Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

ObamaCare ruling reaction thread / open thread

1.  Yay, the republic has been temporarily saved!

2.  Wow.  That was anti-climactic.  Bunch of punters, these Justices.

3.  Eat your peas, citizen.

****

update:  Eat your peas it is.  Subject.

Is the individual mandate penalty really a tax?  Obama and his reps assured us it wasn’t.  Until it was passed and then challenged legally.  At which time it became a tax for purposes of justifying it.

Guess what, folks:  this was the week your country died and was replaced by the very same kind of leftwing democratic socialist nannystate that is, in its European iterations, failing spectacularly.

Our last hope save a rebellion that we as an erstwhile free people have is taking all branches of elected government and demanding repeal.  But for that we’ll need super majorities to repeal the law (though only a majority to repeal the tax, if I’m not mistaken — cold comfort, really, given what the ruling means legally).  And even then, we’ll have to rely on Boehner and McConnell and Romney, for fuck’s sake, having the desire and the will to roll back brand new federal powers that will bring in lots and lots and lots of “revenues” to redistribute, if you happen to be part of the permanent ruling class.  More, though, the precedent is set that the government can by way of backdoor taxation, mandate us to enter into private contracts — and mandate that private enterprises sell those contracts — with the specifics of those contracts crafted and ordered by government.

In other words, the Court has told us that in a country born of a revolution against a centralized authority, the Constitution resulting from that revolution requires that we are subjects to a centralized authority.

Small businesses just died.  The free enterprise system just died.  And worst of all, liberty just died.  The SCOTUS has all but ensured either insurrection or slavery.

I have no desire or need to debate with leftists any longer.  My only function now will be to resist.  And I’ll know who to resist by way of watching who celebrates this ruling, the Arizona ruling, and the EPA ruling.

A coup, as I’ve been saying.   And it was secured, ironically enough, by a so-called “conservative” Court.  Forward!

Guess we’re all Hobbits now.

****

update 2: Bill Wilson, Americans for Limited Government

“The U.S. Constitution died today.  The underlying hope and belief that our nation’s founding document protected individual freedoms from an ever encroaching government is a thing of the past based upon this ruling.  It is inconceivable how these nine lifetime appointed jurists could have decided to keep a law that is such a blatant intrusion into each of our lives, but the result of their decision is that individuals can no longer rely on the federal government power being limited by anything other than the political pressure their individual elected representatives feel.  Ultimately, the Supreme Court has opted out of the battle to retain our freedoms, and has thrown in entirely with those who advocated for unlimited government authority.  It is truly a sad day for our nation.”

 

 

160 Replies to “ObamaCare ruling reaction thread / open thread”

  1. StrangernFiction says:

    We are past the tipping point either way.

  2. Darleen says:

    I’m going to be at work when the ruling is revealed, but I’m leaning towards #2 this morning.

    Would love whole thing stricken down, but ain’t holding my breath, not with the way Dems & Obama have been trying to bully SCOTUS the last couple of years.

  3. Darleen says:

    And even IF it’s #2, and Barry doesn’t get his way … watch him pull a stunt like he has done with Arizona.

    Mr. Thin-skin doesn’t take even moderate losing well. Rules like Jimmy Carter, has the emotional make-up of Richard Nixon.

  4. sdferr says:

    This morning — I don’t know if I’ve looked at the decision this way before today — I’m inclining to the view that while the ACA decision is monumental in it’s own way, it is nevertheless a relatively minor piece of the larger political movement underway, a movement that will not be deflected in direction no matter which argument wins out the majority vote in the Court.

    The larger political crisis and the changes that crisis will drive are, however, beyond my capacity to grasp, even while I believe I can make out the faint form of inexorability in the gloaming.

  5. paulzummo says:

    A lot hinges on just how far-reaching the opinion is. If the Court really starts to walk back its commerce clause jurisprudence – I mean really starts taking an axe to Wickard – then that will be momentous. I just don’t see that happening. Really only Thomas and to a lesser extent Alito seem to want to take things that far.

  6. Pablo says:

    I feel like I’m going to puke. All over what Anthony Kennedy thinks of America.

  7. Pablo says:

    Stolen Valor Act is held unconstitutional. No surprise there.

  8. sdferr says:

    C-Span3 is covering the Court, and running a screen shot of ScotusBlog live as it’s typed.

  9. JHoward says:

    10:07, here it comes.

  10. JHoward says:

    Individual mandate survives…as a tax, at least according to the scotusblog nerd.

    Judas.

  11. Car in says:

    WTF?

  12. JHoward says:

    Drudge says it’s gone.

  13. sdferr says:

    From ScotusBlog — “Amy Howe: the individual mandate survives as a tax.”

    But of course, it is not a tax, so that proposition is dubious at best.

  14. JHoward says:

    Drudge updates to say yes, it’s a tax. WTF indeed.

  15. Car in says:

    Punt.

  16. JHoward says:

    Roberts went left.

  17. Pablo says:

    WTF??? Looks like some version of #2.

  18. Pablo says:

    So, if we don’t like it, repeal is the only answer. Obama must go.

  19. JHoward says:

    “The mandate is constitutional.”

    Repeal. Either way, we are so screwed.

  20. Car in says:

    Expansion of medicaid- struck down.

