Image 01 Image 03

Ground control to Starship Silver Lining

Ground control to Starship Silver Lining

There’s not much I can add to what I have already said about the unreality of the reaction to the Obamacare decision by the conservative silver lining crowd.

A growing chorus understands.

John Yoo:

Conservatives are scrambling to salvage something from the decision of their once-great judicial hero….

All this is a hollow hope. The outer limit on the Commerce Clause in Sebelius does not put any other federal law in jeopardy and is undermined by its ruling on the tax power…. The limits on congressional coercion in the case of Medicaid may apply only because the amount of federal funds at risk in that program’s expansion … was so great. If Congress threatens to cut off 5%-10% to force states to obey future federal mandates, will the court strike that down too? Doubtful.

Byron York:

Outside the court, the conservatives who thought they knew Roberts seemed baffled. “For whatever reason, and you’ll have to ask Justice Roberts, he re-wrote the statute,” said Mike Carvin, who argued against Obamacare in the case. “I’m glad he re-wrote the statute rather than the Constitution, but none of it can pass rational scrutiny.”

Mona Charon:

…the Court is tasked with protecting the Constitution and clearly failed to do so here. A key pillar upholding limited government has been kicked away. If the practical result is to energize opposition to President Obama’s reelection, it may turn out to a proverbial blessing in disguise. But there is no point in denying the damage.

Wall Street Journal Editors:

… even the five votes limiting Congress under the Commerce Clause pale against the Chief Justice’s infinitely elastic and dangerous interpretation of the taxing power. Nancy Pelosi famously said we need to pass ObamaCare to find out what’s in it. It turns out we also needed John Roberts to write his appendix.

National Review Editors:

The dissent acknowledges that if an ambiguous law can be read in a way that renders it constitutional, it should be. It distinguishes, though, between construing a law charitably and rewriting it. The latter is what Chief Justice John Roberts has done. If Roberts believes that this tactic avoids damage to the Constitution because it does not stretch the Commerce Clause to justify a mandate, he is mistaken.

“Untethered” is the word which comes to mind, and so does this song:

Ground control to Starship Silver Lining, there’s something wrong, can you hear me?


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


I couldn’t care less if there’s a silver lining or not.

I am trying to figure out how to play the hand we are dealt, and if there is still an avenue to repeal in the future.

I will leave it to the historians to figure out Robert’s place in history. He could be a hero, could be a goat. We do not know that right now, nor do I believe it is knowable.

What I am absolutely certain of is that we have a traitor to our nation living in our White House, and that is far, far more important right now than even Obamacare.

Even if Obamacare was struck down in its entirety on Thursday with a 9-0 vote, no dissension, every Justice expressing their contempt for Obama, Pelosi & Reid, do you really think for one second that they would just take their ball and go home, tail between their legs?

Of course not.

We need to understand that our problem is a lot bigger than a 2,700 page legislation that was passed by hook and crook.

We have people running our government that Rand and Orwell would never write about because they would conclude (rightly) that they were too strange for fiction.

The Barbarians are at the gates, my friends. It’s 1860 all over again.

You think this is bad? I think its going to get a whole lot worse.

    ALman in reply to turfmann. | June 30, 2012 at 8:29 pm

    Are we bordering on anarchy? Is seems as though the question of “by whose authority” is no longer asked. Rather, it’s more a case of “we can do it because we say we can.”

    As for the practical side, I’m considering using a statment of “No, I’m not able to do so at this time. And, you can thank Obama for that.” This in response to requests for renewal of memberships, solicitations for donations, next time I have my car serviced and a salesman approaches about buying a new car, e.g. Use it whenever and wherever I can. Don’t know how much I’m willing to self-deny. We’ll see.

    Aggie95 in reply to turfmann. | June 30, 2012 at 11:16 pm

    Never give in — never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy. — Sir Winston Churchill, Speech, 1941, Harrow School

    Doug Wright in reply to turfmann. | July 1, 2012 at 12:42 am

    While history doesn’t repeat itself exactly, the parallels with 1860 are way too interesting. That year’s election was on November 6 as will be this year’s election. We’ll know later whether this election is a prelude to another period of civil strife or worse.

    Obama is almost as anti-American as Buchanan back then was indifferent or unable to cope with that fast arriving attempt to break up the union. Back then, the South was determined to force a fight, now the Socialists want to force their “fairness” view of equal outcomes down our throats. Today’s Socialists want a fight today as much as the Secessionists did back then.

    Regardless of this election’s outcome, the fight will not be settled whether Romney wins or Obama wins; it shall continue for a while.

    If Obama wins, IHMO, our country will become another Cuba or USSR; his promised “flexibility,” and his desire for extra legal powers, will drive his term, his rule.

    If Romney wins, that struggle will go on and we’ll have to fend off the Socialist efforts for quite some time. They will not give up, nor should we either.

    This country is well worth the effort to keep it a Constitutional Republic as it was founded. We must or we will revert to darkness and the world will plunge into a long period of chaos.

      HarrietHT in reply to Doug Wright. | July 1, 2012 at 3:14 am

      You know, Doug, there comes a time when one just can’t take it anymore. Economists talk about pent-up demand after a long recession. Well, we American patriots have a mighty heavy load of pent-up frustration, anger, and yes, fear for the future. We can only take so much before the only recourse, the only escape from our fury, is to give way to full retaliation. The left seems spoiling for a fight; either that, or they think they can buy us off with stolen goodies from our neighbor’s productivity. We’ll see soon enough what we’re made of.

      retire05 in reply to Doug Wright. | July 1, 2012 at 10:06 am

      Doug Wright, while I understand that revisionist history, written by the victors, is en vogue, do not forget that the South, which you claim was “determined to force a fight”, never invaded any other state in the beginning of the UnCivil War.

      You see, the South took the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence textually. The South believed it said what it meant and meant what it said. Even Lincoln stated, prior to becoming president, that a people had the right to end the bonds that bound them to another, and create their own system of government.

      Now we hear conservatives talk of abolishing those bonds that tie us to those who are located, in many cases, thousands of miles from the reality of our lives and homes.

