LEGAL Obama Wins the Battle, Roberts Wins the War

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...e_chief_justice_upheld_obamacare_.single.html

Obama Wins the Battle, Roberts Wins the War
The chief justice’s canny move to uphold the Affordable Care Act,
while gutting the Commerce Clause.
By Tom Scocca|Posted Thursday, June 28, 2012, at 11:59 AM ET

There were two battles being fought in the Supreme Court over the Affordable Care Act. Chief Justice John Roberts—and Justice Anthony Kennedy—delivered victory to the right in the one that mattered.

Yes, Roberts voted to uphold the individual mandate, joining the court's liberal wing to give President Obama a 5-4 victory on his signature piece of legislation. Right-wing partisans are crying treason; left-wing partisans saw their predictions of a bitter, party-line defeat undone.

But the health care law was, ultimately, a pretext. This was a test case for the long-standing—but previously fringe—campaign to rewrite Congress' regulatory powers under the Commerce Clause.

This is why the challenge to the ACA, and its progress through the courts, came as a surprise to Democrats and to mainstream constitutional scholars: Three years ago, there was no serious doubt that Congress had the power to impose the individual mandate.

A Bloomberg story last week nicely captured the stakes: "Obama Health Law Seen Valid, Scholars Expect Rejection":

The U.S. Supreme Court should uphold a law requiring most Americans to have health insurance if the justices follow legal precedent, according to 19 of 21 constitutional law professors who ventured an opinion on the most-anticipated ruling in years.

Only eight of them predicted the court would do so.

The scholars expected to see the court gut existing Commerce Clause precedent and overturn the individual mandate in a partisan decision: Five Republican-appointed justices voting to rewrite doctrine and reject Obamacare; four Democratic-appointed justices dissenting.

Roberts was smarter than that. By ruling that the individual mandate was permissible as a tax, he joined the Democratic appointees to uphold the law—while joining the Republican wing to gut the Commerce Clause (and push back against the necessary-and-proper clause as well). Here's the Chief Justice's opinion:

Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new 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".”

Click to expand...

The business about "new and potentially vast" authority is a fig leaf. This is a substantial rollback of Congress' regulatory powers, and the chief justice knows it. It is what Roberts has been pursuing ever since he signed up with the Federalist Society. In 2005, Sen. Barack Obama spoke in opposition to Roberts' nomination, saying he did not trust his political philosophy on tough questions such as "whether the Commerce Clause empowers Congress to speak on those issues of broad national concern that may be only tangentially related to what is easily defined as interstate commerce." Today, Roberts did what Obama predicted he would do.

Roberts' genius was in pushing this health care decision through without attaching it to the coattails of an ugly, narrow partisan victory. Obama wins on policy, this time. And Roberts rewrites Congress' power to regulate, opening the door for countless future challenges. In the long term, supporters of curtailing the federal government should be glad to have made that trade.

So we just got hosed and we are supposed to believe it was a good thing?

changed said:

So we just got hosed and we are supposed to believe it was a good thing?

Click to expand...

Read the post again, very carefully. Roberts just gutted the "commerce clause". Presuming that Romney is elected, along with a whole bunch of new senators and congress-critters giving the GOP a majority in both houses, Obamacare's lifespan runs exactly from today until Inauguration Day 2013! Immediately after which, it dies a quick legislative death.

If the Dems take control of both the House and the Senate, and manage to reelect Bams, they no longer have the ability to misuse the commerce clause.

Using Robert's ruling, any congressional overreach of the commerce clause can be challenged. Congress CAN tax, but CANNOT mandate using the commerce clause.

If there were any short-term political strategizing with this ruling, that would make me sick. In my mind, the ruling essentially states that the federal government can tax and spend unlimited amounts for any possible reason. The 10th amendment is now toilet paper...

Stating that the Commerce Clause can not compel an individual into commerce didn't do Bo Diddley - that's pretty much where we are now.....However, he did say that now anything the commerse clause doesn't cover, tax code can.

Only thing that got gutted was my kids, their offspring, and their freedom.

Squidpup said:

The 10th amendment is now toilet paper...

Click to expand...

dont be so narrow minded


actually the op is enlightening, and thought provoking.. very interesting angle.. did not expect this to get held up!

