Image 01 Image 03

Mark Levin on Obamacare ruling

Mark Levin on Obamacare ruling

Makes many of the points I made today, including rejecting the delusion that this was a victory:


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Samuel Keck | June 28, 2012 at 9:31 pm

Mr. Levin eviscerates Justice Roberts for crabbing himself into a pretzel on his Obamacare decision … and deservedly so.

    Ragspierre in reply to Samuel Keck. | June 29, 2012 at 9:09 am

    I think that his most salient statement was that we have no law.

    Our Constitution, moribund after Wickard, was smothered with a pillow by this AMAZING, irrational act.

    When you kill off the charter of the nation, you make all law which proposed to flow from it illegitimate, by some measure and depending on the law. For some laws, like the entirety of ObamaCare, ALL of the law is illegitimate.

    One thing to remember is that we always have what killed Prohibition…civil disobedience. We are never powerless.

    We are just weeks away from knowing if we will have to revolt again, or if the ballot can pull us back from the brink.

9thDistrictNeighbor | June 28, 2012 at 9:35 pm

Mark Levin is incredibly knowledgeable and grounded in the history of the Constitution and the courts. He is so adept at making the legally complex understandable for his audience. May it grow from now until election day and beyond so that there might be some slim chance we can rescue our Constitution.

“A Republic, if you can keep it.” –B. Franklin

If it is any consolation, #ObamaTax is the hottest new Twitter hashtag. I say we take this deluxe sour lemon and make some sweet lemonade Nov. 6th. My Tea Party group is responding, as are many others across this country, to fight the largest tax increase in American history.

quiksilverz24 | June 28, 2012 at 9:52 pm

Oh come on, people… Haaaahvad said it must be so. Levin is just a lowly graduate of Temple U’s school of law. How can a school with a religious name carry any weight in a scholarly debate of social justice outcomes? Only those with elite Haaaaaaaahvad degrees have the intellectual power to comprehend the significance of a decision with this much impact on an advanced American society that must be deemed just.

    You must remember the /sarc or people won’t get it!

    TrooperJohnSmith in reply to quiksilverz24. | June 29, 2012 at 5:49 am

    Only those fortunate enough to matriculate at Haaaahvad can be taught the intricacies of the White Man’s law by a real Cherokee law professor, replete with the characteristic high-cheekbones, blonde hair and blue eyes.

    CatoRenasci in reply to quiksilverz24. | June 29, 2012 at 7:25 am

    We should have a 20 year moratorium on nominating graduates of any elite law school (T14) to the Supreme Court. And require that half the appointees not be lawyers.

    (he says as a former T14 law review editor….)

Mr. Jacobson, I am confused about something (First time poster but long time reader). I thought Article 1 Section 7 of the Constitution only allows for the House to raise revenue.

This came out of the Senate, was then voted on by the House, then signed by Obama. How can this be a constitutional tax?

    Doug Wright in reply to Baggi. | June 28, 2012 at 10:10 pm

    Dear Baggi: Light Head Harry Reid and Lord Obama II are co-equals along with the Queen of Hearts and their words are whatever they mean them to be, so there! Deny if you will at the risk of your own sanity.

    Perhaps that part of the Constitution, the one you refer to, is just a scrap of parchment compared to the mighty words spoken by Obama II.

    To say otherwise is unwise, they might come after you.

    Goodbye. so long, farewell! I’m now off to 1984land!

    memomachine in reply to Baggi. | June 28, 2012 at 10:42 pm

    What they actually did was take a pre-existing House bill, some sort of housing bill I think, gut it by removing all provisions and then having the House vote on basically a blank sheet of paper. The reason for this is that Republicans might have been able to tie up new legislation in committee but a bill that has already gone through the committee process bypasses that.

    So the House Democrats passed the empty bill, sent it to the Senate. The Senate then put Obamacare into that empty bill, voted on it. And then through the magic of “Reconciliation” the House then voted on the Senate bill (the empty House bill but now filled with that sweet sweet Senate Democrat goodness) as-is with no amendments, changes or anything.

    That is the monstrosity that is Obamacare.

OK so we had a bad week. But there is a general election coming up and we still have an opportunity to fix it. No sense whacking Roberts anymore. Let them have this one. We’ll win the bigger ones in November.

    Voluble in reply to PhillyGuy. | June 28, 2012 at 10:48 pm

    The purpose in beating up Roberts is that he has shown he is susceptible to pressure. That and the fact that he deserves it for his traitorous act.

