A different "take" on the SCOTUS decision…

Had ‘quite’ a discussion on this at the meeting this morning, and here’s a bit of a different take proposed…

I actually tend to believe this IS the longer term goal of SCOTUS, and that is to put this back in front of the voters…

Before you look to do harm to Chief Justice Roberts or his family, it’s important that you think carefully about the meaning – the true nature — of his ruling on Obama-care. The Left will shout that they won, that Obama-care was upheld and all the rest. Let them.

It will be a short-lived celebration.

Here’s what really occurred — payback. Yes, payback for Obama’s numerous, ill-advised and childish insults directed toward SCOTUS.

Chief Justice Roberts actually ruled the mandate, relative to the commerce clause, was unconstitutional. That’s how the Democrats got Obama-care going in the first place. This is critical. His ruling means Congress can’t compel American citizens to purchase anything. Ever. The notion is now officially and forever, unconstitutional. As it should be.

e.g. Commerce Clause is NOT applicable!

Next, he stated that, because Congress doesn’t have the ability to mandate, it must, to fund Obama-care, rely on its power to tax. Therefore, the mechanism that funds Obama-care is a tax. This is also critical. Recall back during the initial Obama-care battles, the Democrats called it a penalty, Republicans called it a tax. Democrats consistently soft sold it as a penalty. It went to vote as a penalty. Obama declared endlessly, that it was not a tax, it was a penalty. But when the Democrats argued in front of the Supreme Court, they said ‘hey, a penalty or a tax, either way’. So, Roberts gave them a tax. It is now the official law of the land — beyond word-play and silly shenanigans. Obama-care is funded by tax dollars. Democrats now must defend a tax increase to justify the Obama-care law.

It WAS and IS a Tax, plain and simple!  And the true cost is going to be HIGH!!! There is some BS out there that it will ‘only’ cost $95/person/year… Yeah, right…  MY employer provided insurance (which is good world wide) is $700/mo.  $95/yr ain’t gettin there…

And what about the 47% that DON’T pay taxes?  Who’s going to pay ‘their’ $95???
Finally, he struck down as unconstitutional, the Obama-care idea that the federal government can bully states into complying by yanking their existing medicaid funding. Liberals, through Obama-care, basically said to the states — ‘comply with Obama-care or we will stop existing funding.’ Roberts ruled that is a no-no. If a state takes the money, fine, the Feds can tell the state how to run a program, but if the state refuses money, the federal government can’t penalize the state by yanking other funding. Therefore, a state can decline to participate in Obama-care without penalty. This is obviously a serious problem. Are we going to have 10, 12, 25 states not participating in “national” health-care? Suddenly, it’s not national, is it?

Makes opt out a reality WITHOUT the administration being able to penalize them!!!

Ultimately, Roberts supported states rights by limiting the federal government’s coercive abilities. He ruled that the government can not force the people to purchase products or services under the commerce clause and he forced liberals to have to come clean and admit that Obama-care is funded by tax increases.

Although he didn’t guarantee Romney a win, he certainly did more than his part and should be applauded.


And he did this without creating a civil war or having bricks thrown threw his windshield. Oh, and he’ll be home in time for dinner.


Yep! 🙂


A different "take" on the SCOTUS decision… — 21 Comments

  1. I’m not a sharp enough thinker to figure out this maze, or even the general direction it moves from here… but this ‘take’ on the decision seems to hold water.

    We shall see.

  2. This is one of the best summaries I have read. I think history will show that this decision set a hard limit on the use of the commerce clause. Now it is up to us to correct the rest of the problem and stop blaming the court. Lets vote them out and repeal the act.

  3. Thank you so much for helping bring my BP back to normal levels. I have passed this on to many of my frustrated and like minded friends. We all thank you and are blessed that there are still intelligent folks in the right places trying to do what is right for this country.

  4. @ The Bloviating Zeppelin regarding his “I’m sorry, but at 60+ I find the world and my country less and less recognizable. Is it just me?” BZ, it ain’t just you. There are two more Constitutional Republic loving patriots encamped out here in the hinterlands who can still recognize $#!T from Shinola.

    One more thing, BZ. I saw “Pseudo-Zeppelin” Service in ZX-11 (i.e. VX-1 LTA DET) performing maintenance and aircrew duties in a ZPG-2N “Reliance” Airship.

    @Jim – In your Sweepers Man Your Brooms, “Sweeping Up,” you swept around the “Elephant In The Tent,” or should that be “Jack Ass In The Tent.” The SCOTUS Ruling poured the concrete on the foundation for Euber-European Style Socialized Medicine. The 5-4 “Checks & Balances” Judicial Team made it happen, led by a conservative, Reagan appointed Chief Justice who gave Obama a “5-4 Group Hug,” by supporting and signing off on using “Judicial Legislation From The Bench” to transform the Congress written “A.C.A Mandate” into a SCOTUS rewritten “A.C.A. Tax.”

    In the midst of my banging out a response to your “Sweeping Up…” post, you went and posted your “A different ‘take’ on the SCOTUS decision…” post. As a result, I will post my comments to your “Sweeping Up…” post here. Here goes.

    The brown writing is on the wall of the head. Read it, smell it, and weep. A fundamental change to our Constitutional Republic of the United States has and is occurring right before our eyes, as we watch Cable News, read the newspapers, and click on blogs on the WWW.