So one comes back to the Court AFTER THE TAX HAS BEEN LEVIED and challenges it, with AIA no longer an issue.....and 3'll get ya 5 that Roberts will FIGHT to grant Certiorari on that case.

Sooo Roberts is playing a very high level chess? I sincerely hope so. I hope the balance of the court is such that he will prevail.

Thunderbird said:

Sooo Roberts is playing a very high level chess? I sincerely hope so. I hope the balance of the court is such that he will prevail.

Click to expand...

That was my thought on this. He's just outclassed, outsmarted and outmaneuvered Obama. What will hopefully happen next is it will motivate all the apathetic voters to get off the couch and vote out the democrats, Obamacare will be repealed. In any event, we now have a set precedent that will not allow the commerce clause to be misused in future instances. Touche Justice Roberts.

here's another article on this angle:

http://www.businessinsider.com/actu...shed-obama-in-his-supreme-court-ruling-2012-6
(fair use applies)

Actually, Justice Roberts Demolished Obama In His Supreme Court Ruling
Grace Wyler | Jun. 28, 2012, 2:20 PM

Chief Justice John Roberts' surprising vote in favor of upholding President Barack Obama's health care law has made him the new hero of the political left, while some conservatives have already turned on him in record time.

But while Roberts may have saved Obama's signature domestic legislation — and perhaps his reelection campaign — by siding with the court's liberal wing, he actually did it in spite of Obama, not because of him.

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."

...Nor can the individual mandate be sustained under the Necessary and Proper Clause as an integral part of the Affordable Care Act’s other reforms. Each of this Court’s prior cases upholding laws under that Clause involved exercises of authority derivative of, and in service to, a granted power. The individual mandate, by contrast, vests Congress with the extraordinary ability to create the necessary predicate to the exercise of an enumerated power and draw within its regulatory scope those who would otherwise be outside of it. Even if the individua lmandate is “necessary” to the Affordable Care Act’s other reforms, such an expansion of federal power is not a “proper” means for making those reforms effective.

Instead, Roberts argued that the individual mandate is constitutional because it enacts a tax, not a fee. Obama's Solicitor General Donald Verrilli made the exact opposite claim in his oral arguments to the Supreme Court last March.

It seems like a very real possibility, then, that when the glow of today's victory wears off, Obama may find that Roberts' ruling was actually a Trojan Horse. Democrats have adamantly argued that the individual mandate is not a tax, but that claim will hold a lot less water after today's decision. Meanwhile, Republicans, despite their newfound dislike of Robert immediately seized on the "Obamacare raises taxes" attack line, and are already raising the specter of the IRS to fire up the conservative base.

Thunderbird said:

Sooo Roberts is playing a very high level chess? I sincerely hope so. I hope the balance of the court is such that he will prevail.

Click to expand...

I haven't looked at it or thought on it in that light...

Food for thought.

Right now, my mindset is that I'm only interested in Nullification and or Secession.

Jeff B.

Think of it this way.....If Obama wins re-election, and decides to sign onto the UN's small arms treaty gun grabby thing, once the legal challenges get to the supreme court, The supreme court will overturn an international treaty based on the commerce clause, because legislators cannot effect interstate commerce in that way. Call it a shot across the bow.........Robert's has set the stage for future challenges to congressional authority....he walked a fine line, but held it together!

Thunderbird said:

Sooo Roberts is playing a very high level chess? I sincerely hope so. I hope the balance of the court is such that he will prevail.

Click to expand...

I think Roberts just played a chess move that Obobo and the Dems may not catch onto until way too late. Right now and maybe until the election Obobo and the gang are playing "spike the ball and do the endzone victory dance".

What they don't realize is that Roberts may have very intentionally switched the ball for a political hand grenade, pulled the pin, let the spoon fly and then handed it Obobo. And Obobo had spiked it and is now dancing around over it and the Dems are running out to join him in that dance. Only a few will be able to tell the difference between a ball and a grenade and try to get away.

But Obobo and the rest are likely to be still dancing over that political grenade on Election Day and it will go off in their faces. The Tea Party voter reaction to this will be the explosion of that grenade.

And Roberts may well be in position to replay that scene from the Dirty Harry flim MAGNUM FORCE. "Man's gotta know his limitations."