    Is Levin right about the taxes that the federal government is able to enact? If so is there some for Roberts to be forced to determine which sort of tax the Obamacare mandate is?

    I think it will be necessary to make justices tell us how they will rule in advance of their appointment now. Anyone who will not do so will need to be disqualified. The Republic cannot survive having the DC cocktail circuit continue to determine what our law will be. And make no bones about it… Roberts succumbed to something as mundane and ridiculous as social pressure. He wants to look good to his peers mores than he wants to protect our essential liberties and that makes him a traitor moreso than even the liberal justices on the court who are at least ruling based on the end results they want to see for the country if not the law itself.

      PhillyGuy in reply to Voluble. | June 28, 2012 at 11:19 pm

      My point was that we have a shot at winning this thing in November and perhaps this will be the opportunity we needed. Focus on Roberts if you want. I think that’s silly. I’d rather sweep the WH and Congress and repeal Obamacare. This is our last chance.

        lightning in reply to PhillyGuy. | June 28, 2012 at 11:34 pm

        If Obamacare were the worst thing about today’s decision, I might not be so angry. Unfortunately, it isn’t just about Obamacare and repealing it in November. Roberts classification of this as a “tax” is now law. He joined the 4 dissenting conservatives in limiting the commerce clause. Just as many have claimed the narrowing of the commerce clause is precedent, so isn’t Roberts classification of a congressional “mandate”, “penalty”, or whatever else it may be called. Power hungry idiots from both sides can now control your behavior by implimenting a tax. Given the past few congresses (from Bush 2 until now) how many have really been freedom loving, fiscally responsible constitutionalists? We can all hope this “tax”isn’t used in the fashion I’ve mentioned, but as a wise man once said, “The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior”.

          PhillyGuy in reply to lightning. | June 28, 2012 at 11:44 pm

          I understand you’re angry. Roberts broadened the taxing power of Congress. I get that. I just want to win this election and flip this result.

        Voluble in reply to PhillyGuy. | June 29, 2012 at 4:33 am

        I can multitask.

        But you should not assume Romney is the answer. I think he staves off the national bankruptcy by about 5 years if we are lucky.

        But he can’t be trusted. In that regard he is like Roberts… part of the Republican establishment that needs to be cauterized from the wound.

        I doubt what Roberts and Obama have conspired to do to us can or will be undone by the likes of Willard. But hell, Palin just wasn’t good enough because her accent was funny or she went to the wrong schools. All the sort of social pressure BS that Roberts thought was important.

        How did that work out for us?

    ThomasD in reply to PhillyGuy. | June 29, 2012 at 9:52 am

    Bad week? Maybe you wish, but open your eyes.

    The effects of this ruling will last far into the future. SCOTUS has just given Congress the ability to use taxation as a means of enforcing specified behaviors. While roberts talked about the tax being small and ‘non-punitive’ he did not clarify any actual limits on what would pass muster.

    So the door is wide open. And even if each tax is kept small, there is nothing to say that the net effect will not be penurious. But don’t be so foolish as to think ‘anti-tax’ sentiments will gum up the political process. Like everything else, they’ll start with unpopular issues, and then begin to play everyone off against each other, and once on the books they’ll stay on the books. The problem will only grow.

    So, what you have is a system whereby the poor don’t pay, and the rich can choose to view them as nuisance (much as they view the nuisance of having to go out and buy the occasional politician via campaign contributions.)

    Leaving the middle class caught in the crosshairs of all those little taxes. Congress can now literally nickel and dime you until they have eaten out your substance. Either that, or your entire life will be spent dancing to their merry jig. Some liberty.

    Look back at what people said about FDR and the New Deal. wise people knew then what we would be facing in the future, and that future is now. So it doesn’t take a genius to see where this is rapidly heading.

      ThomasD in reply to ThomasD. | June 29, 2012 at 10:01 am

      Let me just add this.

      People are crowing about how yesterdays ruling led to Romney gaining over three millions dollars in campaign contributions yesterday. As if that is a good thing.

      No, it is not.

      It is not because that is three million dollars that did not stay with the people who earned it.

      It is not because that is three million dollars that will never be privately invested in productive industry.

      It is not because that is three million dollars that will flow directly to the slimy types who infest our politics. The type of people who are so enamored with this kind of SCOTUS decision.

      And why wouldn’t they be, it got you to give them three million dollars.

