The Roberts Decision on Obamacare

Johnny Tremain

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2012
Messages
2,307
Someone sent me this--what say you?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is one lawyer's take on the recent Supreme Court decision on Obamacare.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
June 28, 2012
Lexington, South Carolina

To all my friends, particularly those conservatives who are despondent over the searing betrayal by Chief Justice John Roberts and the pending demise of our beloved country, I offer this perspective to convey some profound hope and evidence of the Almighty’s hand in the affairs of men in relation to the Supreme Court’s decision on Obamacare.

I initially thought we had cause for despondency when I only heard the results of the decision and not the reason or the make-up of the sides. I have now read a large portion of the decision and I believe that it was precisely the result that Scalia, Alito, Thomas, Roberts and even Kennedy wanted and not a defeat for conservatism or the rule of law.
I believe the conservatives on the court have run circles around the liberals and demonstrated that the libs are patently unqualified to be on the Supreme Court.

Let me explain. First let me assure you that John Roberts is a conservative and he is not dumb, mentally unstable, diabolical, a turncoat, a Souter or even just trying to be too nice. He is a genius along with the members of the Court in the dissent. The more of the decision I read the more remarkable it became. It is not obvious and it requires a passable understanding of Constitutional law, but if it is explained anyone can see the beauty of it.

The decision was going to be a 5-4 decision no matter what, so the allegation that the decision was a partisan political decision was going to be made by the losing side and their supporters. If the bill was struck down completely with Roberts on the other side there would have been a national and media backlash against conservatives and probably strong motivation for Obama supporters to come out and vote in November. With today’s decision that dynamic is reversed and there is a groundswell of support for Romney and Republicans, even for people who were formerly lukewarm toward Romney before today, additionally Romney raised more than 3 million dollars today.

Next, merely striking the law without the support of Democrats and libs would have left the fight over the commerce clause and the “necessary and proper “ clause and the federal government’s role in general festering and heading the wrong way as it has since 1942. As a result of the decision the libs are saying great things about Roberts; how wise, fair and reasonable he is. They would never have said that without this decision even after the Arizona immigration decision on Monday. In the future when Roberts rules conservatively it will be harder for the left and the media to complain about the Robert’s Court’s fairness. That’s why he as Chief Justice went to the other side for this decision not Scalia, Alito, Thomas or Kennedy, all of whom I believe would have been willing to do it.

Next let’s look at the decision itself. Thankfully Roberts got to write it as Chief Justice and it is a masterpiece. (As I write this the libs don’t even know what has happened they just think Roberts is great and that they won and we are all going to have free, unlimited healthcare services and we are all going to live happily ever after.) He first emphatically states that Obamacare is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause saying you cannot make people buy stuff. Then he emphatically states that it is unconstitutional under the “necessary and proper” clause which only applies to “enumerated powers” in the US Constitution. Justices Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan all went along with these statements. They never would have gone along with that sentiment if that was the basis for striking the law in total. This is huge because this means that the Court ruled 9-0 that Obamacare was unconstitutional under the Commerce clause which was Obama’s whole defense of the bill. They also ruled 9-0 on the “necessary and proper” clause. Even better both of these rulings were unnecessary to the decision so it is gravy that we got the libs to concede this and it will make it easier to pare away at both theories in the future, which we must do. Well done.

Roberts, through very tortured reasoning, goes on to find that the taxing law provides the Constitutionality for the law. Virtually everyone agrees that the Federal government has the power to do this as it does with the mortgage deduction for federal income taxes. This too is huge because Obama assiduously avoided using the term “tax” and now he has to admit this law is a tax and it is on everyone even the poor. That will hurt him hugely in the polls and will help Romney. More importantly, though is the fact that this makes this a budgetary issue that can be voted on in the Senate by a mere majority instead of 60 votes needed to stop a filibuster. That means that if the Republicans can gain a majority in the Senate, it can vote to repeal Obamacare in total.