      For too long, justices have worked to find the answer to legislation that some deemed unconstitutional. And out of that has come two camps; the textualists and the intentionalists. Scalia is in the first camp, and believes that the Constitution, and the laws that come from it, are to be taken literally, and words mean what they say. Roberts seemingly has joined the side of the court that ignores the words used and seeks “intention.” And what we have wound up with is a split court where half believe that the U.S. Constitution is a document that means what it says, and says what it means and can stand the test of time, where the other half believes, as does Obama, that the Constitution is a living document that evolves with society.

      Some have referred to Roberts as the Warren of the current court. I disagree and agree with John Yoo that Roberts has become the Charles Evans Hughes of the current court. Hughes, Chief Justice during FDR’s administration, understood that the New Deal, and it many programs, exceeded the power of Congress. So FDR threatened the court, and Hughes caved giving us one of the greatest social welfare programs in the history of this nation.

      What no one has addressed, even the court, is that our laws are to apply to all equally. That is the “common” used in the phrase, common good. Yet, the Cornhusker Kickback was written into the legislation which means that Nebraska will not have to abide by Obamacare. Union after union have been given “waivers” so that they do not have to abide by the legislation.

      We now have an elected body that is split on how we go forward. Are we to be a government, ruled by the majority or a government that tries to meet our every need becoming a fascist nation? Tip O’Neill warned us long ago the direction the Democrats would take us when he said:

      “The central conserative truth is that it is culture, not politics, that determine the success of a society. The central liberal truth is that politics can change a culture and save it from itself.”

      The Democrats, and now Justice Roberts, seem to think that if they can only coerce, through the long arm of the IRS, they can change the culture and save it from itself.

        HarrietHT in reply to retire05. | July 1, 2012 at 10:25 am

        You don’t even mention that the laws often times cooked up by our Congress don’t even apply to THEMSELVES.

          retire05 in reply to HarrietHT. | July 1, 2012 at 11:08 am

          What will be important to watch is the fallout from this SCOTUS decision. No, not in the opinions of those on either side, but what the actual ramifications on middle class workers will be. One would be advised to watch the coming actions of AT & T which employs over 300,000 people nation wide and has at least 1/2 that number in retirees. All toll, AT & T insures over 1 million people nation wide.

          It stands to reason that if the ACA fines a company slightly over $2,000/yr per employee for not providing the employee with heath insurance, the cost to AT & T will be less by paying the fine when it costs an average of $10,091/yr just to insure the employee, not counting dependents. I do not believe that the ACA requires companies to cover dependents, only employees. Also, there is a clause in the ACA for “Cadillac” plans that exceed $27,000/yr in value. If AT & T considers the cost of insuring the employee, spouse and three children under the age of 26, that cost exceeds $27,000 and those CWA members are going to be required to pay a tax on their Cadillac health care plans.

          The first thing I predict is that AT & T, and similar companies, will simply drop its health care insurance coverage for retirees. That is a major problem because many AT & T retirees are now in that dead zone between 55 and 65 and it will leave them uninsured, forcing them to purchase Obamacare and cuts into their income considerably.

          Remember, bad law doesn’t get better when it is implemented.

        Doug Wright in reply to retire05. | July 1, 2012 at 3:38 pm

        Retire05: BTW, OT, I could say that I’m “retire00” but what the heck! Yes, to the victors go the spoils and history. Just ask Germany, or Japan (Which still seems not to accept that it lost, Yep, Yanks are the meanies, not them!), and if you could find any, those Carthaginians still able to link back to their once proud ancestors; you could ask a modern Lebanese what they think about Carthage’s loss?. Oh, do recall Cato the Elder’s prime mission in life, in one strong sense.

        However, yes, the South was spoiling for a fight. Recall history about the Baltimore riots and street fighting prior to Lincoln’s arrival and afterwards too. Recall Charleston’s history leading up to the attack on Ft. Sumter. Recall the history of the Border States, especially the troubles in Missouri and Kansas! Do the terms Red Legs and Jayhawks bring to mind images of peaceful Southern attitudes towards those supporting one side but not the other? Most of my Southern friends insist that the South’s position was “States Rights” and ignore that the rights their insisted on were to continue their laws on slavery and recall also that the South demanded, in those closing days, complete right to own slaves anywhere in the country and to force return of escaped slaves back to Ol Virginie or where ever they had been enslaved.

        Lastly, understand that it took the firing on Ft. Sumter for the North to rally around Lincoln’s demand that the Union remain whole. The South fired that first shot except I know you’ll insist that it was those “cruel lumberjacks and farmers” of Ol Minnesotie (Actually back then it was then Wisconsin Territory) or some other cruel Northerner who wanted to fight.

        So, yep, us terrible Northerners, at least some of us, like Bruce Catton, et al, started that fight because we didn’t want to give in to the peaceful and civil right’s loving Southerners; I claim allegiance to those Northerners both in a biological sense and in a philosophical sense; the old Northerners were right and proper, the Slave owning, “States Rights” loving Southerners were wrong.

        Peace brother: I fought that Civil War too many times in the barracks of Bragg and Benning on long boring nights to relish going through that once again; so this is my Appomattox. The OLd South does still survive, just barely. Realize that it’s only on the point of view, which you expressed, of the “Peaceful South” with which I take issue.

        retire05 in reply to retire05. | July 1, 2012 at 4:15 pm

        Doug, thank you for showing that you view history through the prism of only one view. Unfortunately, history is never truely based on only one event.

        I am still waiting for you to name the action took by the South to invade any state that sided with the North. Might take you awhile, so we’ll move on from there.

        Ask Japan? Germany? Really? Seems the loser there profited from their loss when the United States went in and rebuilt those nations as well as Truman giving Japan the electronic technology that allowed them to corner the market on steros, TV, etc. Unlike how the South was treated by leaving the devestation for Southerners to try to rebuild and pay for.

        I don’t read Bruce Canton because I find him biased. There is a way to tell history without being biased.

        And yes, the South has risen again, but not the way most yankees seem to think we meant when that was said. Perhaps you would like to tell me what loser Northern state you live in? How’s your unemployment rates, your per capita debt ration, or any of the other things that the North once loved to brag on?