WW

And what is the reason why, Roberts could not have both gutted the Commerce Clause and declared that the Federal government forcing a citizen to enter into an insurance contract is unconstitutional and illegal?

Sorry, don't buy into it.

Well, either that or we just got hosed and people are trying to put a good face on it. We still have to buy the insurance or pay the tax (aka, fine). Assuming victory in November (with Spain counting the votes and a history of election fraud...) and assuming the invertebrates in Congress will repeal the cursed thing (no Congress has repealed legislation in what, 80 years...) seems to me to be assuming quite a bit. Even people who run as "TEA Party" advocates turn tail once elected, in many cases.

Jonas Parker said:

Read the post again, very carefully. Roberts just gutted the "commerce clause". Presuming that Romney is elected, along with a whole bunch of new senators and congress-critters giving the GOP a majority in both houses, Obamacare's lifespan runs exactly from today until Inauguration Day 2013! Immediately after which, it dies a quick legislative death.

If the Dems take control of both the House and the Senate, and manage to reelect Bams, they no longer have the ability to misuse the commerce clause.

Using Robert's ruling, any congressional overreach of the commerce clause can be challenged. Congress CAN tax, but CANNOT mandate using the commerce clause.

Click to expand...

Jonas, my comment wasn't directed at you. I read the article and thought it just sounded like spin.

The Cub said:

And what is the reason why, Roberts could not have both gutted the Commerce Clause and declared that the Federal government forcing a citizen to enter into an insurance contract is unconstitutional and illegal?

Sorry, don't buy into it.

Click to expand...

This case was limited to two issues only. The constitutionality of the individual mandate to pay that 'tax' and the medicare issue. The court did not decide any other issues relating to the health care law - so I'm guessing as it is enacted more of it will be litigated and perhaps more of it will be thrown out. (if it's not voted out by then).

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf
(fair use applies)
EXCERPT

One key provision is the individual mandate, which requires most Americans to maintain“minimum essential” health insurance coverage. 26 U. S. C. §5000A.For individuals who are not exempt, and who do not receive health insurance through an employer or government program, the means of satisfying the requirement is to purchase insurance from a private company. Beginning in 2014, those who do not comply with the mandate must make a “hared responsibility payment” to the Federal Government. §5000A(b)(1). The Act provides that this “penalty”will be paid to the Internal Revenue Service with an individual’s taxes, and “shall be assessed and collected in the same manner” as tax penalties. §§5000A(c), (g)(1).Another key provision of the Act is the Medicaid expansion. The current Medicaid program offers federal funding to States to assist pregnant women, children, needy families, the blind, the elderly, and the disabled in obtaining medical care. 42 U. S. C. §1396d(a). The Affordable Care Act expands the scope of the Medicaid program and increases the number of individuals the States must cover.

(snip)

Twenty-six States, several individuals, and the National Federation of Independent Business brought suit in Federal District Court, challenging the constitutionality of the individual mandate and the Medicaid expansion. The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld the Medicaid expansion as a valid exercise of Congress’s spending power, but concluded that Congress lacked authority to enact the individual mandate. Finding the mandate severable from the Act’s other provisions, the Eleventh Circuit left the rest of the Act intact.

Click to expand...

Some of you are so short sighted, and have no idea what the ramifications are.

LOL

Thunderbird said:

Sooo Roberts is playing a very high level chess? I sincerely hope so. I hope the balance of the court is such that he will prevail.

Click to expand...

Kennedy ... Wanted to throw out ALL OF OBAMA CARE ... Thus with Roberts vote no need for this ... Just Spin... Slate is a Liberal/Progressive Blog ... Roberts not playing anything ... he is a Progressive & wants to be liked by the Washington Post ... MSM


We have to vote in real conservatives ...

Looks like somebody's making out like a bandit on all this - *snicker*



@SteveKopack tweeted:

Romney campaign raises $2m in 6 ½ hours since Supreme Court Health Care decision: Source

Submitted 33 mins ago from twitter.com by editor

AzProtector said:

Some of you are so short sighted, and have no idea what the ramifications are.

Click to expand...

What do you believe the ramifications are?