Finally the Court voted 7-2 to strike down the punitive rules that take away money from states that do not expand Medicare as required in Obamacare. This too is huge because we got Kagan and Breyer to join this decision and it can easily be applied to many other cases of extortion the Federal government uses to force states to do things they don’t want to. This is also amazing because Obamacare has no severability clause so by striking the Medicaid mandate portion as unconstitutional the whole bill should have been struck. If that happened none of these other benefits would have been accomplished. I haven’t read far enough to know how he did it but I am sure it is brilliant.

So to recap the Roberts court through a brilliant tactical maneuver has: strengthened the limitations of the commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause by a unanimous decision, made Obama raise taxes on the poor and middle classes, converted Obamacare into a tax program repealable with 51 votes in the Senate, enhanced Romney’s and Republican’s fundraising and likelihood of being elected in November, weakened federal extortion and got the left to love Roberts and sing his praises all without anyone even noticing. Even Obama is now espousing the rule of law just 2 weeks after violating it with his deportation executive order.
 
Werbung:
Someone sent me this--what say you?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is one lawyer's take on the recent Supreme Court decision on Obamacare.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
June 28, 2012
Lexington, South Carolina

To all my friends, particularly those conservatives who are despondent over the searing betrayal by Chief Justice John Roberts and the pending demise of our beloved country, I offer this perspective to convey some profound hope and evidence of the Almighty’s hand in the affairs of men in relation to the Supreme Court’s decision on Obamacare.

I initially thought we had cause for despondency when I only heard the results of the decision and not the reason or the make-up of the sides. I have now read a large portion of the decision and I believe that it was precisely the result that Scalia, Alito, Thomas, Roberts and even Kennedy wanted and not a defeat for conservatism or the rule of law.
I believe the conservatives on the court have run circles around the liberals and demonstrated that the libs are patently unqualified to be on the Supreme Court.

Let me explain. First let me assure you that John Roberts is a conservative and he is not dumb, mentally unstable, diabolical, a turncoat, a Souter or even just trying to be too nice. He is a genius along with the members of the Court in the dissent. The more of the decision I read the more remarkable it became. It is not obvious and it requires a passable understanding of Constitutional law, but if it is explained anyone can see the beauty of it.

The decision was going to be a 5-4 decision no matter what, so the allegation that the decision was a partisan political decision was going to be made by the losing side and their supporters. If the bill was struck down completely with Roberts on the other side there would have been a national and media backlash against conservatives and probably strong motivation for Obama supporters to come out and vote in November. With today’s decision that dynamic is reversed and there is a groundswell of support for Romney and Republicans, even for people who were formerly lukewarm toward Romney before today, additionally Romney raised more than 3 million dollars today.

Next, merely striking the law without the support of Democrats and libs would have left the fight over the commerce clause and the “necessary and proper “ clause and the federal government’s role in general festering and heading the wrong way as it has since 1942. As a result of the decision the libs are saying great things about Roberts; how wise, fair and reasonable he is. They would never have said that without this decision even after the Arizona immigration decision on Monday. In the future when Roberts rules conservatively it will be harder for the left and the media to complain about the Robert’s Court’s fairness. That’s why he as Chief Justice went to the other side for this decision not Scalia, Alito, Thomas or Kennedy, all of whom I believe would have been willing to do it.

Next let’s look at the decision itself. Thankfully Roberts got to write it as Chief Justice and it is a masterpiece. (As I write this the libs don’t even know what has happened they just think Roberts is great and that they won and we are all going to have free, unlimited healthcare services and we are all going to live happily ever after.) He first emphatically states that Obamacare is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause saying you cannot make people buy stuff. Then he emphatically states that it is unconstitutional under the “necessary and proper” clause which only applies to “enumerated powers” in the US Constitution. Justices Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan all went along with these statements. They never would have gone along with that sentiment if that was the basis for striking the law in total. This is huge because this means that the Court ruled 9-0 that Obamacare was unconstitutional under the Commerce clause which was Obama’s whole defense of the bill. They also ruled 9-0 on the “necessary and proper” clause. Even better both of these rulings were unnecessary to the decision so it is gravy that we got the libs to concede this and it will make it easier to pare away at both theories in the future, which we must do. Well done.