      We lost yesterday, and too many people cannot see just how much we lost.

      The ‘progressives’ whinge about ‘getting money out of politics’ yet are joyous over this ruling. Totally failing to see that this ruling only amps up the money machine.

      Don’t be as blind as them.

        Henry Hawkins in reply to ThomasD. | June 29, 2012 at 11:41 am

        “It is not because that is three million dollars that will never be privately invested in productive industry.”

        Um, what is it you think the Romney campaign does with donations, bury it in a field in Massachusetts?

        Will any of it go to pay campaign employees? If so, do you think they too bury it in a field somewhere?

        Will any of it go to advertising companies, those who create the campaigns ads and videos? Shall they too bury it? And are they not a ‘productive industry’?

        Money donated to campaigns is not removed from the economy. It comes freely from one sector of the economy and is spent freely in another sector of the same economy in a bizarre, arcane practice called ‘capitalism’.

          ThomasD in reply to Henry Hawkins. | June 29, 2012 at 4:40 pm

          Um, what is it you think the Romney campaign does with donations, bury it in a field in Massachusetts?

          Um, I already told you what will happen with the money – it will go to pay the people running his campaign, it will go to the people who own the MSM for broadcasting his adds, aka the slimy types who infest our politics.

          And yes, perhaps those who profit from this growth of the political battlefield (we used to call these types profiteers) may invest some of it, but it is they who will reap the rewards of those investments if at all.

          Certainly not those who originally earned it.

          Money donated to campaigns is not removed from the economy. It comes freely from one sector of the economy and is spent freely in another sector of the same economy in a bizarre, arcane practice called ‘capitalism’.

          The political “sector” of the economy is a black hole of non-productivity. Particularly when you consider the evidence of their abject failure to defend – much less advance – our liberty over the last 100 years.

          Rulings like yesterdays only aggrandize that “sector,” and do so at the expense of us all.

          Capitalism is a word and concept invented by Karl Marx. I tend to think in terms of free markets something this ruling does a grave harm.

          Where does it all end? If those that have are, by continued government usurpation of private liberty, perpetually forced to deliver more of their wealth to the political arena we will eventually reach a point when the dominant economic force in society is the political arena.

          Socialism, fascism, communism, serfdom, call it what you will, but rather than celebrate a ‘better’ funded candidate, you might want to recognize the path we are on.

Mark Levin for the Supreme Court!

“Until further notice Obamacare is the law of the land.
This is now, and today we should have been rid of this monstrosity.”

Obama care was law of the land yesterday and tomorrow and certain aspects of Obamacare would probably have moved forward in certain circumstances. (if the mandate was struck down but the law was upheld)
This is not now, the SCOTUS decision is in the past and framing the narrative in past tense “should” while calling anyone who is looking for a way forward delusional as we work through this monstrosity is disingenuous.

I don’t even need to listen to Mark Levin because I already know what he’ll be whining about… that our government just took a dramatic shift and we can now be “taxed” for not doing or buying something.. anything.

So tomorrow Congress starts passing legislation with IRS check boxes everywhere, for everything WITH an associated penalty tax.

I think the health and safety of every American requires that every American own a firearm.

If they don’t prove ownership of a firearm, they should be taxed $1,000. After all, they’re placing a burden on those of us who own guns, as well as the legal system, since they are more easily victimized by criminals.

The above is constitutional now, yes?

Heck, it’s time to implement a $100,000.00 per abortion tax, as well, the proceeds of which can fund a newly revamped orphanage/foster system. Sounds plenty constitutional to me.

In fact, I can’t think of ANYTHING that is unconstitutional anymore.

    OcTEApi in reply to SeanInLI. | June 28, 2012 at 11:08 pm

    You are engaging in extreme rationalizations and rhetoric.

    I can believe anyone is in approval of this garbage.

    Grow Up.

      ThomasD in reply to OcTEApi. | June 29, 2012 at 11:20 am

      Assuming the worst about Congress has probably been the safest bet in the history of the Republic.

      But, by all means, go on calling others delusional.

I just listened to a two hour telephone townhall with my congressman taking reactions to the ruling. He conducted a few polling questions and though not scientific opposition to the expansion of the power to tax was 75%. From what I gathered my congressman was sponsoring legislation to repeal the tax and effectively eliminate the mandate. It would ask for a vote whether congress should have the power to tax inactivity. There may be 50 votes in the Senate given that the election is coming like a freight train. I seriously doubt Harry Reid will allow a vote in the Senate though.