    Mandate – upheld.

    Time to get the fucking pitchforks.

  21. ThomasD says:

    Not #2, it’s #3.

    It would appear Roberts has ‘grown’ since since joining the court.

  22. Dale Price says:

    Sorry to disagree with you, Jeff, but it’s “Eat your lima beans, ‘citizen.'”

    Followed by muffled laughter into their manicured hands.

  23. JHoward says:

    Hello, subjects. Line up over here.

  24. Car in says:

    Honestly, this could be good.

    Obama has to go.

    That it’s a tax – is only going to fire up more people.

  25. Dale Price says:

    Remember, voting for Romney is the only way we can be sure to get good Supreme Court picks.

  26. sdferr says:

    Feels less like a punt than a blow to the back of the head, actually. Not Kennedy, but Roberts. Maybe we see better now what Roberts’ concurrence Monday meant.

  27. George Orwell says:

    Mmm… delicious peas

  28. JHoward says:

    The precedent will stand, Carin. Barry just became the patron saint of the USSA. Whether he’s reelected is irrelevant.

  29. George Orwell says:

    Remember, the Republicans just caved on Keystone and pork in the highway bill, as noted at Red State. Think they have the stones to fight this?

    Somewhere a little Romneycare is smiling.

  30. zamoose says:

    Not gonna lie to you — this hurts.

  31. JHoward says:

    So…what can overturn a tax, people?

  32. McGehee says:

    Now we know where to look for the Constitution in the Supreme Court building. It’s rolled up on a spindle next to the toilet.

  33. JHoward says:

    “Section 5000A need not be read to do more than impose a tax. This is sufficient to sustain it.”

    Didn’t Barry claim otherwise?

  34. JHoward says:

    Answering myself, “The court reinforces that individuals can simply refuse to pay the tax and not comply with the mandate.” How that works I don’t know.

  35. Pablo says:

    So…what can overturn a tax, people?

    Repeal.

    Didn’t Barry claim otherwise?

    Yes.

  36. EBL says:

    http://evilbloggerlady.blogspot.com/2012/06/whatever-happens-this-morning-it-will.html So I can simply refuse to pay my taxes? Generally that works out to be a bad thing in practical results.

  37. EBL says:

    Roberts is a dirty statist.

  38. Jeff G. says:

    Landmark Legal — Levin’s firm — is 0-3: Immigration; EPA; ObamaCare.

    How the fuck something Obama and all his reps says wasn’t a tax can become a tax after the fact, after it’s passed and sold as something else entirely, is mind boggling.

    Our Constitution is dead, and we are now subjects.

    Except I refuse to be. And all of you should, as well.

  39. JHoward says:

    EBL:

    Apologies – you can’t refuse to pay the tax; typo. The only effect of not complying with the mandate is that you pay the tax.

    Yep. SOBs

  40. Squid says:

    Look on the bright side, folks — the Great Collapse just got moved up by a few years! The quicker things get worse, the sooner they’ll get better!

  41. Jeff G. says:

    Roberts went left.

    Doesn’t matter. The Constitution doesn’t exist, so no laws are binding any more. It’s all power and compliance.

  42. JHoward says:

    How the fuck something Obama and all his reps says wasn’t a tax can become a tax after the fact, after it’s passed and sold as something else entirely, is mind boggling.

    Nothing is ever legislated from the bench. Impossible.

    You say you want a rev-o-lu-shu-un…

  43. George Orwell says:

    The gnashing of teeth at AOSHQ is hilarious. They think Romney will save them. Stumped, they are, by the ruling.

    Perhaps if one had noticed the course of Leviathan over the past century, one would be unmoved.

  44. Garym says:

    Obama must have pictures of Roberts with young boys or something. Good day comrads!

  45. JHoward says:

    Justice Ginsburg makes clear that the vote is 5-4 on sustaining the mandate as a form of tax. Her opinion, for herself and Sotomayor, Breyer and Kagan, joins the key section of Roberts opinion on that point. She would go further and uphold the mandate under the Commerce Clause

    Or the Good and Welfare Clause, whatever.

  46. Squid says:

    Now we just need our brave Congresscritters to observe that the health care tax disproportionately impacts the poor, and have a bipartisan vote to repeal that tax. Then the Great Collapse can come even sooner! Yay!

  47. Dale Price says:

    So long as the Feds call it (or don’t call it) a tax, they can make us do anything they want. Actually, they can deny it’s a tax, and still make us do it.

    The taxing power has swallowed the Constitution entire.

    Interesting times, as they say.

  48. JHoward says:

    A day that will live in infamy.

  49. George Orwell says:

    Said it before, will say it again. In about a decade, we will be herded, cattle-wise, into single-payer. It will be signed into law by a Republican.

  50. Squid says:

    What’s this “we” you’re talking about, kemo sabe?

  51. Physics Geek says:

    So if it’s a tax, it can be repealed with only 51 votes in the Senate, correct? Doesn’t matter, though, as SCOTUS has ruled that we’re now serfs. So fuck them.

  52. RI Red says:

    I cannot fucking believe it. I don’t know if I have the stomach to read it. I’m going to go puke, sit in a corner, clean my guns and mumble to myself.

  53. sdferr says:

    Tea Party seems to have been an astonishingly apt name.