Roberts, through very tortured reasoning, goes on to find that the taxing law provides the Constitutionality for the law. Virtually everyone agrees that the Federal government has the power to do this as it does with the mortgage deduction for federal income taxes. This too is huge because Obama assiduously avoided using the term “tax” and now he has to admit this law is a tax and it is on everyone even the poor. That will hurt him hugely in the polls and will help Romney. More importantly, though is the fact that this makes this a budgetary issue that can be voted on in the Senate by a mere majority instead of 60 votes needed to stop a filibuster. That means that if the Republicans can gain a majority in the Senate, it can vote to repeal Obamacare in total.

Finally the Court voted 7-2 to strike down the punitive rules that take away money from states that do not expand Medicare as required in Obamacare. This too is huge because we got Kagan and Breyer to join this decision and it can easily be applied to many other cases of extortion the Federal government uses to force states to do things they don’t want to. This is also amazing because Obamacare has no severability clause so by striking the Medicaid mandate portion as unconstitutional the whole bill should have been struck. If that happened none of these other benefits would have been accomplished. I haven’t read far enough to know how he did it but I am sure it is brilliant.

So to recap the Roberts court through a brilliant tactical maneuver has: strengthened the limitations of the commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause by a unanimous decision, made Obama raise taxes on the poor and middle classes, converted Obamacare into a tax program repealable with 51 votes in the Senate, enhanced Romney’s and Republican’s fundraising and likelihood of being elected in November, weakened federal extortion and got the left to love Roberts and sing his praises all without anyone even noticing. Even Obama is now espousing the rule of law just 2 weeks after violating it with his deportation executive order.

All taxes have to be started via a bill in the house not senate right? and obama care was started in the senate making it illegal. So thie whole think should just be put in the trash can anyway
 
All taxes have to be started via a bill in the house not senate right? and obama care was started in the senate making it illegal. So thie whole think should just be put in the trash can anyway


can't argue this point but we all know trickery (was used to bypass this test (an unintended loophole was exploited to wrong effect). that bein g said...

Roberts was presented an interesting scenario.

Yes he could have let the argument presented to him go at face value, say that the mandate is a no go and leave it at that which we all know would have gone ignored by the administration and ended up increasing the price tag dramatically but unchallenged.

or

he could slam the door on the commerce clause (as well as the medicaid threats which are gone) and frame this bill as what it was (a massive tax increase) and force Congress to deal with the truth.

Is this that unlike Solomon who forced the truth upon the two women claiming the same baby ? nobody came away totally happy but truth won out over lies and the right outcome was the result.

in a lot of ways this was darned clever. I can live with it in the hope that the people cannot claim ignorance in November when we find out who will settle this once and for all.
 
can't argue this point but we all know trickery (was used to bypass this test (an unintended loophole was exploited to wrong effect). that bein g said...

Roberts was presented an interesting scenario.

Yes he could have let the argument presented to him go at face value, say that the mandate is a no go and leave it at that which we all know would have gone ignored by the administration and ended up increasing the price tag dramatically but unchallenged.

or

he could slam the door on the commerce clause (as well as the medicaid threats which are gone) and frame this bill as what it was (a massive tax increase) and force Congress to deal with the truth.

Is this that unlike Solomon who forced the truth upon the two women claiming the same baby ? nobody came away totally happy but truth won out over lies and the right outcome was the result.

in a lot of ways this was darned clever. I can live with it in the hope that the people cannot claim ignorance in November when we find out who will settle this once and for all.


I wish we got the tax now so we could feel it before November but that isn’t going to happen :( Hopefully congress will have to deal with the fact this was a tax implemented improperly and deal with it.
 
I wish we got the tax now so we could feel it before November but that isn’t going to happen :( Hopefully congress will have to deal with the fact this was a tax implemented improperly and deal with it.

the GOP has all it needs to make their case. whether they make it or not remains to be seen of course.
 
The health bill did start in the House originally, but when it was sent over to the Senate is a question. You know how long Reid sits on things before he does anything with them. The Senate re-wrote their own version and sent it back to the house. The problem I see is that if the bill had been presented as a tax in the first place, it never would have passed or even gotten to the Supreme Court.