I see Sarah Palin on Gretawire now calling for Congress to rescind the tax so it looks like she’s going to get her wish on that vote.

Chris Matthews said something today about knowing Roberts and his wife socially, which seems to be all we needed to know. Unfortunately, since Robert Bork, picking a strong Constitutionalist is considered too controversial. Each Bush has suffered having a stealth candidate who has turned on them and the Constitution.

There is one way to deal a blow to both high health care costs and an ABA which doesn’t consider a candidate “qualified” unless they believe in the supremacy of lawyers. The House should be seeking tort reform. Frivolous lawsuits are what gave John Edwards the freedom to complain about poverty while making millions. The irony is that every country with socialized medicine does it and somehow the legal profession thinks they will be spared.

    1. Being no fan of the Bush family, I would have phrased your sentence differently:

    Each Bush has suffered having chosen a stealth candidate who has turned on them us and the Constitution.

    2. The ‘Blogs I Read’ feature in the right LI column was linking to Allahpundit’s riff on Glenn Beck:

    …you won’t win back righties who’ve suffered one too many sellouts.

In the big picture, our nation is really so divided now that I really don’t think we should be one nation anymore.

There are those (largely on the left) that believe that our Constitution only prevents the federal government from doing something if the prohibition is explicitly stated in the constitution. E.g., if the constitution doesn’t say I can’t marry my cat, then it’s constitutional.

Then there are those who think that the Tenth Amendment (The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.) restricts the federal government from doing pretty much anything not outlined specifically in the Constitution, and that states should be doing the lion’s share of the governing in our nation.

We are at completely different ends of the socio-political spectrum, and we do not belong in the same nation. The constitution means either one or the other of those things, not both. You can’t have both interpretations in one nation and expect to get along peacefully forever.

Time to end this “union” peaceably and amicably, and go our separate ways.

    stevewhitemd in reply to SeanInLI. | June 28, 2012 at 11:00 pm

    We’re not like the Czechs and Slovaks. We don’t have the geography and simple ethnicity to divide like a paramecium.

      SeanInLI in reply to stevewhitemd. | June 29, 2012 at 1:50 am

      One could easily say the same for the U.S. and Canada. West of the Great Lakes, there’s no reason to have a border. Yet we do.

      There are more than enough natural boundaries like rivers and mountain ranges that separate states, and groups of socially and culturally homogenous states would have no huge trouble regrouping into smaller sub-unions. The big trouble could be the midwest, but even then, borders aren’t going to be a huge problem between, say, Kansas and Nebrasks.

      It’s the borders between the middle states and the coasts that would have to be protected. Luckily, we have the Rockies to the West, and the Appalachians to the East. They should do the job just fine.

        stevewhitemd in reply to SeanInLI. | June 29, 2012 at 12:45 pm

        Forgive me but I don’t think that’s possible.

        We don’t have red states and blue states. We have red regions and blue cities. And a LOT of purple regions and cities. Separating ourselves into meaningful discrete nations would be next to impossible. The loss of wealth, the inconvenience, the tragedy would be enormous.

        Forcing us to do it would lead to a ‘partition’ much like the Partition of the British Raj into India and Pakistan. You might take a look at what happened next.

    OcTEApi in reply to SeanInLI. | June 28, 2012 at 11:12 pm

    Marriage is a religious institution and a civil social contract… its got nothing to do with the Constitution.

    Divide the nation, no that’s not an extremist concept at all.

    What planet did you come from?

    You’re correct, Sean. The fuse is there, we just don’t know how long the fuse is before the dynamite blows. The irony is, we on the right – and the supposed “middle” – can live without the left, but the left cannot push for and fund their social-economic progressive utopia without the revenues the earners the right and the “middle” provide. In other words, we have to demonstrate to them that remaining within our midst is NOT in their short or long term interest if an “amicable” is to occur.

      There should be the word ‘separation’ after ‘amicable’.

      SeanInLI in reply to McCoy2k. | June 29, 2012 at 1:40 am

      The left is convinced that the blue states, by virtue of their liberalism, are economically superior. The only thing that would prevent a separation is that the left would never want ugly conservative grunts out from under their control.

    BannedbytheGuardian in reply to SeanInLI. | June 29, 2012 at 1:33 am

    It has been a Russian position for sometime that the US would fall in 2010.