        Am I a Southerner? Damn straight, skippne, and proud of it.

          HarrietHT in reply to retire05. | July 1, 2012 at 5:00 pm

          Let me add, retire05, that as bad as slavery was, do we really, really imagine that the majority of our black population is better off now? Their families are disintegrating, they’ve become slaves to the state welfare apparatus, they kill each other in far greater numbers than whites or Asians do, and they seem happy to let other people (Obama and his leftist posse) strip away their self-respect. At least as slaves they had WORK to do that in itself is noble and conducive to self-respect. Now they get paid for being leeches, in larger and larger numbers.

          Thomas Sowell himself stated back in the 80’s that the black man was better off before the civil war. But hear this: I am not advocating for a return to black slavery, or any other kind of slavery, which is why I am so dismayed that Uncle Sam thinks he can now enslave everyone!

          Doug Wright in reply to retire05. | July 1, 2012 at 6:18 pm

          Retire05: This is my reply and thereafter, you may rant and rave all you wish and I shall ignore your whimpering cries of “No, no! Not fair!”

          St. Louis, Missouri was the scene of an early attempt by Southerners to take USA property by force and while that was done primarily by native Missourians, it counts in a real sense. Oops, see that didn’t so very long did it now!

          Also, are you forgetting all those other areas of the South that were illegally appropriated by the Confederates, those many pesky US military fortifications and armories seized by the “Sons of the South,” those nice little peaceful lads marching every way but North; there’s danger up there, pal! Oh, how about Jeff Davis, the most perfidious snake in the grass ever to serve in a US Cabinet position; wasn’t he a Jim Dandy Cracker?

          I mentioned Japan and Germany because while we built them back up with our resources, many Japanese deny that their nation was at fault for that war, as do many Germans too. Maybe our nation learned something from the errors of the post Civil War period; there are some who say that “Reconstruction” was ended too soon; take your choice on that one. To your credit, we built up the world while trying to get along with our old creaking infrastructure, except for the Interstate, which Ike wanted done, and it was.

          You still haven’t responded to the statement about Ancient Carthage and its few descendants. Maybe you agree with Cato on that subject, I know I do.

          The South has risen and in great part because of the many Northerners who jumped onto a nascent rising economy and then provided the skill to build up the South to what it is today.

          BTW: Minnesota was a low unemployment rate, about 5.6% for now, but not due to anything our Governor Crazy Eyes has done.

          BTW: It’s good that your proud of being what you are, each of us should feel that same way about ourselves. Now, go salute Old Glory and begin to defend the principles, which formed our country. There is no shame in not further contributing this almost ridiculous exchange, therefor I shall not.

jeannebodine | June 30, 2012 at 8:24 pm

Thank you Professor Jacobson. You’ve been a voice of sanity through the initial stages of my grief. The talk of conservative gains and clever machinations by Sooper-Genius CJ Roberts from people on the right almost drove me over the edge. I owe what little peace of mind I have to you & Mark Levin. I may be wrong but I think the Starship is finally coming in for a landing.

A bad decision…even if you like it as far as an outcome goes…is a BAD decision.

And this was a bad, awful, really horrible decision.

LukeHandCool | June 30, 2012 at 8:30 pm

Where’s all the hand-wringing about another devisive 5-4 ruling?

The liberals always vote as a bloc.

BannedbytheGuardian | June 30, 2012 at 8:56 pm

About a week ago there was a thread asking on what terms could the bill be upheld.
If only posters (& pundits ) would have given it some thought & prepared themselves.

As it was the conservative reaction was very Elizabeth Kubler -Rossish. Anger -denial -self delusionary rationalization Stage 4 coming up.

Mitt Romney stayed above the fray & his experience in Masscare showed through. He was quite impressive. Sarah Palin was the most effective attack dog again.

The 2012 elections are hotting up but in a significantly more diverse & divided atmosphere than 08.

The qustion is -is this Boston Habour or a port in South Carolina?

LukeHandCool | June 30, 2012 at 9:01 pm

Aladdin Sane and his buddies piloting that Starship.

You really have to ask how many members of John Roberts’ family did Obama’s minions tahe hostage ?
Will we wake up some morning to find Obama being “frog marched” and ObamaCare struck down ?

harvard – we teach you to just make stuff up for $50,000/yr

Joan Of Argghh | June 30, 2012 at 10:01 pm

ScottM, in a comment at American Digest, sums it best:

“You can’t trust the GOP to do the smart thing. You can’t trust the GOP to be tactical or strategic. You must interpret any delay in fighting and any excuse for picking another fight as a sellout. If your GOP member has a reputation for winning fights, then give him the benefit of the doubt. If your member doesn’t have that reputation you must view them as a sellout until proven otherwise. You can’t allow the awful truth of this bad situation keep you from understanding how bloody awful things are becoming. False optimism is killing us as much as irrational belief in hope and change. What are the facts before your eyes? The GOP won’t fight, won’t communicate, and now we see again they won’t change. Anyone telling you to wait until after the election is telling you they think you are stupid enough to fall for the usual tactic. The GOP has had the advantage for 2 years and what have they forced on Obama? They will not fight harder after the election, they will have 2 years free from voter pressure after the election.”

    Malonth in reply to Joan Of Argghh. | July 1, 2012 at 1:53 am

    In my heart of hearts, the great GOP sell out is what I fear will be true. Let’s say we got Romney elected, maintain the house and get rid of Harry Reid, what then? Barack Obama has his problems with the far left (e.g. Code Pink and Mat Damon), but where have they got to go? Conservatives will be treated like Mitt Romney’s crazy right wing base.

    Once in a while Romney will send out one of his pseudo conservative lap dogs to throw a little red meat on the grill to keep our attention. Meanwhile, Chief of Staff, Eric Cantor, will be figuring out how we can keep the “good parts” of Obamacare. How about we dismantle the EPA’s Cap & Trade regulations? President Romney says: let’s not go to fast there after all it was a very hot summer in D.C. last summer. Instead, let’s appoint a bipartisan blue ribbon commission, headed by say John McCain to study the issue for a year. Of course, we will have America’s great academic experts as well. Don’t worry they’re all straight shooters. Don’t make this a partisan thing!