  54. motionview says:

    Here’s the new rules: they set the rules, and they have no rules. Forward.

  55. sdferr says:

    “Here’s the new rules: they set the rules, and they have no rules. Forward.”

    Well, we did say tyranny, so . . . maybe it’s not so new after all.

  56. Garym says:

    Now we Colorodoans (sp) have to look forward to Obama coming here on Friday to save us. Yay!

  57. JohnInFirestone says:

    Those with skin in the game (S&P & Dow) are giving the ruling a giant thumbs down.

  58. EBL says:

    http://evilbloggerlady.blogspot.com/2012/06/hercules-cleaning-augean-stables.html Roll up those sleeves brothers and sisters. We have some serious wading to do…

  59. happyfeet says:

    it really is time to burn things and smash shit but I have a picnic today

  60. zamoose says:

    Physics Geek:
    Yup, via reconciliation, all it takes is 50 votes in the Senate + a GOP VP to break the tie.

  61. Squid says:

    Protip: When your proggie lunch buddies try to goad you into a violent reaction over this morning’s decision, just smile blankly and congratulate them on consigning their children to shitty DMV-quality health care for the rest of their miserable, foreshortened lives.

    Protip: There will be massive numbers of physicians “retiring” to get away from this monstrosity over the next few years. Get acquainted with a few of them and find out what sort of whisky they enjoy. That way, it won’t be a “house call” under the law, it’s just them coming over for a drink, and maybe you’ll share a few health complaints during the visit. Whatever they might prescribe can be gotten cheap under the bleachers at the middle school.

  62. geoffb says:

    SCOTUS comfirms, the power to tax is the power to destroy. Constitution now a death pact.

    ScotusBlog’s summary:

    In Plain English: The Affordable Care Act, including its individual mandate that virtually all Americans buy health insurance, is constitutional. There were not five votes to uphold it on the ground that Congress could use its power to regulate commerce between the states to require everyone to buy health insurance. However, five Justices agreed that the penalty that someone must pay if he refuses to buy insurance is a kind of tax that Congress can impose using its taxing power. That is all that matters. Because the mandate survives, the Court did not need to decide what other parts of the statute were constitutional, except for a provision that required states to comply with new eligibility requirements for Medicaid or risk losing their funding. On that question, the Court held that the provision is constitutional as long as states would only lose new funds if they didn’t comply with the new requirements, rather than all of their funding. . . . Yes, to answer a common question, the whole ACA is constitutional, so the provision requiring insurers to cover young adults until they are 26 survives as well.

  63. McGehee says:

    Right. Let’s put our faith in politicians just because there’s an “R” after their names. That’s worked so fucking well for us so far.

  64. motionview says:

    ruling

  65. Squid says:

    Not snark, but an honest question: are there any other taxes levied by Congress that citizens have to pay for the privilege of not doing something?

    If I don’t earn an income, then I don’t have income tax. If I don’t want to pay import duties, then I don’t import anything. If I don’t want to pay gas tax, then I don’t buy gas. Every tax I can think of offhand requires me to engage in some activity that would trigger a tax event. Is this the first of the “get up in the morning” taxes, or am I missing something?

  66. Pablo says:

    So if it’s a tax, it can be repealed with only 51 votes in the Senate, correct?

    They didn’t need 60 to pass it, so they can’t need 60 to repeal it.

  67. I don’t understand the pessimism. Everyone gets ponies.

  68. Pablo says:

    Squid, not everyone has to pay it. Only those who make above a certain amount. So, on the bright side, it does not stand as a requirement of citizenship. For what that’s worth.

  69. LTC John says:

    I am going to try not to despair…but fight. ’cause it is only a Republic if you can keep it. SCT throws in with the slavers, so it is up to us to kick O! and Congress out and put those in who will actually limit the G’s power.

    But I do have to say I am glad I am retiring this Sunday…it would really be tough for me to “support and defend” the Constitution if it is what the 9 nags in black mumus say it is.

  70. happyfeet says:

    I’m surprised to find my feeling is that… this does not whet one’s appetite for a Romney presidency somehow

    how will bringing a cheese stick to a gunfight help America

  71. motionview says:

    Scalia :
    In our view it must follow that the entire statute is inoperative.

  72. Stephanie says:

    Obama lied to the American people. Again. He said it wasn’t a tax. Obama lies; freedom dies.

    -Sarah Palin tweet

  73. Just 5 not 9, though 9 was the number of the Nazgul IIRC.

    Looking forwrad to reading the dissents. Chief Justice Roberts grew rather more quickly than expected.

  74. Squid says:

    Only those who make above a certain amount.

    Oh, good. Yet more motivation for me to join the ranks of the unemployed. Maybe it really is time for me to set up the black market I’ve always dreamed of running…

  75. zamoose says:

    Good question from Twitter:

    Didn’t this version of the bill originate in the Senate? ALL tax bills MUST originate in the House, no?

    So, like, WHAT THE HECK?

  76. George Orwell says:

    In other words, the Court has told us that a country born of a revolution against a centralized authority, the Constitution resulting from that revolution requires that we are subjects to a centralized authority.

    Perfectly summarized. Anyone looking forward to establishment Republicans reminding us, despite our defeat, how we must respect the process?