    In reality it has been very shakey financially for a while but they saw something else.

    Don’t shoot -I am just the messenger !

      I remember reading that analysis when it came out, however, I highly doubt the idea that any part of the U.S., if we dissolved, would come under the control/influence of any other nations. Even if you broke us up into 5 smaller nations, each one would be more powerful than any other nations around anyway.

      Could you imagine Mexico conquering Texas? LOL.

        BannedbytheGuardian in reply to SeanInLI. | June 29, 2012 at 3:06 am

        No i did not say -nor did the theory -that any part of the USawould be nder a control of another nation. They would be strong enough by themselves.

        NE South Central & West & Detroit = 5 . I strongly suspect the Russians took a look at Detroit circa 07 & surely anyone seeing those pics would have doubts about the US.

        Virginia to split into Nth & Sth.

AzWetBlanket | June 28, 2012 at 11:17 pm

Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t a “tax” have to be voted on by the House? I mean, otherwise it’s taxation without representation, no? Since the “fine/fee” is now a “tax” doesn’t that require House support? Just askin’….

Re: What Happened Today

Good Luck or Bad Luck? (a Zen koan)

Once upon the time there was an old farmer who had worked his crops for many years. One day his horse ran away. Upon hearing the news, his neighbors came to visit. “Such bad luck,” they said sympathetically.

“Perhaps,” the farmer replied.

The next morning the horse returned, bringing with it three other wild horses. “What great luck!” the neighbors exclaimed.

“Perhaps,” replied the old man.

The following day, his son tried to ride one of the untamed horses, was thrown, and broke his leg. The neighbors again came to offer their sympathy on his misfortune.

“Perhaps,” answered the farmer.

The day after, military officials came to the village to draft young men into the army. Seeing that the son’s leg was broken, they passed him by. The neighbors congratulated the farmer on how well things had turned out.

“Perhaps,” said the farmer…

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

    BannedbytheGuardian in reply to SqueekyFromm. | June 29, 2012 at 3:11 am

    But also if he fell from an untamed horse the break would be complex. My bet he would have died from infection.

    Sorry to be a wet blanket but these stories just ameliorate. People are angry .

One thing that has struck me from reading the opinion is the statement that the constitution, as it stands, permits a tax on simply existing.

It strikes me that that needs to be changed.

I can be pissed off at Roberts and still fight to repeal Obamacare. Those two thoughts are not mutually exclusive. In fact my anger at Roberts helps fuel my motivation for the latter (especially with a guy at the helm who, charitably, is less truth worthy than Roberts). What it means is I can trust these idiots only as far as their last vote. And if they disappoint they need to be called on it and called on it immediately.

They are like training dogs. The only difference is I like my dog. I do not like any of these bozos.

The guy at the helm of our election effort is of course Romney. We need to elect him and we absolutely cannot trust him.

    PhillyGuy in reply to EBL. | June 29, 2012 at 6:20 am

    OMG. At least with Mitt, we have a chance. The tone and tenor here is just awful.

His opinion seems to say, “Of course the government can’t make you buy broccoli, but it can ‘tax’ you for not buying it.”

OLD AND BUSTED: Unlimited Congressional authority under the Commerce Clause

NEW HOTNESS: Unlimited Congressional authority under the Taxing power.

Far from “limit” Congress in any way, I’d suggest this creates a whole new frontier for unlimited powers.

I think Chief Justice Roberts has turned irretrievably to the dark side. At least he will have the adulation of the New York Times.

A dark day.

My prediction:

It’s over – – – – – finished. No matter whom wins the presidency or the new senate make-up, ObamaCare aka ObamaTax is here to stay. No repeal will ever happen. Bank on it. Any bet takers out there? Just being a realist – and not delusional.

TeaPartyPatriot4ever | June 29, 2012 at 2:10 am

This ruling by Chief Justice Roberts and the US Supreme Court now says that the US Federal govt has total and complete authority, rule, power, and control over the American Individual person’s sovereignty, aka “We the People”.
The US Supreme Court on 28 June 2012, has established itself as nothing more than a rubber stamp for the Federal govt’s will over the will of the American People. Govt tyranny and oppression now reins supreme over America thanks to the US Supreme Court. Thus what the US Supreme Court has done is put the final stake in the heart of America as we know it for the past 236 years.