    How many people are confident the above won’t be the case?

      HarrietHT in reply to Malonth. | July 1, 2012 at 3:30 am

      Here’s the thing, Malonth. If the GOP won’t fight political battles for us as is their DUTY, they guarantee by their cowardice that another kind of battle, one with kinetic energy, must be waged in order to save our crumbling Republic. I really wish a lightening bolt would strike the entire Republican delegation and turn them into the MEN this country needs to survive as a Constitutional Republic, itself even now lying in tatters.

The silver-lining crowd is really the Stockholm Syndrome crowd — “conservatives” lost in their captivitity to liberal dominance. This is how they live with themselves and their own sold-out souls.

I had a sick and hollow feeling leading up to the ruling, especially as I read all the hype about the Court striking it down. But my premonitions were about Kennedy not Roberts. Still, in the end it’s always a gut punch for conservatives, isn’t it? We’re always denied and betrayed; we’re failed by some key figure at the moment of truth every single time. We have no Pattons, no Shermans, no one who licks his chops and sharpens his sword as the decisive hour of battle nears. Our “leaders” have a terrible existential fear of blood conflict with the Left and the media. It was the media Roberts really feared. Like Bush and McCain feared them, and like Romney fears them. Romney wants to win as a pseudo-Reagan battling the ghost of Carter, rather than grapple with the hard truth of Obama the Leftist and the media as his leftist Praetorian Guard. It may work. But what a desperate shame we can’t find leaders who call out and confront these people for who they are.

Professor ,l also want to thank you. As with Lizzy Warren you called it from hour 1. This is yet another example of elete leadership crapping on whats good for the country & its purpose. This ruling makes Romney an even weaker alternative. We have 2 choices ,a fascist ; & a party that has proven itself incompetant time after time. This is exactly what l have feared would happen.

So the Reagan legacy was abandoned, rationalization by rationalization.

Somewhere, Nelson Rockefeller is smiling.

I’m not. 🙁

I came to this blog because all of the liberal blogs nowadays are either dittoheding Obama’s talking point or bitching about how Obama is no better then Bush, and frankly it was getting mindnumbingly boring, Especially after people started blaming Citizen’s United, for all our electoral defeats. I’m trying to understand the conservative POV on things but I’m afraid I don’t here. I thought Conservatives respected national institutions. SCOTUS found a law which was enacted by the duly elected congress and approved by the rightful and lawful President, to be within the bounds of the limited government which our constitution demands. This is the Republic working for a change, and I will say the same thing on the Daily Kos, if and when your side manages to repel it. I’ll quote Star Wars on this one “The Day we believe democracy doesn’t work anymore is the day it stops working”. So why is there all this chatter about the death of the republic, when the Republic just did it’s job perfectly or as close as we can get these days? Because it looks like a logical inconsistency. And please don’t just downvote this as I said I seek to understand the conservative position.

    Aggie95 in reply to marnold. | June 30, 2012 at 11:25 pm

    why don’t you go back and look at how this law was passed then tell me again if I should respect it ….when you have to bribe members of your own party with billions of tax payers monies to get a bill passed it probably should not be passed and thats what happened here …and more

      Browndog in reply to Aggie95. | June 30, 2012 at 11:40 pm


      It’s a legitimate question.

      Let’s answer-

      The law was voted on and passed by a duly elected Congress by means of FRAUD.

      Hence, the ruling of the High Court.

      It would have never passed in Congress had it been deemed a tax.

      Don’t act as if we feel the ruling of the court is illegitimate. We do not.

      As Aggie pointed out, the entire process DEFIES democracy, it does not re-affirm it.

      However, the same Constitution you seem to think we ignore is the same Constitution we will use to correct this colossal mistake.

        OcTEApi in reply to Browndog. | July 1, 2012 at 4:57 am

        Under Roberts’s tax power jurisprudence, everyone will pay a fireworks tax, those that engage in fireworks activity withing the 36 hour window around the 4th can avoid the tax.
        There will be positive reinforcement through incentives for those who prefer patriotic pie making over fireworks.
        And of course, skittish dog owners will receive waivers.

    Browndog in reply to marnold. | June 30, 2012 at 11:26 pm

    You are polite, honest, and truth seeking-

    Me thinks someday you will realize you only thought you were a liberal-

    If it is answers you seek, it is answers you will find.

    I wish you well in your journey.

    Joy in reply to marnold. | June 30, 2012 at 11:30 pm

    I don’t know how long you have been reading this blog marnold but this from 2 days ago is a must-read.

      marnold in reply to Joy. | July 1, 2012 at 2:20 pm

      I read that, and Jacobson is right if you take a pessimistic view of these things. Did you see The bottom line is we all of us have more free speech then ever, and we’re never more then two years at most away from an election. So as long as we all attempt to understand each other and don’t call the other team crooks, or go birther, or pull a Kimberlin on people we disagree with, we stand a chance of undoing the screw ups on both sides of the political coin. Although personally i’d like it alot better if Ron Wyden, and Darell Isa formed a new party but that’s just a pipe dream on my part 🙂

        Joy in reply to marnold. | July 1, 2012 at 4:11 pm

        Wow marnold… are confused aren’t you?

        I was tempted to laugh at you for saying that we have more free speech than ever when just the opposite is true until I saw your dream of a Wyden/Issa ticket (it would hard-pressed to find a more politically opposite and unworkable team) so I can only say…..please remove those idealistic rose-colored glasses and not just read the history leading up to the formation of the Constitution, but try to understand the reasons our founders wrote it as they did…..and join us here at LI often so that the good Professor and the many intelligent posters can add to your education of what this great Republic was meant to be.

        Joy in reply to marnold. | July 1, 2012 at 8:53 pm

        Stay with us marnold and don’t be offended if you’re scolded because it’s all part of the learning process.