    Why anyone should respect a process that inexorably erodes liberty is not a question with a good answer.

  77. palaeomerus says:

    “SCOTUS comfirms, the power to tax is the power to destroy. Constitution now a death pact.”

    No the constitution is now whatever boss says it is. That means you gotta be boss if you want your way. No doubt if the republicans or even tea party are ever boss they’ll change their minds again.

  78. McGehee says:

    The power to tax is not only the power to destroy, it is also absolute and unlimited. Oh, good.

  79. motionview says:

    Missed it by that much. Liberty that is.

  80. RI Red says:

    LTC John, congratulations on your retirement and thank you for your service. But I fear that your service may again be required in re-establishing the Republic.
    I’m dusting off my old combat boots.

  81. OCBill says:

    Well and truly fucked.

  82. George Orwell says:

    Europe and America: Is there a difference?

  83. dicentra says:

    Help me out here: a TAX is levied by the gubmint to fill gubmint coffers to pay for gubmint bidness.

    The individual mandate is purchased from private companies to fill private coffers to pay for MY bidness.

    #fullrepeal

    Churchill: “…Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy. “

  84. George Orwell says:

    Prepare for lots of people losing their insurance as employers choose to pay the fine instead of insure. So, outcry for yet more publicly-funded medical care. Single payer! Single payer! A tune so catchy even Republicans will be humming it. In time.

  85. bgbear says:

    I was wondering about a tax bill suppose to start in house as well.

  86. Matt says:

    I can’t imagine ROberts thinks this is particularly good law but I do think Roberts didn’t want his Court to be the one that struck down the primary accomplishment of our first black president. By claiming its a tax, he’s basically punting it back to Congress to deal with. It IS practically professional legal negligence that a significant part of Roberts opinion DID NOT discuss how the Obama administration repeatedly said it was not a tax. Clearly, Roberts saved the stupid law for Obama and his idiot team of lawyers – I have to admit, I’m surprised it was Roberts and not Kennedy the squish.

    I really need a couple of drinks- my boss walked into my office right after the decision was released, took one look at my face and said “Fuck, Obamacare was upheld, wasn’t it?”

  87. Jeff G. says:

    Predictably, Hugh Hewitt is defending Roberts.

    That guy has GOP stamped on his colon.

  88. I Callahan says:

    Right. Let’s put our faith in politicians just because there’s an “R” after their names. That’s worked so fucking well for us so far.

    Response: Stolen from another site:

    Eisenhower gave us: Earl Warren, Potter Steward and William Brennan
    Nixon gave us: Blackmun, Powell and Rehnquist
    Ford gave us: Stevens
    Reagan gave us: O’Connor, Scalia and Kennedy.
    Bush I gave us: Thomas and Souter
    Bush II gave us: Roberts and Alito.

    Now, let’s also recall: The infamous Roe case was given us by the following justices named by Republicans: Blackmun, Brennan, Burger, Powell, Stewart.

    Then, in 1992, when Roe was up for reconsideration in Casey, the majority that upheld Roe was the gift of the following majority: O’Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Blackmun, Stevens.

    (Note: they were all appointed by Republican presidents promising judges that practice restraint.)

    So this fall, we can play the game again: Romney and his folks will say, you must vote for me because I’ll pick good justices! Just like…hey! a unicorn!”

  89. George Orwell says:


    Jeff G. says June 28, 2012 at 9:23 am
    Predictably, Hugh Hewitt is defending Roberts.
    That guy has GOP stamped on his colon.

    I was thinking a much different, considerably smaller part of his anatomy.

  90. George Orwell says:

    I wonder if Jeb Bush is pleased that Roberts did not want to draw black lines of ideology? Of course he is.

  91. Pablo says:

    I can’t imagine ROberts thinks this is particularly good law but I do think Roberts didn’t want his Court to be the one that struck down the primary accomplishment of our first black president.

    That’s not his fucking concern. It’s not his job.

  92. happyfeet says:

    roberts thinks this is what should be the precedent for deciding future case where government rapes freedom

    apparently this whole constitution bullshit is a little over-rated from a freedom perspective

  93. scooter says:

    I was wondering about a tax bill suppose to start in house as well.

    True, but recall the procedural boondoggle required to get the thing passed. Reconciliation. They had to totally slip the rules a mickey to get the thing passed.

    That guy has GOP stamped on his colon.

    You know how to get something stamped on your colon? One way would be to have a brass dildo with “GOP” on the end shoved up your ass, hard. Perhaps often, even.

  94. Ernst Schreiber says:

    On the bright side, we can just laugh at anyone who tells us we need to suck it up and vote for Romney because of the appointment power.

  95. leigh says:

    I don’t think he thinks that at all, happy. His job is not to decide whether or not this is a good law, only whether it is constitutional.

  96. happyfeet says:

    leigh America’s bullshit constitution does shit to preserve our freedoms, in fact it actively abets the raping of them is what Roberts has taught us

    and thus endeth the lesson

  97. leigh says:

    That assumes you are a passive actor in your own life, happy. You still have the right to vote and bear arms.

