This is an email from my friend, Kent, written by Bert Atkinson, Jr. I don't know Mr. Atkinson, but his thoughts are "interesting and positive." It is easy to be negative when positive is so much better.
Subject: Supreme Court Ruling
This provides a simple summary of the possibilities coming our way, but lots can happen in 4 months as we all know. Roberts sure has emerged as a brilliant Chief Justice (a reversal of opinion by the Democrats). You might want to read this and make your own opinion on what happened yesterday with ruling on ObamaCare.
Why Chief Justice Roberts Made the Right Long-Term Decision With ObamaCare
By Bert Atkinson, Jr.
Before you look to do harm (I'm sure he means verbal not physical) to Chief Justice Roberts or his family, it’s important that you think carefully about the meaning – the true nature — of his ruling on ObamaCare. The Left will shout that they won, that ObamaCare 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 (Supreme Court of the United States). Chief Justice Roberts actually ruled the mandate, relative to the commerce clause, was unconstitutional. That’s how the Democrats got ObamaCare 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.
Next, he stated that, because Congress doesn’t have the ability to mandate, it must, to fund ObamaCare, rely on its power to tax. Therefore, the mechanism that funds ObamaCare is a tax. This is also critical. Recall back during the initial ObamaCare 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. ObamaCare is funded by tax dollars. Democrats now must defend a tax increase to justify the ObamaCare law.
Finally, he struck down as unconstitutional, the ObamaCare 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 ObamaCare 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?
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 ObamaCare 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.
Brilliant.
Showing posts with label ObamaCare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ObamaCare. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
ObamaCare--The Supreme Court (John Roberts) Decision
This (ObamaCare) Conversation is flooding the nation and as I promised, I will post things that interest me. This came to me as an email from my daughter, Julie, but was written by Erick Erickson, editor of RedState.com
Subject: John Roberts
As you have no doubt heard by now, the Supreme Court largely upheld
ObamaCare with Chief Justice John Roberts writing the majority 5 to 4
decision. Even Justice Kennedy called for the whole law to be thrown out,
but John Roberts saved it.
Having gone through the opinion, I am not going to beat up on John
Roberts. I am disappointed, but I want to make a few points. John Roberts is playing at a different game than the rest of us. We're on poker. He's on
chess.
First, I get the strong sense from a few anecdotal stories about Roberts
over the past few months and the way he has written this opinion that he
very, very much was concerned about keeping the Supreme Court above the partisan fray and damaging the reputation of the Court long term. It seems to me the left was smart to make a full frontal assault on the Court as it persuaded Roberts.
Second, in writing his opinion, Roberts forces everyone to deal with the
issue as a political, not a legal issue. In the past twenty years,
Republicans have punted a number of issues to the Supreme Court asking the Court to save us from ourselves. They can't do that with Roberts. They tried with McCain-Feingold, which was originally upheld. This case is a timely reminder to the GOP that five votes are not a sure thing.
Third, while Roberts has expanded the taxation power, which I don't really
think is a massive expansion from what it was, Roberts has curtailed the
commerce clause as an avenue for Congressional overreach. In so doing, he has affirmed the Democrats are massive taxers. In fact, I would argue that this may prevent future mandates in that no one is going to go around
campaigning on new massive tax increases. On the upside, I guess we can tax the hell out of abortion now. Likewise, in a 7 to 2 decision, the Court
shows a strong majority still recognize the concept of federalism and the
restrains of Congress in forcing states to adhere to the whims of the
federal government.
Fourth, in forcing us to deal with this politically, the Democrats are
going to have a hard time running to November claiming the American people need to vote for them to preserve ObamaCare. It remains deeply, deeply unpopular with the American people. If they want to make a vote for them a vote for keeping a massive tax increase, let them try.
Fifth, the decision totally removes a growing left-wing talking point that suddenly they must vote for Obama because of judges. The Supreme Court as a November issue for the left is gone. For the right? That sound you hear is the marching of libertarians into Camp Romney, with noses held, knowing that the libertarian and conservative coalitions must unite to defeat Obama and ObamaCare.