        I also suggest that you wander around this page and read many of the other blogs that the Professor has linked with.

    jdkchem in reply to marnold. | June 30, 2012 at 11:52 pm

    What do mean “This is the Republic working for a change”? Does it only work when you get things your way? Are you still a sore loser because Gore lost? Are you unhappy because now everyone can spend how ever much of their money on political speech? Do you have even the remotest idea how arrogant, trite, petty and condescending that sounds?

    Do you want to know the conservative position on GumbyCare? It’s stupid. It is a government problem looking for a government solution. Why don’t you tell me why health insurance cannot be sold across state lines? Tell me why it is vital to the continued existence of mankind that I buy health insurance? Why don’t you explain to me why at 70k/year I’m limited to how much I can put in an HSA because I probably trying to hide money from the IRS? When you clowns on the left invoke freeloaders and personal responsibility why does that require having to buy insurance I may not need or want to pay for? You certainly don’t invoke the term freeloader when criminal aliens are loading up there Escalade with $400+ of food bought with food stamps. In fact even commenting on that is racist according to markos the mini-stalin wanna-be. Why don’t you explain to the rest of us why medicaid requires that bills for services be at 10% of market value and how that in no way ever increases the cost of health care service. Please tell us how the shortage of doctors is not because the medical profession has become too expensive thanks to ambulance chasing scum like John Edwards. Why don’t you explain to the rest of us how compelling someone to provide you with a service is not tyranny or slavery. Why do you fools on the left insist that the “pursuit of happiness” implies that you’re entitled to something? Do you not have a dictionary? Perhaps you can explain why the toughest president ever in the history of the world prefers to spend Independence Day in France rather than in the country he claims to be a citizen of? Why does your great leader insist on increasing the health care premiums of servicemen and women by 300%?

    The fact of the matter is that you and yours do not have an answer for any of the crap you push through as morally necessary other than government is good. That you actually believe that you’re entitled to what is mine is beyond pathetic.

      Joy in reply to jdkchem. | July 1, 2012 at 12:08 am


      marnold in reply to jdkchem. | July 1, 2012 at 11:17 am

      I don’t remember much about gore loosing i was like 11 at the time. Citizen’s United is not as bad as my side makes it out to be, i.e. Google wouldn;t have been able to do what they did with SOPA for long if congress had the power to regulate corporate speech, nor would the new york times be able to publish the petagon papers. As Liberals we want the Supreme Court to be overzealous in defense of the four freedoms, and any so called liberal that tells you anything different, is 3/4 of the way to being part of the radical left. As for HCR that thing is 3k what the heck does it do? Not even Obama knows for sure. That is why it is bad, better to do it gradually in stages with a series of small bills that people can actually understand, I’m a student in the Science and we have a saying “Don’t eat Elephants with salad forks”, The ACA does that. But the system as it stood prior sucked for all parties, We’ll be fixing bugs in this for the next decade but, at least we have something to work with.
      As for immigration criminal aliens should be deported, but why don’t Conservatives support the DREAM Act? Why do Conservatives insist on which give police more power to harass everyone, and not just Hispanics. To avoid a 14th amendment challenge they will have to ask everyone who is ever arrested or stopped to prove his or her citizenship, this is a monumental expansion of police power, and can anyone honestly say that our law enforcement is always trustworthy?

        jdkchem in reply to marnold. | July 1, 2012 at 5:22 pm

        Why don’t conservatives support the DREAM Act? Because it’s a shamnesty. You cannot demand on one hand demand that criminal aliens get deported and offer amnesty with the other. Pick one. Why should anyone who entered this country legally get the shaft because the opiate of the asses and his party of thieves want more votes.

        Mostly what liberals want is one freedom, freedom from want. Your side has an odd way of protecting free speech and freedom of religion. Your actions demonstrate that the only freedom the left craves is free-sh!t. Show me where in the Constitution it is the job of any level of government to guarantee you are free from want.

        Funny how you say conservatives want to give police more power to harass when your side refuses to recognize the 2nd Amendment. Even funnier still is it is your side using the police as a tool to crush free speech.

        The only reason the health care system sucked for all parties was because you fools had the brilliant idea that you could make socialism work. Contrary to all the evidence.

          marnold in reply to jdkchem. | July 1, 2012 at 8:07 pm

          I will swear on a stack of Bibles that I’d never heard of Kimberlin before he started attacking A.W. I think he’s pondscum, and any Democrat who would take money from him, or donate it to him is a lower life form who is unfit to carry the progressive torch, dim as it is these days. As for the dream act. Why should we deport people who were brought here as infants, educated here, lived here all of their lives, and during those lives have committed no crime How about tempering justice with mercy? As for the second amendment, I don’t know what to think about that. On one hand it says “The right of the people …” so that is the end of discussion really, on the other AK-47’s on the streets Gah do not like. As for your last bit dude i’ve speant the last six years trying to get off of public assistance, so don’t try to tell me about freedom from want. These entitlement programs really suck, I don’t know why anyone would want to be on them. They are set up so that the individual is expected and has motivation to fail, because if you fail and stay in that’s 10x more money then the person who is entitled gets in some bureaucrat’s pocket. So yeah Freedom from Want:: Only for government employees

          jdkchem in reply to jdkchem. | July 2, 2012 at 1:35 pm

          @marnold What differentiates an AK-47 from any other rifle? If you say it’s an assault weapon you would be half wrong. The AK-47 that you can buy legally is not an assault rifle. A pistol grip does not make any rifle more dangerous than any other rifle. You can file that nonsense and stupidity in the nearest circular file.
          The 2nd Amendment was never about duck hunting. EVER!
          It’s awful nice of you to distance yourself from kimberlin. If only that were the only example of the left trying to silence their critics.
          So my step-son should be punished because he entered the US legally with his mother and he can’t find work. Where is the mercy or fairness in that?
          Dude don’t even start on how rough you think your life is with me. You have clothes on your back, a roof over your head and food in your belly. Quit whining.

You fight and you keep fighting and if the battle is lost you hack at their flanks as they pass and even in their victory you bleed them

I feel like I’ve been flim flammed by the compassionate conservative, again – back stabbed, cork screwed, and dirty dealt. It’s more like that chicken, the news guy referrd to and got suspended. That’s what the progs, and THE ROBERTS Supreme Court are doing to the country. Mercilessly abusing our rights and the Constitution.