  98. happyfeet says:

    i vote and I bear an arms leigh

    and yet me I’m increasingly less free in a failshit little country in which even stalwart team leader Boehnerfag contemplates stripping the assets of those who want to leave

  99. Matt says:

    Pablo, I agree-I’m not defending Roberts – he made a poor decision based on non-legal, non-constitutional factors. I think it shows he’s a poor justice and too easily swayed by the liberal members of the Court as well as concern for his legacy (I’m so tired of politicians and their GD legacy – your family and your kids are your legacy but whatever)- Scalia’s dissent nails it – the Court is not supposed to basically re-write the law so its Constitutional – the law was a mess and should have been struck down because it was an unworkable mess, then forcing Congress to come up with a better solution. What Roberts ill advised vote did was left a bunch of terrible law in place and I think he expects Congress to re-work it – he just didn’t want HIS Court striking it down. Its reflects really really poorly on Roberts. In fact, I’d say this entire week of decisions speaks extremely poorly of the entire Court- the Arizona decision (I finally got around to reading it) was equally atrocious.

  100. palaeomerus says:

    ” Prepare for lots of people losing their insurance as employers choose to pay the fine instead of insure. So, outcry for yet more publicly-funded medical care. Single payer! Single payer! A tune so catchy even Republicans will be humming it. In time.”

    I can’t vote for a guy who hums that. You don’t hum along to El Degüello while the enemy is at the walls.

  101. Blake says:

    I think there is a “poison pill” in the ruling.

    But in a major victory for the states who challenged the law, the court said that the Obama administration cannot coerce states to go along with the Medicaid insurance program for low-income people.

    The financial pressure which the federal government puts on the states in the expansion of Medicaid “is a gun to the head,” Roberts wrote.

    “A State that opts out of the Affordable Care Act’s expansion in health care coverage thus stands to lose not merely ‘a relatively small percentage’ of its existing Medicaid funding, but all of it,” Roberts said.

    Congress cannot “penalize States that choose not to participate in that new program by taking away their existing Medicaid funding,” Roberts said.

    The Medicaid provision is projected to add nearly 30 million more people to the insurance program for low-income Americans — but the court’s decision left states free to opt out of the expansion if they choose.

    http://tinyurl.com/7pe82hl

    If I’m reading this correctly, if a State opts out of the law, the federal government cannot do anything about it.

  102. palaeomerus says:

    Courts to America: You’ll have to defend your own constitutional rights because we can interpret it to invent things that aren’t in it and ignore things that are. And as demigods we don’t care about you or our duty. We appointed for life DAWG! Suck it.

  103. Physics Geek says:

    Predictably, Hugh Hewitt is defending Roberts.

    Fucker. I guess it’s time resurrect the Hugh Hewitt Eats Shit Sandwich post.

  104. ThomasD says:

    If I’m reading this correctly, if a State opts out of the law, the federal government cannot do anything about it.

    Great for States, and State pols, but doesn’t give those States any means of actually protecting their citizens from this abomination. Which kind of misses the point of having States in the first place.

    Or does it…

  105. leigh says:

    I agree with Blake on the “poison pill” aspect of this ruling.

  106. cranky-d says:

    I haven’t read the comments yet. I’m still a bit in shock.

    Time to start buying more ammo I think.

  107. palaeomerus says:

    “Time to start buying more ammo I think.”

    Sure. It can cook off when the botched tear gas attack starts the big fire.

  108. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Limbaugh paraphrasing Roberts (paraphrased as best as I recall):

    It’s not our (i.e. the Court’s) job to save you from your elected officials.

  109. ThomasD says:

    Because that ‘Constitution’ thingy is like 100 years old and, like sooo confusing .

  110. sunny-dee says:

    That assumes you are a passive actor in your own life, happy. You still have the right to vote and bear arms.

    No offense, leigh, but this is a ridiculous statement to make. People voted in the USSR and Iran. Were they free? A vote is meaningless even in a free society. Out of 150 million votes for president, out of maybe 1 million for something like senator, you think my vote matters? I mean, I just voted! I made 1/150,000,000th of a statement to the government! That’ll show ’em!

    Does having a gun make me free? Is that all it takes? I have a gun! Whoop! I guess Obamacare doesn’t matter. I’m armed.

    It’s not necessarily passivity to note that continually invasive governments do, in fact, make one less free.

  111. Blake says:

    I’ve skimmed the ruling and there are some rather interesting sections.

    Suffice to say those celebrating this ruling may find they’re a bit premature.

    ruling here: http://tinyurl.com/7wtgfut

    See section 4 (a) through ( c)

  112. sunny-dee says:

    Sheesh, Limbaugh. “It’s not our (i.e. the Court’s) job to save you from your elected officials.” Um, why not? What else does that pesky little interpretation thing do?

  113. Jeff G. says:

    Blake —

    It isn’t really about this ruling per se. It’s about the precedents that were just set.

  114. scooter says:

    Quote:

    “It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”

    Roger that. But it IS your job to make sure the consequences of those political choices are Constitutional. I think he’s trying to punt, here, but he fumbled the snap.

  115. Blake says:

    Jeff,

    It seems to me this ruling kicks a lot of power back to the States. Isn’t that a precedent, considering what’s gone on before?

    I admit, when I say the ruling was upheld by the Supreme Court, I was shocked. However, the Court did hold that Congress does have the power to tax, which was one of the arguments used by the Obama administration.

    Inside the ruling, though, the Court struck down the idea the tax can be apportioned by population and that States have to participate.

