Image 01 Image 03

Stop the self-delusion

Stop the self-delusion

Some well-meaning people are peddling the notion that today’s Obamacare decision was a long term victory, that we lost the battle but won the war, that there was some master plan by Chief Justice Roberts to gut the expansion of Commerce Clause power under the fig leaf of a majority ruling upholding the mandate under Congress’s taxing power.

To paraphrase Joe Biden, I have just four words for you:


If this were some other more narrow law, if this was not a monumental takeover of the most private aspects of our lives, if this monstrosity would not cause such long term damage to our health care system, if this law was not Obamacare ….

I might be inclined to agree with you.

But it is Obamacare, it is the takeover of a substantial portion of our economy which empowers the federal government to write tens of thousands of pages of regulations telling us how to live and how to die.

This was the hill to fight on for any conservative Justice of the Supreme Court.

Yet because the conservative Chief Justice sided with the liberal Justices on the result, we have Obamacare.

Whether the Chief Justice did it out of good faith belief in the correctness of his opinion (which is what I believe) or as part of some master plan (the theory some are peddling), the result is the same:  Until further notice Obamacare is the law of the land.

Sure, we now are motivated for November.  And maybe in the end we will get rid of Obamacare.

But that is then and this is now.  And under any reasonable theory of conservative judicial restraint, the Chief Justice should have allowed Obamacare to fall of its own weight, of a weight born of a political process in which the mandate could not be called a tax because the nation would not have stood for it.

This is now, and today we should have been rid of this monstrosity.

We live to fight another day, but don’t tell me we won because someday possibly in the future in some other case with some other set of Justices we maybe might achieve some doctrinal benefit from the Commerce Clause ruling.

So please don’t delude yourselves.  Today was a bitter loss because it was one we should have won.

Related: Supreme judicial activism in restraint’s clothing and How right I was: “IRS The New Health Care Enforcer”


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


It ain’t over until the fat lady sings.

    Joan Of Argghh in reply to myiq2xu. | June 28, 2012 at 7:19 pm

    What did George Bush know about Roberts that we obviously didn’t?

    One-Worldere: it’s their world, and maybe they’ll let you live in it.

      It appears to me that Chief Justice Roberts was more interested in preserving his legacy than in defending the Constitution. By turning to the tax argument, an argument that the Obama administration only made as a “Hail Mary” before the Court, Roberts was simply looking for an excuse to get the result he wanted to preserve what he perceived as his legacy as a powerful, independent jurist who was not beholden to conservative judicial philosophy.

      “While we may wait decades to know for certain, it does seem plausible that Roberts may have been partly triggered by a desire to prevent the court from being seen as overtly political.”

      Of course, the politically correct decision was to uphold Obamacare. The constitutional decision was to declare the mandate unconstitutional.

      Romney’s campaign website declares, “As president, Mitt will nominate judges in the mold of Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito.”

      I hope that Mitt won’t pick another justice like Roberts as conservatives can’t afford it. Can we trust Mitt on judicial appointments?

      Roberts certainly fooled Karl Rove and G.W. Bush.

        Donald Douglas in reply to JonB. | June 28, 2012 at 7:53 pm

        Right. Politically correct.

        I think Roberts caved to political pressure, although he still comes out as savvy in attempting to save the institution of the Court itself. See: “Melissa Harris-Perry, MSNBC Host and Tulane University Professor, Claims ObamaCare Insurance Mandate ‘Just Like Buying Groceries'”.

        Kenshu Ani in reply to JonB. | June 28, 2012 at 7:57 pm

        I don’t know. George Bush and Karl Rove seem like big government types to me. They both wanted to expand the role of the federal government (patriot act, Homeland Security, TSA), they just didn’t want to go as far with it as the Democrats.

        Which seems just like what Roberts did today. Expanded the role of the government (through taxation), but not as much as the leftist justices wanted (with commerce clause).

        Maybe Roberts didn’t fool them at all.

        SukieTawdry in reply to JonB. | June 28, 2012 at 9:01 pm

        I think this argument so many people make that the Count is too “political” is nonsense. The Court’s not divided politically. The division is ideological: There are the Justices who look to and are guided by original intent; the Justices who have decided the Constitution is a living, breathing document, the collective is the greater good, the biggest flaw in the Constitution is it’s lack of “positive” rights and concern themselves with issues of “fairness” and “empathy”; one Justice not easily categorized because he seemingly can go either way (props to Justice Kennedy today); and one who after today is anybody’s guess.

        In any event, this intrusion into our private lives and private business and the biggest expansion of government power in our history is rather a large price to expect us to pay so that Chief Justice Roberts can tamp down accusations of politicization.