    TRICARE for those lifers below 65, and Medicare A/B, as we know it today, along with the TRICARE For Life supplement coverage, for those 65 and over, will soon be a memory. They all will be consolidated with, transitioned into, and replaced by the Affordable Care Act (A.C.A.) “Obamacare.” Courtesy of SCOTUS, Obamacare will bring with it a new annual A.C.A. Tax, means-testing, assorted fees, waiting for treatment, Death Panels, and minimum dollar-for-dollar out-of-pocket requirements to pay the first $XXX of cost for a Calendar Year/Fiscal Year, followed by 50% cost-sharing of the next $X,XXX in Medical expense that a beneficiary incurs, until the individual reaches their Annual Catastrophic Cap threshold.

    History tells us that neither Romney nor anyone will put the Affordable Care Act (A.C.A.) “Genie Back In The Bottle.” FDR brought the Social Security Act on into being on 8/14/1935. The Republicans ranted and raved, and said they would get rid it. They did not, and Social Security continued growing. LBJ pushed us further towards socialism with his Great Society Programs of the mid-1960s. The Republicans ranted and raved, and said they would get rid it them. They did not, and the programs continued growing. In the mid-1980s, Reagan and Tip O’Neill cut a partisan deal, touted to have “Fixed & Improved” Social Security & the Great Society Programs, but they all continued growing and got fiscally worse.

    Now, here we are in 2012. Republican Presidential Candidate, Romney, and the Republican Congress are ranting and raving and saying, “Vote for us. We will get rid of Obamacare.” History tells us “They will not.”

    Do not hold your breath while you are waiting for the Republicans to make Obamacare “Go Away.” Obamacare, in some socialized medicine form or another, will be with us and into our wallets from now on. Thank all your neighbors who voted for “Change we Can Believe In” to delivered under the pen of the “First Black President.”

    “Believe it.” Thanks to SCOTUS, Obama, Pelosi-Reid & Comrades, we are being “Changed” into a European-style Social Democracy.

  5. Bullshit. It was a loss, plain and simple. Roberts could have sided with the conservatives and tossed the whole shebang and it would have been a win. I don’t know what he was thinking, but after siding with the Gov against Arizona, and siding with the Gov against the People, we can put Roberts firmly in the liberal portion of the Court.

    Oh, and if you believe that Romney will repeal it, then you’re smoking much better stuff than I have access to.

  6. A very liberal friend of mine wrote that this was a win for both parties.

    Democrats can crow that it is constitutional.

    Republicans can crow it’s a tax.

    Very few taxes ever get removed .


  7. Pawpaw, I think this is a a loosing the battle but winning the war analysis.

    One thing that should be noted is that now this is a tax, this is another clear challenge. The bill that passed Congress started in the Senate and the Constitution is clear that tax bills MUST start in the House.

    So expect another challenge on the individual mandate. And know that the commerce clause has been gutted.

  8. Yes, but you are counting on the Americam people to care I’d do something about it and so far, as of late, they have proved to be lazy, self indulgent people who believe they are entitled to a whole host of things to include health care. And I have no faith Romney will be any better. Even if he does get elected and does repeal this mess, he will just replace it with something similar. He is a big government dude. The states have fit to step up and say, nope. Not gonna do this and the requires action by the people. I have no faith in the people either.

  9. Well, IF the Republicans still control the House when it comes time to fund ObamaCare (and that’s a BIG IF), they can say, “Okay, it’s a Tax, and the rate is $1.00 a head per year. The rest of it comes out of the HHS Account.”

    Boy, that would Twist Nancy’s Knickers.

  10. I like Les’ idea.

    While the article makes me feel better, it does little to lessen my resolve to do everything within my power to get people elected this Nov. who believe in the Constitution and the concept of limited government. Hopefully everyone else will be motivated as well.

  11. Thanks all, not saying I’m right, Hoping? yes… Joe you are probably more right than I… dammit…

    posted from my iPhone.

  12. NFO, we have been thinking in sync. I chose this same subject for my post today.

    I found an analysis that did put a postive spin on Robert’s vote. I’d like to accept that. Unfortunately, I can’t.

    I see no good coming from this. Remember, to repeal Obamacare, we need 66 ‘Pub Senators who will vote to repeal. That’s 66 to override a VETO if necessary.

    I’m not sure we can get 60 ‘Pubs in the Senate. McCaskill from Missouri will be toast but that’s only one. We’ll need at least 16 new ‘Pubs in the Senate.

  13. Hoss, I hope you’re right. I noted yesterday that my sole comfort was that the Commerce Clause was not tortured any further to make this legal.

    However, if you are right, then this is the highest stakes game of poker ever played. Roberts is, IMHO, betting the future of the Republic on this.

    Given that the Republican Party is pretty much hopeless on things requiring a spine, and that half, give or take, of Americans think this is an outstanding idea, I’d say the odds are against “us” winning.

    I’m pretty much convinced this will not end well.

  14. Rather than the word “take”, I’m thinking of the word “put” when it comes to SCOTUS. As in “put that where the sun don’t…”

  15. It’s interesting to consider the payback angle.

    I think — and zomygawdpeople don’t start throwing stones at me — he made the best possible legal decision.

  16. His ruling means Congress can’t compel American citizens to purchase anything. Ever. The notion is now officially and forever, unconstitutional.

    No, his ruling means Congress can use taxes to compel American citizens to purchase whatever Congress wants them to.

    Seriously, how could the author of this article write it with a straight face? Was it meant to be internally contradictory?