Finally, while I am not down on John Roberts like many of you are today, i
will be very down on Congressional Republicans if they do not now try to
shut down the individual mandate. Force the Democrats on the record about the mandate. Defund ObamaCare. This now, by necessity, is a political fight and the GOP sure as hell should fight. Sixty percent (60%) of Americans agree with them on the issue. And guess what? The Democrats have been saying for a while that individual pieces of ObamaCare are quite popular. With John Roberts' opinion, the repeal fight takes place on GOP turf, not Democrat turf. The all or nothing repeal has always been better ground for the GOP and now John Roberts has forced everyone onto that
ground.
It seems very, very clear to me in reviewing John Roberts' decision that
he is playing a much longer game than us and can afford to with a life tenure. And he probably just handed Mitt Romney the White House.
(A friend points out one other thing - go back to 2009. Olympia Snowe was
the deciding vote to get ObamaCare out of the Senate Committee. Had she
voted no, we'd not be here now.)
Read my full thoughts here.
Sincerely yours,
Erick Erickson
Editor, RedState.com
Subject: John Roberts
As you have no doubt heard by now, the Supreme Court largely upheld
ObamaCare with Chief Justice John Roberts writing the majority 5 to 4
decision. Even Justice Kennedy called for the whole law to be thrown out,
but John Roberts saved it.
Having gone through the opinion, I am not going to beat up on John
Roberts. I am disappointed, but I want to make a few points. John Roberts is playing at a different game than the rest of us. We're on poker. He's on
chess.
First, I get the strong sense from a few anecdotal stories about Roberts
over the past few months and the way he has written this opinion that he
very, very much was concerned about keeping the Supreme Court above the partisan fray and damaging the reputation of the Court long term. It seems to me the left was smart to make a full frontal assault on the Court as it persuaded Roberts.
Second, in writing his opinion, Roberts forces everyone to deal with the
issue as a political, not a legal issue. In the past twenty years,
Republicans have punted a number of issues to the Supreme Court asking the Court to save us from ourselves. They can't do that with Roberts. They tried with McCain-Feingold, which was originally upheld. This case is a timely reminder to the GOP that five votes are not a sure thing.
Third, while Roberts has expanded the taxation power, which I don't really
think is a massive expansion from what it was, Roberts has curtailed the
commerce clause as an avenue for Congressional overreach. In so doing, he has affirmed the Democrats are massive taxers. In fact, I would argue that this may prevent future mandates in that no one is going to go around
campaigning on new massive tax increases. On the upside, I guess we can tax the hell out of abortion now. Likewise, in a 7 to 2 decision, the Court
shows a strong majority still recognize the concept of federalism and the
restrains of Congress in forcing states to adhere to the whims of the
federal government.
Fourth, in forcing us to deal with this politically, the Democrats are
going to have a hard time running to November claiming the American people need to vote for them to preserve ObamaCare. It remains deeply, deeply unpopular with the American people. If they want to make a vote for them a vote for keeping a massive tax increase, let them try.
Fifth, the decision totally removes a growing left-wing talking point that suddenly they must vote for Obama because of judges. The Supreme Court as a November issue for the left is gone. For the right? That sound you hear is the marching of libertarians into Camp Romney, with noses held, knowing that the libertarian and conservative coalitions must unite to defeat Obama and ObamaCare.
Finally, while I am not down on John Roberts like many of you are today, i
will be very down on Congressional Republicans if they do not now try to
shut down the individual mandate. Force the Democrats on the record about the mandate. Defund ObamaCare. This now, by necessity, is a political fight and the GOP sure as hell should fight. Sixty percent (60%) of Americans agree with them on the issue. And guess what? The Democrats have been saying for a while that individual pieces of ObamaCare are quite popular. With John Roberts' opinion, the repeal fight takes place on GOP turf, not Democrat turf. The all or nothing repeal has always been better ground for the GOP and now John Roberts has forced everyone onto that
ground.
It seems very, very clear to me in reviewing John Roberts' decision that
he is playing a much longer game than us and can afford to with a life tenure. And he probably just handed Mitt Romney the White House.
(A friend points out one other thing - go back to 2009. Olympia Snowe was
the deciding vote to get ObamaCare out of the Senate Committee. Had she
voted no, we'd not be here now.)
Read my full thoughts here.
Sincerely yours,
Erick Erickson
Editor, RedState.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)