My view with regards toe the, “silver lining,” is simply to pick up the pieces of a bad SCOTUS decision and turn the debris into an asset.

Having two active issues on the way to the November elections can be a substantial positive since the majority of Americans still don’t like O’bammyCare.

Folks, our glass is half full so let’s take advantage of it…

    FX Phillips in reply to GrumpyOne. | July 1, 2012 at 12:22 pm

    Having two active issues on the way to the November elections can be a substantial positive since the majority of Americans still don’t like O’bammyCare.

    Except Romney is the least effective candidate to take advantage of this. How does the architect of this fiasco attack what is essentially his edifice. His best defense(it wasn’t-and still isn’t- constitutional) is now gone. He sure as hell isn’t going to make the case that this was an extraordinary manifestation of judicial activism in it’s most obvious sense.

Roberts protected the . . . legitimacy, in leftist eyes, of the court at the cost of the Constitution. His opinion is that of a coward desperately trying to find a way to give Constituionality of an unconsitutional law. He should be put on the same plane as Judas in our country’s history. Because he enslaved us to an oppressive power.

May his offspring die slowly and painfully.

    Jingo in reply to Jim. | July 1, 2012 at 1:02 am

    Leave the death threats to the Lefties, jackass. Four other justices joined him in that opinion. More importantly, our ignorant citizenry voted in the Congress and President that gave us Obamacare, greatly in reaction to Republican failures. In short, there’s plenty blame to go around.

    Roberts was right in one respect: we certainly cannot count on the courts to save us from the consequences of our electoral decisions.

    William A. Jacobson in reply to Jim. | July 1, 2012 at 1:44 am

    “May his offspring die slowly and painfully.” — beyond what is acceptable here. Bye Bye.

[…] someone for failing to comply with a mandate to engage in commerce is the equivalent of a tax. As others have pointed out, if Congress can enforce unlimited mandates by taxing the people who refuse to comply, Roberts has […]

Professor Jacobson was correct as always.

I don’t believe Roberts is a bad man, just a weak man, a typical soft, country club Republican who could not take the pressure of the cocktail crowd. He wants the approval of the New York Times.

The bubble of Washington, D.C., is poisonous. No one has ever gone there and become more conservative. A few go and stay the same, but most get more liberal. They live in the enchanting world that government largesse created.

I believe we will now see Roberts -perhaps slowly, perhaps rapidly- identify more and more with the liberal wing until he is eventually a reliable liberal vote. Add his name to Warren, Blackmun, Stevens and Souter as GOP appointees who ended up screwing conservatives for decades.

Obviously, the trajectory of Commerce Clause jurisprudence has been 70 years of constant expansion, so the decision is hardly surprising, but the incoherent reasoning is. It would have been preferable for the Court to uphold Obamacare under the Commerce Clause rather than give Congress another Clause which to abuse without limit, but it probably doesn’t matter.

The decision was the final nail in the concept of “enumerated powers.” Again, that has been a long time coming. It is saddening, however, to know who drove that nail.

    OcTEApi in reply to Jingo. | July 1, 2012 at 6:06 am

    #1 Jedi mind trick comment.

    “It would have been preferable for the Court to uphold Obamacare under the Commerce Clause rather than give Congress another Clause which to abuse without limit.”

    Its a new constitutional clause. Yeesssssss.

Jingo , l agree. Remedy – Move the Supreme Court lock , stock & baggage to Pittsburg or somewhere else the hell out of DC. ln our era of easy travel & communication it is past time to lance the boil that DC has come to represent & disperse the governing authority across the country.

    BannedbytheGuardian in reply to secondwind. | July 1, 2012 at 2:40 am

    That would be great. I would be ahead of natve posters here for I have been learning Pittsburghese from the internet.I never ever want to go there in case I get murdered.

    Then I will be able to translate all the decisions for you.

    Doug Wright in reply to secondwind. | July 1, 2012 at 3:02 am

    Agreed! Brilliant! Of course, all face to face meetings will be outlawed unless signified as being critical and urgent; yep, rule that clause with an iron fist. Also, outlaw any and all entry into the DC area unless approved by someone other than the president and only for a few times each calendar year. Other details can be worked out by someone else, perhaps Jingo, Secondwinf, or Professor LI himself! Hooray! Jeff Goldstein comments on a comment from Legal Insurrection. He makes a good point. Even if this was CJ Roberts goal, it was wrong.

Ground Control to CJ John…Can you hear me CJ John? Can you hear me CJ John?

6 hours ago
Ruling ups support for Obama healthcare, still unpopular

The local news featured a satisfied ObamaTax healthcare recipient.
If you’re a woman who has a medical pre-condition, works for a small union organizing publication that doesn’t offer healthcare and likely receives an ObamaTax waiver:
You’re going to love Obamacare.

[…] Jacobson at Legal Insurrection has a roundup of similar, yet far more esteemed opinions than mine here. Share this:FacebookEmailPrintRedditTwitterStumbleUponDiggLinkedInLike this:LikeBe the first to like […]

The law passed by Congress was a mandate. The law now on the books is a tax even though there was no mention of such in it. So we effectively have a law on the books which was voted into being by a grand total of FIVE people, none of whom were legislators. Do your REALLY expect people to accept that?

The argument that one word can be read for another is self-refuting since if that were the case there would be no reason to read it as anything other than what it was. This is just basic logic. Roberts plainly said the law as written violated the Constitution and then he allowed it to become law anyway.

SO you see, the legitimacy of something does not rest on whether you can get a few elitists who want to look good to one another to agree to something. It is instead necessary for it to actually make sense and comport with reality… in this case the text of the law and the Constitution.

Regardless our rights are not something that are decided by a court or a Constitution but are rather things we are endowed with by our Creator (I am an atheist myself but the point is the same… we are born with immutable rights).

Citizen’s United was entirely different as it broke no new ground at all and ceded no liberties to the government. Quite the opposite. If a corporation does not have freedom of speech… and political speech has always included the right to pay people to get your message out… then you could not even have a political magazine or news organization which would not be subject to regulation of its content. You could not have people banding together in non-profit corporations to express their views. Clearly such limitations do not comport with the Constitution. People can band together and petition for redress or attempt to convince others of their position as corporations. That is hardly something to get worked up about and it certainly is not surprising or new.