I'm not discounting what this lawyer said. Maybe there was some Robert's brilliance in there, I'm certainly not the one to know.
 
The health bill did start in the House originally, but when it was sent over to the Senate is a question. You know how long Reid sits on things before he does anything with them. The Senate re-wrote their own version and sent it back to the house. The problem I see is that if the bill had been presented as a tax in the first place, it never would have passed or even gotten to the Supreme Court.

I'm not discounting what this lawyer said. Maybe there was some Robert's brilliance in there, I'm certainly not the one to know.

exactamundo

they m ight have snuck it through but the carnage in 2010 would have been fr worse.
 
The health bill did start in the House originally, but when it was sent over to the Senate is a question. You know how long Reid sits on things before he does anything with them. The Senate re-wrote their own version and sent it back to the house. The problem I see is that if the bill had been presented as a tax in the first place, it never would have passed or even gotten to the Supreme Court.

I'm not discounting what this lawyer said. Maybe there was some Robert's brilliance in there, I'm certainly not the one to know.
I thought there were two bills one the senate was working on and one the house was working on, the house bill ended up being rejected and they moved with the senate bill. That is how I remember it but I could be wrong.
 
found this over at Hot-Air

The bill that passed the Senate wasn’t technically a Senate bill. Reid took a bill that had already passed the House, stripped out the provisions to turn it into a “shell bill,” and then inserted the text of ObamaCare to get around this requirement. The bill that passed the Senate was H.R.3590, which initially had to do with tax breaks for military homeowners. And yes, they’ve used the “shell bill” strategy before. In fact, the conservative opinion today specifically mentioned Article I, section 7 at one point while raising no objection to Reid’s sleight of hand. Quote:
For all these reasons, to say that the Individual Mandate merely imposes a tax is not to interpret the statute but to rewrite it. Judicial tax-writing is particularly troubling. Taxes have never been popular, see, e.g., Stamp Actof 1765, and in part for that reason, the Constitution requires tax increases to originate in the House of Representatives. See Art. I, §7, cl. 1. That is to say, they must originate in the legislative body most accountable to the people, where legislators must weigh the need for the tax against the terrible price they might pay at their next election, which is never more than two years off. The Federalist No. 58 “defend[ed] the decision to give the origination power to the House on the ground that the Chamber that is more accountable to the people should have the primary role in raising revenue.” United States v. Munoz-Flores, 495 U. S. 385, 395 (1990). We have no doubt that Congress knew precisely what it was doing when it rejected an earlier version of this legislation that imposed a tax instead of a requirement-with-penalty. See Affordable Health Care for America Act, H. R. 3962, 111th Cong., 1st Sess., §501 (2009); America’s Healthy Future Act of 2009, S. 1796, 111th Cong., 1st Sess., §1301. Imposing a tax through judicial legislation inverts the constitutional scheme, and places the power to tax in the branch of government least accountable to the citizenry.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/...-require-tax-bills-to-originate-in-the-house/
 
I thought there were two bills one the senate was working on and one the house was working on, the house bill ended up being rejected and they moved with the senate bill. That is how I remember it but I could be wrong.

the house went along with the senate to satisfy the reconciliation requirements which just held to a dollar amount and some different details but it was the $ that mattered.

but it STARTED in the House which is the requirement, any back and forth later is m oot.
 
I don't know if you caught my post above , but this bill started in the house as a bill for tax breaks for Military homeowners. Reid gutted it, and inserted the Health bill. It was called a "shell" bill. That just sounds so dishonest to me.
 
I don't know if you caught my post above , but this bill started in the house as a bill for tax breaks for Military homeowners. Reid gutted it, and inserted the Health bill. It was called a "shell" bill. That just sounds so dishonest to me.
I didnt catch that, thanks for pointing it out.

So do you think there can be a legal way to get rid of it since he did it this way?
 
Werbung:
I don't know if you caught my post above , but this bill started in the house as a bill for tax breaks for Military homeowners. Reid gutted it, and inserted the Health bill. It was called a "shell" bill. That just sounds so dishonest to me.


thats just because it is
 
Back
Top