As a Tea Party Reagan Conservative, I absolutely disdain Mitt Romney, as he is a Mass Progressive Republicrat RINO, whose hypocrisy, cronyism, and lies, and in particular his creation of Romneycare, the precursor of Obamacare for which he refuses to refute and repeal in Mass, is second only to Obama.

But with that being said, and with great pain as a true Reagan Tea Party Conservative I must say that unfortunately Romney is now our only option as President, at this point in time.

The US Congress come this Nov. is a different situation, as we will fill those seats with as many Reagan Tea Party Conservatives as possible, to replace all the liberal progressives, thus force Romney’s hand to govern as conservatively as possible.

I disagree with Mr. Levin on one point. At the end of tghe clip, he says he doesn’t think Roberts understands the tax clause in the Constitution, because his discussion of it is so incoherent.

I think he understands it just fine, but if he had discussed it in a logical way that showed his understanding, he would have been unable to obtain the result he wanted. So he wrote up whatever BS came to mind, instead.

It’s time to start treating members of the supreme court and congress with ridicule and contempt, just the way they treat us.

As much as I hate this bill and want it gone above all else, everyone is missing the obvious here…

This is the correct decision based off history.

Why? Unemployment Insurance.

When you have a job, your (assumed) inactivity in protecting yourself against possible loss of said job was grounds for the Government to force you to purchase Insurance in case you ever became in need. How do they do this? They force upon you an Unemployment Tax.

Similarly, both Social Security and Medicare are on the book as taxes which work as insurance as well – with both being purchased at a time of your personal inactivity in their specific protected field.

The only difference here is that, surprisingly, we were all spared from paying directly into this ObamaTax monstrosity if we hold our own insurance.

In the end, basically this is like SS if you could avoid the SSTax (and similarly, not collect on it) by having a private 401K.

Its bad policy, its unconstitutional under commerce (which was thankfully ruled properly) and it will crush both the economy and heath system… but it is a proper taxable situation based off things we have allowed prior.

Now lets make sure we take the Senate and put Romney in the big chair – THAT was our only shot at getting this thing gone in the first place, and now he will be forced to repeal it (before I was afraid he would just “fix” it to his personal liking, but now he will not be able to get away with anything less then full repeal)

    AzWetBlanket in reply to Darkstar58. | June 29, 2012 at 4:31 am

    I’m still begging for someone to tell me I’m wrong but the SCOTUS is legally incapable of exacting a “tax” no? By redefining this bill as a “tax” (as opposed to the original representation as a fee/fine) doesn’t this become something that is tossed back to the House for a vote by the people’s representatives? What am I missing here???

      Henry Hawkins in reply to AzWetBlanket. | June 29, 2012 at 12:03 pm

      SCOTUS didn’t exact a tax so much as certify that the mandate is a tax, something everyone and his uncle knew all along, aside from the Obamacare supporters and promoters who needed it to be a penalty to make it passable. Obamacare originated in the House, was shelled by the Senate, passed both houses, andwas signed into law by the president. No SCOTUS in the process, beyond settling a lawsuit by, in part, certifying the mandate as a tax, not a penalty. It was a tax all along – Democrat rhetoric and dissembling about ‘penalty’ notwithstanding.

      Whether a tax or a penalty or a fee, the money still comes out of our collective pockets just the same. However, by setting the law to identify it as a tax, the vector for getting rid of Obamacare is altered, made simpler, if not easier.

      So, it’s a tax unless and until some future decision on inevitable new lawsuits says different. As a tax, it falls under the control of the House, which can amend it, repeal it, etc., and this does toss it back to the people – via their representatives in congress – for addressment. The conservative goal is to elect those necessary to repeal it, while liberals endeavor to elect those necessary to protect it.

      This makes it imperative for conservatives that we maintain the House majority, win a Senate majority, and win the White House.

      As for doubts about Romney’s newly found conservatism and will to follow through, doubts I share, if he fails to do as he has so often promised – act to repeal Obamacare – his will be a one-term presidency, just as Bush I’s ‘read my lips, no new taxes’ failure ended his administration. Such a failure by Romney, leading to his one-term ouster, would also set back the GOP for many many cycles, if not destroy the party. The GOP establishment surely knows this. (At least I HOPE they know this).

BannedbytheGuardian | June 29, 2012 at 3:36 am

Darkstar. You have an excellent set of points.

Last week I posted in a related thread that the court could find something no one had thought of based on a recent High Court decision here . That they would see an accepted practice / terminology in a completely new light. In this case Roberts ‘ deciding vote.