HD

Infoscout said:

Think of it this way.....If Obama wins re-election, and decides to sign onto the UN's small arms treaty gun grabby thing, once the legal challenges get to the supreme court, The supreme court will overturn an international treaty based on the commerce clause, because legislators cannot effect interstate commerce in that way. Call it a shot across the bow.........Robert's has set the stage for future challenges to congressional authority....he walked a fine line, but held it together!

Click to expand...

(Ignoring the whole Senate ratification requirement,) if this were the case, now the gov has the power to enact such measures via the tax code. For example, you can have the right to keep & bear arms, but you must list each gun's serial number on your 1040 & lay out a $5k "tax" for each. Hey, it's just a tax, right?

ETA: This just openned up a new era in Federal usurpation....No longer will Congress have to find new ways to creatively stretch the commerce clause, they can just tie anything to a tax and inact it via the IRS.

SurfaceTension is absolutely correct. The IRS now becomes the primary "legislative enforcement" arm of the federal government.

True communism then (or Fascism, whatever word that fits).

What's yours is theirs.

Pretty simple.

My take on SurfaceTension's post

http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...cy-for-all-future-quot-unfunded-mandates-quot

I went over to GLP to take a glance to see what was being said and for once I found a gem that explains what Jonas' original post was saying, at least it made it clearer to me. So I am going to post this and then please excuse me as I go take a shower to clean the rest of the shite off me that may have gotten on me while I was there...

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

John Roberts.

Declared that ObamaCare is Unconstititutional under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.

The President, and his supporters did not want this decision.

John Roberts then delcared... specifically the "Individual Mandate" clause within ObamaCare, IS Constitutional, under the TAXATION Clause of the United States Constitution.

This is very important, and Chief Justice Robert's words are going to go down in history. What he said basically identifies the "Individual Mandate" as being the Financial Arm of the entire ObamaCare plan; and passed the "buck" back into the Republican side of the Aisle.

How did he do this?

Chief Justice Roberts is a republican Justice, who just sided with the Liberal Justices on this matter! This is a very important message to the Republican Party, in that they can no longer put "political matters" on HIS bench, and expect the Supreme Court to settle those matters for them.

At the same time, John Roberts, declaring that the Individual Mandate is legal under the TAXATION clause of the Constitution, the exact thing that Obama did NOT want to happen...

Just handed the White House to Mit Romney.

How and why?

Because for the past 2 - 3 years, Obama and his supporters have stated .. "This is not a Tax!" Why have they said this? If it were a tax, then it would make Obama the single greatest Tax HIKER, in all of American history, and NO President wants to be known as that!

The Supreme Court just said it IS a tax because it can only stand, constitutionally, under the Tax Clause of the Constitution.

Basically, you have a game of chess.

On one side of the board you have Obama.

On the other side you have Romney.

They two are playing a dangerous game of Chess, each moving their pieces and so on.

But now in steps John Roberts, the CHIEF Justice, of the Supreme Court! The final authority of the Supreme Court, the Senior HEAD of the Judiciary Branch of Government!

He just smacked a NEW piece down onto that chess board, a piece that no one has ever seen before.

This new piece, completely changes the entire game, completely redefines it in ways we will not understand for several more years down the road.

But the fact remains.

This new piece is ON THE BOARD.

By declaring ObamaCare legal under the Taxation Clause.

He personally just opened the door to a world of possibilities.

1. Republicans CAN repeal ObamaCare if they gain a Majority in the Senate, and they can do this with ONLY a 51 majority Vote and because it is a Tax - ITS REPEAL CAN'T BE FILIBUSTERED by the Dems!

2. As a Tax, The Catholic Church can now SUE over the contraception clause, because it is ILLEGAL for a THIRD PARTY to pay a tax FOR you!

3. The Republican's, and Romney specifically, can now destroy Obama with the 3+ years of public soundbites of Obama and Co. repeatedly stating "This is not a Tax!"


John Roberts just changed the entire direction of the Election

Suckers. 'Roberts saved us!! Yippee!'

If you're drowning and I throw you an anvil guess what - you'll grab onto it. You'll be 15' under before you realize you're sinking and then while not toooo late, it's damn near too late - if your reflexes aren't fast enough or you don't have just a smidge of air left you drown.

This is going to be amusing and frustrating watching everyone scramble that we're saved each week an article comes out saying there's a way around it.

O'care is here to stay.