    I truly think this is a hollow victory for the left.

  116. Blake says:

    “when I say” should read “when I saw”

    oops.

  117. leigh says:

    sunny-dee, none taken.

    I stand by my personal credo: The color of freedom is green.

  118. Jeff G. says:

    Read Scalia’s dissent. I think he nails it.

    Roberts was trying to be too cute by half, and he just further legitimated a bankrupt idea of interpretation in order to reach his restrained decision. You don’t argue from where you want to end up if you are legitimately interpreting.

    Thus, the Court is a super legislature, unelected, and appointed for life. According to a conservative CJ.

    That is a dramatic slit in the very fabric of this country’s being. What the fallout is, etc., is just sauce.

  119. palaeomerus says:

    “Suffice to say those celebrating this ruling may find they’re a bit premature.”

    They are using it in an attempt to intimidate anti-Obama discussion and to build political momentum. They don’t care what it says anyway. They are using it as an “in your face bitterclingers” club whatever it actually says.

  120. ThomasD says:

    It’s not about any single vote, or even a set of votes. Remember the old bit about keeping your eggs in one basket?

    Well I’d like to keep as many of my eggs in the basket marked ‘Constitutional Liberties.’ That way it is really hard for anyone else to fuck with them.

    The more of them that end up in the ‘Congressional Prerogatives’ basket, the more of them are available to the highest bidder.

    Which means I spend more time guarding that fucking basket than actually enjoying the fruits of my ever diminishing liberty.

    The only winners today were the ruling class, just look at all the money that is rolling in in response to this.

    That will be Romney’s take home message of the day.

  121. Jeff G. says:

    Exactly. Reaction on the left and right will be largely political going forward, with just the most superficial of outrage given to the ruling itself. How can we use it to get our side elected?

    This is what we’ve become.

  122. palaeomerus says:

    What the ruling means: The constitution is magic, it doesn’t like you, you belong to the powerful people, and there is no social contract. Everything single you do now is a negotiation for your survival condition.

  123. Blake says:

    Jeff, ah, I see, we’re arguing from different premises.

    I see what you mean, and yes, you’re right, the ruling needs to be looked at from a foundational perspective rather than the carpe diem viewpoint.

  124. BT says:

    Capture the Senate, Strengthen the House, Seize the bureaucracies and fix that which is broken.

    or the revolution starts now.

    either way, change is coming.

  125. Squid says:

    They are using it as an “in your face bitterclingers” club whatever it actually says.

    Which is only to be expected. I encourage us to be calm, and to wish them our heartiest congratulations on their big win, and how successfully they’ve chained all of our children and grandchildren to six-digit debts in the service of healthcare to be provided by a new federal authority with all the charm and sympathy of the IRS.

    Heartiest. Congratulations.

  126. ThomasD says:

    The IRS has now become the ultimate police power.

  127. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Sheesh, Limbaugh. “It’s not our (i.e. the Court’s) job to save you from your elected officials.” Um, why not? What else does that pesky little interpretation thing do?

    Just to be clear that’s me, Ernst, paraphrasing Limbaugh’s paraphrase of Roberts’s ruling.

    Roberts is taking the position that the judiciary should defer to the legislative branch. If we don’t like it, we should vote the bastards out (and vote in a new set of bastards willing to pass a Constiutional amendment delimiting the tax power).

    Or failing that, a Constitutional convention. Time to pull the plug on the Living (in a vegetative state) Constitution.

  128. daveinsocal says:

    “Supreme Court confirms that President Obama and the Democrats imposed the largest tax increase on the poor and middle class in American history, all while in the middle of the worst recession in the last century.”

    Gotta be a campaign winner for President “No Taxes on The Middle Class” Obama, no?

  129. Ernst Schreiber says:

    I encourage us to be calm, and to wish them our heartiest congratulations on their big win, and how successfully they’ve chained all of our children and grandchildren to six-digit debts in the service of healthcare to be provided by a new federal authority with all the charm and sympathy of the IRS.

    You forgot to add all the efficiency and quality customer service of the DMV.

  130. leigh says:

    Time to pull the plug on the Living (in a vegetative state) Constitution.

    Death threat!

  131. Ernst Schreiber says:

    I’d say mercy killing myself.

  132. leigh says:

    This was from DrudgeReport:

    DNC: ‘IT’S CONSTITUTIONAL. BITCHES’…

    DNC DELETED TWEET: ‘TAKE THAT MOTHER******S!’

    I guess they didn’t get the memo about no end-zone dancing, eh?

  133. Jeff G. says:

    It’s only Constitutional as something other than they meant it to be.

    CJ Roberts made them his bitch. And the rest of us, too.

  134. ThomasD says:

    Another name added to the list of graves I will piss on one day.

  135. daveinsocal says:

    Over on the Althouse blog, she reviews the Roberts opinion with the takeaway that he at least rejected the Commerce Clause expansion that the Establishment was so desperately longing for (even again invoking the “gov’t can make you buy broccoli” hypothetical).