        Joan Of Argghh in reply to JonB. | June 28, 2012 at 9:51 pm

        Roberts didn’t fool either of them. They all are.

      Joan Of Argghh in reply to Joan Of Argghh. | June 28, 2012 at 7:41 pm

      Gah. Can’t edit. That should be “One-Worlders.” The point being, we can’t know just how much we’re being manipulated by the ones with the power. Bush never found his veto pen when it mattered.

      Bush is and was a liberal. Don’t kid yourself

      Enolagay in reply to Joan Of Argghh. | June 28, 2012 at 10:13 pm

      Ann Coulter in 2005 (before she became a progressive) wrote “fool me eight times, shame on me” warning that Roberts would be like Souter. (It’s archived at frontpagemag). Also, Lawrence Auster wrote a lot of warnings back then.

    punfundit in reply to myiq2xu. | June 28, 2012 at 8:54 pm

    Leave Hillary out of this.

“The power to tax is the power to destroy.”

Roberts not only betrayed the nation, he gave Congress and the D.C. elites the authority to destroy whatever they like. Welcome to tyranny.

Bitter doesn’t begin to describe it.

P.S. How come only conservatives suffer forever from such horrifying defeats? Leftist defeats are only temporary setbacks. Yet conservatives–the largest political group in the country–are still fighting off defeats suffered 70+ years ago.

    mathewsjw in reply to CalMark. | June 28, 2012 at 7:26 pm

    Because every “conservative” victory is an affirmation of the original intent of the Constitution, while every “socialist”/”Liberal” victory is a overturn of individual rights for the “greater good” in the name of the “common good” of the Constitution.

    Time 2 Amend the Constitution with short, plainly worded, one paragraphs like:

    Federal and Congress Shall make No Law to generate taxes.

    Commerce Clause to be replaced with Congress Shall make No Law to regulate Commerce except with Foreign nations and Indian tribes.

      Phillep Harding in reply to mathewsjw. | June 28, 2012 at 9:33 pm

      “Regulate” once meant “to help operate smoothly”, or to work to increase. Today, “regulate” means “to prohibit or restrict”. Total reverse.

This was as much a defining moment in the history of the United States as the Revolution itself was. Federalism was knifed squarely in the back and muttered “Et tu, Brute?” as it shriveled on the floor of the court.

BUT – There is still another challenge to this law. The Catholic Bishops have been working to file against this law on the basis it violates the freedom of religion:

The fight is not going away and actually will become more vociferous since the ruling today. Obama and the Democrats have really no idea what they have gotten themselves into with their war on religion as perpetrated through this law.

    Karen Sacandy in reply to iambasic. | June 28, 2012 at 7:50 pm

    The religious set piously sought government medical care, proclaiming how the poor people must be helped, never giving a care in the world to what extent government would extend its control into every day life to accomplish it.

    The religious set got what they wanted. Let them twist in the wind.

    The religious set never wondered whether it was moral to point guns at one group to make them pay for another group. Craven immorality by the pious, righteous S.O.B.s.

      HarrietHT in reply to Karen Sacandy. | June 28, 2012 at 8:02 pm

      I take umbrage at your venomous attacks on “religion.” It is certainly true that the CATHOLIC church has humiliated itself in advancing various aspects of the progressive cause, but it is not true of religionists across the board. I am NO fan of the Catholic church. But even they recognize that the First Amendment is at risk of being submerged in the race to make of America a secular/progressive state, shorn of ALL reference to NATURAL RIGHTS.

      It is the secular humanists and postmodernists who have foisted on us a governmental paradigm that will NOT tolerate dissent, who will NOT respect our First Amendment Rights.

        CalMark in reply to HarrietHT. | June 28, 2012 at 8:18 pm

        As a Catholic, I have long despised the Catholic bishops for their socialism. They routinely get into bed with the Democrats, as they did on Obamacare. They offered ZERO resistance.

        The bishops figured they could convince their buddies, the Democrats, to waive the abortion/contraception requirements later. Didn’t work out.

      Phillep Harding in reply to Karen Sacandy. | June 28, 2012 at 9:39 pm

      That’s a “whole house” size paint brush you are swinging, there. About all you can say religious groups really have in common is that they are belief systems. Can’t even say that they have in common that they each think they are the only way. Can say they tend to argue a lot about silly stuff, though.

      I will say that some religious groups were really dumb (Catholics in particular), but if you regard Marxism and the various similar belief systems as “religeons” (as I do), then some religious groups scored a stupendous victory.

Clayton Cramer quotes Chief Justice Roberts, “Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”

Other courts have been far bolder.

We must fast, pray, contribute, canvass and vote to rid ourselves of the progressive yoke.