I ended with “You just never know”.

The bigger problem is the life term for these judges. Today someone can get in on the coattails of the youthful politician/ jurist in their 40s as against the 18th century patrician ideal & be there for 45 years due to todays lifespan.. This is like The Madness of King George who was clearly off his rocker . Can anyone see the bitter irony?

Posters won’t like it but take a tip from us. Compulsory retirement at 75. There is always a un lecture circuit that gives the opporunity to explain all your rulings.

Of course in a Monarhy we can always chop their heads off if they go beserk.

BannedbytheGuardian | June 29, 2012 at 3:59 am

Also posters ought realise the nature of medicine is changing. Close ties with a preferred doctor Etc is fading.. Volume technology & speed will rule ..

Whether by public or private, healthcare will be unrecognisable in 10 years. Think what a smart phone is beginning to deliver & multiply. You may never need to be face to face with a doc ever.

Healthcare is just another service.

You are SO pompous and condescending.

You post an awful lot here–in some cases, a response to almost every post. Don’t you have something better to do, especially since you seem to despise us?

Are you a even a real person? Or an Obama-sponsored “fake person by committee?”

    CalMark in reply to CalMark. | June 29, 2012 at 5:06 am

    Previous post was addressed to BannedbytheGuardian, who is either a concern troll or a fake person.

    BannedbytheGuardian in reply to CalMark. | June 29, 2012 at 6:56 am

    I choose my topics . You guys need all the help you can get -just look how wrong you were on this .

    Despise -not at all . Lots of fun mostly though you seem more stupid than the usual here.

Mark Percich | June 29, 2012 at 5:25 am

John Roberts and George Will are Vichy Conservatives. While they may have the right views, they are so afraid of the establishment that they are content to lose well in a good cause. Forget both, they are not worth our time. Get the Presidency, get the senate, and increase our lead in the house and send Obamacare to the ash-heap of history.

Roberts rightly rejected that the mandate was a function to regulate non-activity through the commerce clause and supported Tenth Amendment States Rights….

To believe that Roberts created a new tax weapon that would survive the democratic process and be used upon the American people in untold new ways is disingenuous.

It shows lack of faith in the American people and I find that quite a disgusting display.. as evident by these Talking Heads and supported by radical commentary in these forums.

Obamacare will not survive because of some mythical new tax weapon… it will rightly so die through the democratic process and simply because its bad law.
Same as it ever was

Professor: Check out the take; Chief Justice Done Good , by Dov Fischer on American Thinker. Makes sense to me. The dems may be caught in their own tarbaby.

When it’s all said and done…remember this simple fact. CONGRESS HAS NEVER REPEALED A TAX. EVER.

TrooperJohnSmith | June 29, 2012 at 6:26 am

I think this was the judicial equivalent of giving everyone a trophy. No, the Judicial branch cannot enact a tax, but Roberts wanted to make up for Bush v. Gore and not rustle the jimmies of the easily butt-hurt Left, so… he just… you know, fudged it or maybe even nudged it from penalty to tax. Now, good feeeeeeeeeeelings from those decrying the evils of the SCOTUS.

Let’s all have a big old group hug and proclaim the second-coming of Earl Warren!

(Not even sure if the /sarcasm tag applies.)

I keep thinking that I will wake up and this will just be another Obama nightmare.
This is not a gift to Conservatives by any stretch. This is a gift to Obama and socialists who want to bring this Country down.

    OcTEApi in reply to Towson Lawyer. | June 29, 2012 at 8:47 am

    Since when is upholding conservative beliefs, principles and values dependent on subsidy (gift) of government entity?

    This is misplaced blame as an excuse not to charge the hill.

    Now lean forward and choke yourself!

Sanita Jackson on FOX said the ruling shows medical care is now a right.

Mark is what got me to LI.

He puts his radio show as an MP3 download —FREE— at
…archived back something like 4 years

The first 30 Minutes of his October 6 2011 was the Sara Palin “I’m not going to run for President” but more importantly what she WAS planning to do with respect to a large shift towards constitutional & smaller government congress.

* Has anyone found the Scalia Oral dissent as an MP3 download?

My personal notes on the SC decision is a lesson I already had in hand at the start of the 2012 Primary season – Principle not Personality. If I drew something ..positive… from the decision

……Don’t elect puke time after time if you want elegance or principle, don’t put your eggs in a handful of people….