    Which is small comfort, of course, because the primary effect of this decision will be the end of private health insurance companies:

    Note that as Roberts explains why these people can’t be regulated, he’s also explaining why the health insurance companies are doomed. (But, you may think, isn’t the mandate upheld under the taxing power? Again, what’s upheld is the tax imposed for not buying insurance, and that’s less expensive than buying insurance, and the money goes to the federal government, not to the insurance companies. Meanwhile — to make it crushingly clear — the insurance companies do have to sell insurance to people with pre-existing conditions. So these people who currently don’t buy insurance because it’s not worth it can start buying insurance as soon as it is worth it, and under the ACA, they can’t be charged more than the people who have been buying insurance all along.)

    Hell, even Justice Ginsburg recognizes this outcome in the dissent:

    Without the individual mandate, Congress learned, guaranteed-issue and community-rating requirements would trigger an adverse-selection death-spiral in the health-insurance market: Insurance premiums would skyrocket, the number of uninsured would increase, and insurance companies would exit the market.

    Glad I’m already married to a doctor. Need to start stocking up the spare room with drugs and medical supplies. Over the next few years, I expect I’ll be able to pickup some good used portable x-ray and ultrasound equipment dirt cheap as doctors and private clinics begin “exiting the market”.

  136. JHoward says:

    Did Roberts, in effect, just 1) rename the ACA and 2) in so doing make this a subjective, namely political issue, while alluding he dismissed the notion of politicization?

    The individual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product, [like ruling the thing a tax does. -JHo] on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce. 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. Every day individuals do not do an infinite number of things. In some cases they decide not to do something; in others they simply fail to do it. Allowing Congress to justify federal regulation by pointing to the effect of inaction on commerce would bring countless decisions an individual could potentially make within the scope of federal regulation, and—under the Government’s theory—empower Congress to make those decisions for him.

    Or…how do net effects confirm intent when they conflict it? Sorry, I can’t reason this cause/effect conflict, CJ.

    I’m an idiot but even I can see that there is one best option to Gordian Knots. This ain’t it. HTF do you not throw this obvious conundrum you’ve yourself created back downstairs?

  137. Jeff G. says:

    Did Roberts, in effect, just 1) rename the ACA and 2) in so doing make this a subjective, namely political issue, while in his opinion he dismissed the notion of politicization?

    See my reply to Erickson.

    In short: yes.

  138. JHoward says:

    I toned myself down in the time you were replying, JG, changing “in his opinion” to “alluding”. I’m guessing your answer just becomes more affirmative…

  139. Jeff G. says:

    By the way: I’m sure Mark Levin exploded. Probably little pieces of him everywhere in the bunker.

  140. JHoward says:

    So how does a CJ, as opposed to, say, JHo here, not see this as a contradiction?

    I need to read some more but is this the part where he completely altered the ACA’s ostensible, well, identity, to lower its onorousness?

    And is that not improper in the extreme?

  141. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Couple of observations about the quotes in DaveinSoCal’s comment.

    First The health-tax is only cheaper than health insurance in the near term. The tax goes up in the mid-term.

    Second, Justice Ginsburg writes about insurance companies exiting the market as if that were a bug instead of a feature.

  142. JHoward says:

    Justice Ginsburg writes about insurance companies exiting the market as if that were a bug instead of a feature.

    Philosopher kings…

  143. BigBangHunter says:

    “It is truly a sad day for our nation.”

    – I took a couple yrats off from politics when Bummblrfuvk won, totally burned out and truly depressed as concerns the fate of our nation when it became clear we were in the shit for the ensuing 4 years, fearful of what it portended in so many ways.

    – But a funny thing happened over that time as I watched His Kinglynrdd strp on his own dick time after time. basically failing at every turn and enactng lawless, anti-cunstitutional overreach at every turn, while the economy floundered and we continued to sink deeper and deeper into chaos. Here’s my feelings after a long period of quiet considerations.

    – Maybe, in retrospeck, its all turning out to be the best of a lot of bad events that could have happened. To wit.

    – Would it have really made any difference if McCain would have won. Why? How. We were headed into a recession either way. The seeds had already been sewn, ireversably. Handing the hot potato to the enemy may yet prove to be the worst thing we could have done to the Left, and hastened their demise. After this horrible mess no one is going to soon forget who the man at the helm or his party was when it all went down. Its Bushes fault will 0nly serve to increase the acrimony among all if the suffering people out there.

    – In that same way I see the ACA decision as beong the last nail in the Obama coffin. Who in their right mind would want to run on a tax increase right now, in this time in our economic history.

    – In one sese the Judiciary just did the most unpopular approach thay could have taken by recasting the mandate as a tax.

    – A tax. Here. Now. In this atmosphere. Even Obama knows such a thing is the absolute kiss of death, and faught calling it that at every turn. Now it is irreversably cast as such in a way he cannot hide from. Carville says the Tea Party is dead. I think he knows the judiciary just gave the final tug on the sleeping dragons chain that the Left cannot recover from.

    – Anyway, that’s my take. Call me crazy.