The wailing about corporations being people is taken completely out of context. Corporations have always been considered separate entities. It cannot be any other way. Otherwise a contract would not outlive the tenure of the person who signed it. Indeed the company could not be bound at all by its agents and would be beyond the law. Oh did we make that mess or kill those people? Sorry, the people responsible don’t work here anymore.

You see, leftists are to a man ignorant of the law and the Constitution and the foundational principles of the country. This is all just really basic stuff that used to be taught in high school civics but now kids go all the way through college and are SHOCKED that things have always been this way and can only be this way in a free country.

They think what the media and their professors tell them to think without question and the institutions occupied by those professions have long ago decided to hide this information from them for political gain.

In short they are tools. I am glad to see you have ventured out of the shed for a change.

That last comment was meant to be in reply to another comment but I guess when I logged in it moved it to the end of the thread. Sorry guys…

BannedbytheGuardian | July 1, 2012 at 7:29 am

Cheer up folks. You guys are 30 years behind us. We have managed the health thing & now have advanced onto curing the world. Today we began a national Carbon Tax !

20 hours in & the southern hemisphere has not tipped over.:)

jimzinsocal | July 1, 2012 at 9:29 am

Kennedy I believe said it best during oral arguments when he said simply…this changes the fundamental relationship between government and the private citizen.
We all know government has and will continue to change our behaviour thru all sorts of actions.
We were encouraged to buy our own homes via tax policy.
We are encouraged to spend on green projects to save energy via tax credits. Its a long list.
But this mandate/tax/penalty scheme?
Come on. Are we penalized/taxed for not buying our own homes? Despite a liberal argument that might equate lost tax savings with as an “indirect tax” its simply not the same. We are able to opt out without a penalty/tax bill from IRS. Set aside the tax or penalty labels.
Get our heads around the mechanism. Government is now equipped with a mechanism where they can penalize us/tax us for not smoking. Think of your own examples.
Were told recently…dont worry folks..this penalty/tax only applies to a small group of people. They suggest 1%.
Only. But we have been told for years and a basic problem was the huge number of uninsured was central to the mission of the ACT. Amazing how things change.
What is more worrisome really beyond the number of uninsured folks is again the mechanism now in place.
HHS and IRS now have a mechanism in place they can adjust or as weve seen recently “reprioritize” with the stroke of a pen and a Presidential announcement.
What stops HHS from increasing or expanding the penalty/tax?
Nothing really.
Some silver lining.

Roberts is Souter in loafers.

Boosh 41 gave us Souter
Boosh 43 gave us Roberts

Get the point?

jimzinsocal | July 1, 2012 at 9:40 am

I forgot to mention. The tax v penalty ussue. So we see the Whitehous insist its a penalty. Do we think SCOTUS will take back the ruling if the word tax is avoided by government? We can insist all we like that its a tax.
The ACT is still on the books with not one word changed.

Still looking for a silver lining in the ObamaCare decision ?

Given that the SCOTUS declared a monetary “penalty” to be a tax, I guess now I can deduct traffic and parking tickets under “Taxes other.”

Got fined by the EPA, FTC, FCC, SEC … deduct it .. they are now taxes
Got a penalty for early withdraw of 401(k) funds … deduct it .. they are now taxes

Every stupid action has unintended consequences.

Has everyone forgotten the executive implementation of the DREAM act? Does anyone really believe that the Grate Gazoo would abide by a decision that ruled GumbyCare unconstitutional? Hell he still insists it is not a tax.

Dr. Pournelle says it best.

[…] Jacobson points out that there is a growing chorus of those who say the silver lining theory is a myth. […]

The Obamacare Tax seems to leave the door open for the Democrats and Republicans to write up a massive VAT / Federal Sales tax, or anything of that nature.

I bet the GOP secretly loves this ruling.

    persecutor in reply to GoldenAh. | July 1, 2012 at 1:02 pm

    Prior to the Obamatax decision, they didn’t have the power to enact a VAT or the like?

    I agree that there are some in the GOP salivating over the ruling, but then we’ve always had to tolerate the RINOs amongst us.

Henry Hawkins | July 1, 2012 at 12:55 pm

The ‘silver lining’ is what it is, and I have no problem with those who choose to see it that way as long as perspective is maintained; that there are a few rays of light peeking through a dark, ominous sky is true enough and bears mentioning as long as leadership doesn’t lose sight of the incredible damage done by the rest of the decision.

I am more concerned with what comes next. As a conservative, it is clear and obvious that Obama must be defeated in November to save an economy upon which everything else important to me and mine depends. Romney must win. But at some point Romney and the GOP leadership must articulate in closer detail how he intends to right the economic ship. Obamacare be repealed, but Romney and the GOP leadership must also articulate in the very near future what they propose to replace it with. In Obama and Obamacare, most Americans understand they bought – or had forced upon them – pigs in a poke, but this does not atomatically transfer into trust in the Romney/GOP alternatives. They (we) are loathe to purchase further unneeded and unwanted pork.

There is a basic triumvirate: Democrats (now synonymous with ‘liberal’), Republicans, and conservatives. While many Republicans are conservatives, this triumvirate is analogous to a certain line-up from history:

Germany vs. USA & Russia = Lib/Dems vs. conservatives & Republicans

The point is that while Republicans and conservatives would seem natural allies, it may run no deeper than the need to defeat the current common enemy, that whether the enemy is defeated or not, after the ‘battle’ this November the alliance will be altered. Former allies may become enemies.

At the first hint that Romney & the GOP leadership are less than eager for total repeal and replacement of Obamacare and/or show hesitancy to address badly needed entitlement reform, conservative enthusiasm cannot help but nosedive. Of course, they (we) would never vote for Obama’s reelection, but donations would slow, volunteerism would lessen, and voter turnout would certainly suffer.