It'll all be OK as long as:

1 - You're a member of CONgress.
2 - You don't grow old.
3 - You never get sick.

Just keep working til you drop so they can get your money from you.

hope springs eternal

raven said:

hope springs eternal

Click to expand...

So does taxation.

The Traveler said:

I went over to GLP to take a glance to see what was being said and for once I found a gem that explains what Jonas' original post was saying, at least it made it clearer to me. So I am going to post this and then please excuse me as I go take a shower to clean the rest of the shite off me that may have gotten on me while I was there...

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

John Roberts.

Declared that ObamaCare is Unconstititutional under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.

The President, and his supporters did not want this decision.

John Roberts then delcared... specifically the "Individual Mandate" clause within ObamaCare, IS Constitutional, under the TAXATION Clause of the United States Constitution.

This is very important, and Chief Justice Robert's words are going to go down in history. What he said basically identifies the "Individual Mandate" as being the Financial Arm of the entire ObamaCare plan; and passed the "buck" back into the Republican side of the Aisle.

How did he do this?

Chief Justice Roberts is a republican Justice, who just sided with the Liberal Justices on this matter! This is a very important message to the Republican Party, in that they can no longer put "political matters" on HIS bench, and expect the Supreme Court to settle those matters for them.

At the same time, John Roberts, declaring that the Individual Mandate is legal under the TAXATION clause of the Constitution, the exact thing that Obama did NOT want to happen...

Just handed the White House to Mit Romney.

How and why?

<snip>

1. Republicans CAN repeal ObamaCare if they gain a Majority in the Senate, and they can do this with ONLY a 51 majority Vote and because it is a Tax - ITS REPEAL CAN'T BE FILIBUSTERED by the Dems!

2. As a Tax, The Catholic Church can now SUE over the contraception clause, because it is ILLEGAL for a THIRD PARTY to pay a tax FOR you!

3. The Republican's, and Romney specifically, can now destroy Obama with the 3+ years of public soundbites of Obama and Co. repeatedly stating "This is not a Tax!"


John Roberts just changed the entire direction of the Election

Click to expand...

1. Don't think so...I'm thinking they can only repeal the individual tax/penalty on this basis, not all of the other funding mechanisms and, most importantly, all of the other requirements in the bill. So, we'll end up with an even-greater b@stard of an upside-down healthcare system, putting our kids even further in debt.

2. The Church is being forced to pay the mandated fees -er- taxes on it's employees, no different from any other employer. They just had a moral objection to how the taxes will be used.

3. OK, that's nice...But little more than a sermon for the choir.

I understand the the desire to keep a positive outlook on this, but this is really just putting lipstick on a pig and calling it hot....But it's still a pig, now with a new way to devour each of our liberties.

Get the right judges in place and that lipstick on the pig will actually start looking real good.

One more time: The judges run the country. I am unable to understand why people can't see that.

One more time: We know what kind of judges O will pick. I am unable to understand why people can't see that.

One more time; We have no idea what judges Romney will pick but they won't be any worse that O's and it is quite possible that they will be better.

O didn't pick Roberts.


GET IT?????

What will hopefully happen next is it will motivate all the apathetic voters to get off the couch and vote out the democrats,

Click to expand...

Which is what the WHI post predicted. Now the JoeSixPacks can come out, put down their beer (regretfully) and pick up a flyer for the Tea Party - and join the fun of throwing the socialists out of the Whitehouse AND Congress.

Gosh if wishes were Teapartygoers, Obama would be ridden out of town along with his ObamaCare.

And a certain trepidation henceforth about the power of Congress to tax.

In Cow Hampshire, unless the governor elect "takes the pledge" (not to impose broad based taxes like sales tax, income tax) he doesn't have a snowball's chance on the F.E. Everett Turnpike to make it to governor. (Major commute road to Boston from Manchester.)

It pays in freedom as well as taxes to know what your Government is doing.

I can't do it but hooves crossed on this one. Owner needs a break.

Dobbin

from what I heard today the way roberts framed it makes it to where it will only take 51 votes in the senate to over turn it instead of 60 and that may be a big deal in the near future

SurfaceTension said:

1. Don't think so...I'm thinking they can only repeal the individual tax/penalty on this basis, not all of the other funding mechanisms and, most importantly, all of the other requirements in the bill. So, we'll end up with an even-greater b@stard of an upside-down healthcare system, putting our kids even further in debt.