  144. RI Red says:

    OK, BBH, you’re crazy – but not for the reasons you think (sort of like the Obamacare decision. (BTW, I’ve come out of my corner, stopped mumbling to myself and my guns are clean).
    First, I agree with every single point you made, even about waking up the sleeping dragon, BUT…
    I now find myself agreeing with a comment made by Jeff a few days ago which I originally disagreed with. I said that I would wait for a couple events before concluding that it was over, the Obamacare decision and next election.
    Well, the first event is over, was a Black Swan and it likely handed the election to Romney. And that’s all it will accomplish. It will not roll back the welfare state, balance the budget or force Congress out of profligacy. Sure, Obamacare may be repealed in its current form. But there is not the political will to keep us as a Republic. No one is going to roll back the regulatory state, disband the EPA or cut entitlements.
    I see only three options:
    1. Force a Constitutional Convention (no guarantees that it wouldn’t be hijacked).
    2. Accept that we have no control over our fates and live as best we can.
    3. Misbehave.
    Jeff, you certainly have been right all along.

  145. Wolverine!

    Somebody had to say it.

  146. palaeomerus says:

    Shimmer!

  147. Slartibartfast says:

    So, I’m discussing intent with some people who insist that “provde for the…general welfare” means health insurance. And they say that there’s no sense trying to figure out what the Founders originally meant by that, because they aren’t here to say. My response was something like this: if there’s no sense in trying to figure out what they meant by that, and your interpretation is (as you claim) a good one, well by that logic…so is mine! And I like mine better!

    So far, I haven’t gotten much in the way of response to that.

  148. Jeff G. says:

    My response was something like this: if there’s no sense in trying to figure out what they meant by that, and your interpretation is (as you claim) a good one, well by that logic…so is mine! And I like mine better!

    So far, I haven’t gotten much in the way of response to that.

    Nice play.

  149. BigBangHunter says:

    – RJ – I siad what I said, but that doesn’t mean we’ve entered a time of enlightenment and wonderful rose collored glassworks. We’re in the soup for some time to come, but that too can be a positive step in the right direction. We have one hell of a row to hoe, in the best of circustances, but that also neans that the enemy has cast his lot for all to see, so even with the help of a treaterous press, they can’t deny any of it now without further inflamming widespread anger.

    – That as I see it, is the first positive thing we’ve had to look at in a long time. So as hard as things will continue to be, possibly even harder in the short term, what I’m saying is that the Left has finally over played their hand to an impossible degree for them to recover.

    – The rest is an ass kicking, miserable near term thing, but its one that we can get through, which is more than we could have said with any assurance just a few months ago.

    – That is the sense of things I’ve come too. Precious little to be joyful about for sure, nut none the less, a breath of air for a dying American patient.

  150. Slartibartfast says:

    Alexander Hamilton is probably kicking himself in the ass, somewhere.

  151. B Moe says:

    The biggest problem I am seeing now is everybody focusing on getting Romney in there and repealling, but even if we do, then what? The Republicans already said the want to keep parts of it, and every four years we go through it all again, with no way of anticipating the whims of the masses.

    How in the fuck is a society or an economy supposed to survive in the environment?

    Cloward-Piven ftw.

  152. B Moe says:

    If you can’t figure out what they meant, or if the world has changed to the point that a situation isn’t covered, then you need to amend the Constitution.

    There is a very good reason they made that hard to do.

  153. Jeff G. says:

    The biggest problem I am seeing now is everybody focusing on getting Romney in there and repealling, but even if we do, then what? The Republicans already said the want to keep parts of it, and every four years we go through it all again, with no way of anticipating the whims of the masses.

    Exactly. That’s the theory part.

    What the right happyslappers are giddy over is that the left will have to propose such things as taxes — and tax increases are very unpopular. Until we reach the tipping point, and we can tell the 51% we’re just going to tax the other 49%. Filthy rich bastards deserve to pay for the rest of us, after all.

    Or they could just wait until they’re back in power, assuming it’s repealed, and call it a mandate again and force it through, just like last time.

  154. RI Red says:

    BBH, I sincerely hope you’re right and I hope I comment here sometime down the road and compliment you. Because if this doesn’t bring out the pitchforks – metaphorical or otherwise – then the inhabitants of this country do not deserve the remarkable Republic bestowed upon them by the Founders.

  155. BigBangHunter says:

    – Jeff, if all we had to rely on was the Congress you’re prediction might be in fact unavoidable, but we also have, as I said, an impovershed pissed off electorate that, hopefully, has had enough.

    – Whether that translates into 2010 like turn around in so many area’s is another question. For that it depends on your faith, or lack there of, in the attention span of the public.

    – Since I know of no other motivation stronger than the purse strings, I would guess it will.

  156. BigBangHunter says:

    – And yes RJ. Exactly true. Given a perfect platform to lainch a real turn aroind on, if as a nation we fail, then “a Republic if you can keep it” will have be lost.

  157. […] with plenty of lighting…that faces outward. I’ll leave you with this, from Bill Wilson via Jeff: The U.S. Constitution died today. The underlying hope and belief that our nation’s founding […]

  158. Ernst Schreiber says:

    What the right happyslappers are giddy over is that the left will have to propose such things as taxes — and tax increases are very unpopular.

    What the right happyslappers are forgetting in their giddiness is that they’ll have to vote to “take away your healthcare” when the time comes.
    Wouldn’t surprise me in the least if Boehner changes his mind about that repeal vote he’s scheduled.

  159. […] Jeff Goldstein [emphasis mine]: In other words, the Court has told us that in a country born of a revolution against a centralized authority, the Constitution resulting from that revolution requires that we are subjects to a centralized authority. […]

Comments are closed.