makes you stupid. Obviously wisdom is not a judicial requirement. Now I’ve got to finish reading the decision (wish I could see it in other than pdf.)
I notice that Obama keeps saying “tax increase” and Stephanopoulos keeps saying “tax”. We can’t read minds, no matter how much I think Obama is awesome and you think he is a liar, but regardless of intent, is there an interesting distinction here? The Supreme Court says it is a tax, Obama says it isn’t a tax increase. Those two positions are not incompatible.
Oh, and of course, overall reaction: Hooray!
There’s no distinction, interesting or otherwise.
STEPHANOPOULOS: …during the campaign. Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don’t. How is that not a tax?
OBAMA: Well, hold on a second, George. [blah blah blah]
STEPHANOPOULOS: That may be, but it’s still a tax increase.
Bob-q, Congress had their say and now the Courts have had their say. Finally the people will have their say. We’ll see you November. Ta, ta.
Someday, Bob-1, you should tell us exactly what you like about Obamacare. In detail, that is, spelling out exactly what is in it.
Cheer today Bob, for tomorrow…
It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.
That’s the message Roberts is sending to the American people… Grow up!
It is their job to preserve the limits of the specific, enumerated powers in the Constitution. Even if 100% of Americans want to do something unconstitutional, passing an unconstitutional law to do that something remains unconstitutional. How the Court is signing off on a massive expansion of government power while bitching about politics is beyond me.
This is a bad decision and a very bad foreshadowing of what’s to come. Pandora’s box has been opened again.
I’m sure as the poor start paying the new
penaltytax, they’ll think, “well, it’s not a tax increase, so Obama was telling us the truth!”The court has just ruled in favor of tyrannical federal power. That Congress can, in the guise of a tax, impose a fine for doing or not doing any given activity.
Unlimited power to tax is a power to destroy.
They’ve always had this tyrannical power. We the people are suppose to hold it in check.
Obama promised middle class tax cuts. This is a big tax on the middle class. He also said it wasn’t a tax except apparently when it is.
However much I dislike Obamacare (which is a great deal), I really can’t see the flaw in the Constitutional reasoning so far. Still going through the opinion, but the Sixteenth Amendment does appear to convey a virtually limitless taxing power on Congress.
Of course, it has been my opinion for a long, long time that the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth amendments were all equally unwise, and unfortunately, we have so far repealed only the eighteenth.
But I can’t blame the Court for ruling according to the current Constitution — that’s what we want them to do.
Seems that things now move to the ballot box. Given that there is no evidence of a tremendous shift in sentiment by the voting public in the last two years, the Democrats seem poised for another historic thrashing by voters. If anything, today’s ruling will invigorate voters with much greater resolve than they otherwise would have had.
Ok, it is now officially a Tax…..It originated in the Senate. Where does the Constution say tax bills must originate?
Yea, not only did it originate in the Senate they also didn’t use the rules normally used when voting to raise taxes.
Those irregularities may be a door Roberts left open. His opinions on the tax question are filled with “if” and “may” and “possibly”. The court won’t rule on arguments that weren’t raised, and whether Congress acted correctly in passing such a tax wasn’t part of the case. But now someone who has to pay the tax can challenge the validity of the tax on any grounds they can find, and Congress can’t hide behind the commerce clause or “necessary and proper.” If a procedural fault is found, Congress would have to rectify it by passing the law properly, and there’s no way they’re going to pass this monstrosity again.
If this decision is not reversed at the ballot box I beleive June 28 will become to be know as “Death of the Republic Day”. Or at least it should.
I guess that Newsweek cover was right after all, “We’re all socialists now.”
Munch. Munch. Munch.
Wanders off to get more Popcorn.
This is fun!
^^ “Some men just want to watch the world burn.”
Is the populace really that dense that they needed a Supreme Court decision to show that “Il Dufe” is a liar?
Well, even if the court has shown he’s a liar, somewhere in the Commie section of Hell, Barry’s mentor Uncle Frank is smiling and brushing away a tear.
Five members of the Supreme Court declared that when Barak Obama said it wasn’t a tax he was wrong. Of course, the same conclusion follows for four of their colleagues. Perhaps liar is the wrong word for this context.
I still don’t get this prudish obsession in the US about a politician lying. Oh what a scandal! The fact is politicians lie all the time. Talk is cheap. Besides making a wrong statement doesn’t mean he is lying, just that he is making a wrong statement.
Five members of the Supreme Court declared that when Barak Obama said it wasn’t a tax he was wrong.
No, Roberts was the only justice who treated the penalty for not having health insurance as a tax. The other four in the majority said it was a penalty, and allowed under the commerce clause. The four in the minority said it was a penalty, and not allowed under the commerce clause.
You don’t understand how the court works, do you?