2. The Church is being forced to pay the mandated fees -er- taxes on it's employees, no different from any other employer. They just had a moral objection to how the taxes will be used.

3. OK, that's nice...But little more than a sermon for the choir.

I understand the the desire to keep a positive outlook on this, but this is really just putting lipstick on a pig and calling it hot....But it's still a pig, now with a new way to devour each of our liberties.

Click to expand...

You may be right and you may be wrong about number one. Congress enacted this law as a whole. They can repeal it as a whole.
We as a people want instant gratification and we didnt get it so now we are all pissed off. But think for a minute, by the justices saying this is a tax, now does a few things. One it does hold Congress back reagarding the commerce clause and that is a big thing whether people realize it or not regarding states rights. Secondly, we all sit here saying obama has to go, the democrats have to go, the RINO's have to go, well now we have the opportunity to use this against them. Its a tax, it is one of the largest if not the largest tax ever placed on the American people in peace time. It gives the Republicans plenty of cannon shot for the next few months to show how the dems and obama passed the largest tax increase in history. If we the people work to get the right people in Congress this whole mess can be repealed as well as the immigration fiasco we are faced with. Yeah, we didnt get our immediate gratification, so lets all be part of the solution and get the right people into the right places to make things better and we get our longterm gratification. Flame away...

I thought about the OP for a few minutes and can come up with this obervation at the current time.

The OP may just be delusional. I'm not buying into the, "No really just trust us, we really know what we are doing, no really, we really really mean it."

SCOTUS could have jettisoned O-Care on a slew of Constitutional grounds, they didn't and that tells me all I need to know.

The notion of a super double secret, end around, crazy like a fox, back door strategy is not doing it for me.

O didn't pick Roberts.


GET IT?????

Looking for purity, you are not going to get it. I am not so sure myself, but some people seem to think that Roberts pulled off a Machiavellian constitutional coup in that he got some phrases in the decision that just might hamstring creative congressional ideas in the future while leaving it to the voters to smash O/Care.

I am not optimistic. I don't think Congress has the guts to totally eliminate O/Care. Too many people have a Good Thing with it. Instead, Congress will dork around with it and we could end about as badly as we ended up now.

Perhaps you didn't read my IRS thread Troke. You might want to...

I tend to agree with the OP...

Make no mistake, this is a multi-dimensional chess game, and Roberts is no fool. By saying this IS a tax, he just changed the game rules. IMHO he DID put Obozo in check, on the hot seat, just before the election...

I still have concerns. Does this "wake up" enough people to make a difference in Nov? Again I keep thinking of the 50% that don't pay any fed tax. Every new .gov handout is a great thing as far as they are concerned...

My other concern is R-Care. He said today he would work to kill O-Care "starting on day 1". But will R-Care really be any better???

.

Well, maybe Roberts did do us a favor by classifying the health insurance as a tax. I'm starting to believe the Supreme Court just turned the whole mess back into Congress's hands. They should deal with it. If the Supreme Court would have ruled the other way, I believe Congress would have gotten off scott free -- "Hey, even the Supreme Court says it's okay to mandate individual commerce where none exists." Congress has a lot of work to do now. They may have been the weakest link in government for some time, because this would never have come up if they hadn't dug a hole for fiscal accountability.

ncmissouri said:

Well, maybe Roberts did do us a favor by classifying the health insurance as a tax. I'm starting to believe the Supreme Court just turned the whole mess back into Congress's hands. They should deal with it. If the Supreme Court would have ruled the other way, I believe Congress would have gotten off scott free -- "Hey, even the Supreme Court says it's okay to mandate individual commerce where none exists." Congress has a lot of work to do now. They may have been the weakest link in government for some time, because this would never have come up if they hadn't dug a hole for fiscal accountability.

Click to expand...

Congress is ultimately the one to blame.

If you don't exercise a power you will soon lose it.

Congress has punted on way too many issues.

Waiting for SCOTUS to bail you out is way too late.

A million Federal agencies can be defunded and disbanded by congress but that seldom happens.

Congress rolled over on War Powers and now look what goes on. Neverending undeclared wars