Conservatives are not so naive as to believe that only Democrats would attempt to sell a pig in a poke, and if I need more assurances from Romney & the GOP about what exactly they plan to do and how they plan to do it, we can be sure the needed independents will too, and even more so.
Generic promises to repeal Obamacare and fix things aren’t enough. Obamacare 1.0 sucks, but some milquetoast GOP compromise producing the equivalent of Obamacare 0.5 is no answer.

Romney… GOP leadership… What are you going to do and how are you going to do it? I am ready to help in every way I can, but all I see from you just yet is that burlap bag you hold aloft with some unidentifiable item wriggling about inside.

    persecutor in reply to Henry Hawkins. | July 1, 2012 at 1:09 pm

    Henry, I couldn’t agree more. I may be labeled a silver lining person, but there were things in the decision that we’ve been screaming for since the sixties.Roberts got the 4 libs to repudiate the commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause has been weakened, if not totally neutered. I’d say that it’s easier to repeal a tax that’s “constitutional” than to repeal an act that’s been given the imprimatur of constitutionality.

    Now we work to fire Dear Leader, keep the House and take the Senate. And if they shows signs of weakening in resolve, we remind them of what happened in 2010. I think even McConnell is smart enough to recognize that he’s got to deliver.

      Henry Hawkins in reply to persecutor. | July 1, 2012 at 4:50 pm

      [C&P-ed here as my intended response to persecutor after accidentally posting it as a new general post. Oops]:

      The last thing I want to see is a developing rift between those who believe as the professor does and those who acknowledge some measure of good in the decision. The two positions are not mutually exclusive. I do not believe the professor would foment any such rift, but what of others? Since conservative political thought expression is ignored or misrepresented in the MSM, excepting a few schedule spots on FOX News and on Rush Radio, the last thing we need is an intramural argument on how to label or view the SC decision. It’s July. The election is in November, 128 days away. If it goes badly for us, that’s it, ballgame over.

Since the mandate is a tax, doesn’t the authorization of waivers for states (and other entities) violate the Uniformity Clause?

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States”

Would it help anyone to swallow this steaming pile of excrement stew if instead of issuing an “individual mandate” and “penalty” in a piece of legislation for not complying they simply changed the tax code to offer “deductions” to those who do buy health insurance just like they do with the home mortgage interest deduction? How is the mortgage interest treatement any different? It effectively compels people to enter into business contracts with banks to secure a primary home, often bigger than they need, with a carrot of a tax “break”. Merely renting or buying a home for cash doesn’t qualify. You must go into debt with a mortgage. How would you view your mortgage interest deduction any differently if they simply issued a “mandate” for you to enter into a mortgage contract and assess a “penalty” on those who don’t comply? Surely, you’d get out the pitchforks, tar and feathers.

Thus, we hungrily slurp up ingredients in the shit stew like the mortgage interest deduction with gusto because they put nice appetizing names on them even though it’s the exact same thing as the “individual mandate” and “penalty” in the ACA without realizing that someone, somewhere is bearing the cost and it’s quite toxic. I’ve watched people complain about Fannymae and Freddymac, and government’s machinations to make those mortgages available to even those who don’t qualify under sound business risk practices, yet I’ve not yet seen one single person ever point to the mortgage interest deduction’s culpability in over-inflating the market helping to lead to the resultant meltdown.

Deductions, rebates, subsidies, etc are all still taxes that were paid by someone, somewhere. We gobble up energy incentives, cash for clunkers, FEMA grants, etc which all are merely them telling us to buy this or that now or pay the “penalty” of more taxes. Just because the legal community and legislators fiddle with meanings of words to make these mandates they serve up in their shit stew more palatable, it doesn’t change the fact that someone is getting his/her hard work stolen from him/her by the state to pay for it. And they sprinkle these delicacies that look appetizing liberally into our shit stew to make the overall dish more easy to swallow so we heartily lick the plate clean and ask for more.

This pile-on Roberts reeks of Team Obama blaming Bush for all his own failures. Pointing fingers at one man and blame him for getting more of what we collectively keep asking for, more tax breaks which are meant to incentivize specific economic activities telling us what to buy and when to buy it while having the “other guy” pay for them. Some of us just don’t like this particular ingredient. The sad fact is that this quibbling over calling it a tax or a mandate or penalty or whatever is a red herring distractor of what we really need, a much simplified tax code, something they don’t want to address because we all enjoy our little “perks” in the current complicated one and they dare not risk the political fallout.

Remember Joe Wilson standing up in Congress and shouting, “You lie!!!”?

Call me a Robert’s apologist, if you will. I’ll remember this decision as the blast from the court heard round the world telling Obama he can shove his judicial activism comments with his concern that “an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law” up where the sun don’t shine and calling him what he is: a pathological liar.

It’s instructive to recollect that before he became the PM, Churchill spent a decade shouting from the rooftops, trying to warn those who would not listen about the gathering storm.

Not unlike those of us who see tyranny at our door, who shout warnings, trying to get anyone’s attention.

Those of us listening are so very few…

Then again, the Founders were the few in their day.

“May you live in interesting times”, indeed .

[…] Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion: Ground control to Starship Silver Lining […]

Henry Hawkins | July 1, 2012 at 4:48 pm

The last thing I want to see is a developing rift between those who believe as the professor does and those who acknowledge some measure of good in the decision. The two positions are not mutually exclusive. I do not believe the professor would foment any such rift, but what of others? Since conservative political thought expression is ignored or misrepresented in the MSM, excepting a few schedule spots on FOX News and on Rush Radio, the last thing we need is an intramural argument on how to label or view the SC decision. It’s July. The election is in November, 128 days away. If it goes badly for us, that’s it, ballgame over.

[…] project, e.g. Social Security.Progressivism is antithetical to liberty as we know it. The silver lining crew is attempting to find something good in the Thursday’s whuppin’. And you can […]

[…] disagree with Smitty, or with myself? Progressivism is antithetical to liberty as we know it. The silver liningcrew is attempting to find something good in the Thursday’s whuppin’. And you can re-fight it […]

[…] is antithetical to liberty as we know it. The silver lining crew is attempting to find something good in the Thursday’s whuppin’. And you can re-fight it […]