The United States Constitution

Section 7 – Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Well, that one is out the window..

    Jim in reply to JP. | June 28, 2012 at 7:09 pm

    Along with the rest of the Constitution. We now live in a nation under the rules of men and not laws. John Roberts decided to save the reputation of the supreme court at the cost of our nation.

      OcTEApi in reply to Jim. | June 28, 2012 at 9:19 pm

      So its your belief that Americans and their house of representatives who hold the power of the purse just took a dramatic shift to the left?

      Its delusional to believe congress would start passing MORE laws that penalty/tax people in efforts of social engineering.

      Americans would simply not stand for it.

        Phillep Harding in reply to OcTEApi. | June 28, 2012 at 9:57 pm

        The American people have put up with a lot, and even agreed to some pretty drastic changes, starting with allowing Lincoln to pull a coup and destroy the independence of all the states, North and South, creating one nation out of many independent nations. Then the socialist experiments that led to the Depression, and allowing FDR to rule the US until his death (the true end of the depression, IMO), right on through so many other things until we are now actually living under a slightly benevolent tyranny. Or, perhaps, we are just used to our chains.

        If the fedgov takes control of the internet, we are really in trouble.

          You’re probably right, the 2010 election was an aberration and this one SCOTUS ruling means the pendulum has stopped and is now shifting to the left, Americans and their relationship to government is radically changed.

          Get real

        Jim in reply to OcTEApi. | June 28, 2012 at 11:52 pm

        No, because of a perfect storm, the leftists/Marxists (yes, I’ll call Harry and Nancy Marxists) were able to jam a law the people don’t want into being.

        But what Robers has done is give the impremature of legitimacy to that kind of “social engineering by tax.”

        As a result, the federal gov’ment is now not constrained by anything other than a majority. If, next year, the government wanted to force everyone to own a gun, all they’d do is say, well, if you don’t own one, we’ll have to tax you $10,000/year. you dont have to own one, but it’ll cost you.

        Think about it.

          OcTEApi in reply to Jim. | June 29, 2012 at 3:51 am

          I don’t need to think about your extreme rationalizations, you migh try running it by Browndog who believes Obama’s EO on National Defenses Resources Preparedness means we’re on our way to Martial Law police state.

No good will come from this and, in fact, major harm is likely.

Justice Roberts wrote his legacy in this ruling.

No delusion here. This really stinks. We can now be “taxed” for not doing or buying something.. anything.

Too bad the chief justice didn’t define tax.

    iambasic in reply to ez. | June 28, 2012 at 7:16 pm

    He didn’t define the tax because as it is considered a tax it is a tax which is not actually allowed. Mark Levin explains it here:

      herm2416 in reply to iambasic. | June 28, 2012 at 9:09 pm

      What I truly don’t understand: if one doesn’t purchase insurance, one faces a “penalty”. How can one be given a penalty which is now called a tax? Taxes are to produce revenue ONLY, a penalty is a punishment, not a tax. How is it that we are now punished by our government for not participating in what should be voluntary commerce?

Given I feel like the Gimp in Pulp Fiction today, I am inclined to agree with you on this.

Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion is pretzel logic at best. no mandate, however Congress may achieve same through taxation??
It’s time for a narrow Constitutional Amendment to Repeal #1 Taxation Power of Federal & Congress, #2 Commerce Clause (or severely limit same)

    iambasic in reply to mathewsjw. | June 28, 2012 at 7:18 pm

    An amendment Or a Constitutional Convention are really the only answers to this.

      Flyover Conservative in reply to iambasic. | June 28, 2012 at 7:38 pm

      Just repeal the Seventeenth Amendment. Once Senators are again elected by state legislatures then the century long progressive assault on state sovereignty and individual rights be reversed. Restore the constitutional structure that would have stopped this in the first place.

        Karen Sacandy in reply to Flyover Conservative. | June 28, 2012 at 7:52 pm

        You are absolutely correct. Direct election of senators is pernicious.

          BannedbytheGuardian in reply to Karen Sacandy. | June 28, 2012 at 10:41 pm

          Then you have a House of Lords.

          Flyover Conservative in reply to Karen Sacandy. | June 28, 2012 at 11:29 pm

          Um, no you don’t. You really should do your homework before posting. Appointing someone to the House of Lords is far different than a legislative body (who are elected by the people) electing a Senator. Or don’t you understand what a “republican” form of goverment is.

          BannedbytheGuardian in reply to Karen Sacandy. | June 28, 2012 at 11:45 pm

          to Flyoverconservative. The house of Lords has elected & hereditary members plus those from institutions nominated eg Bishops based on the Census.

          If a US state congress was to send a Senator it would be an appointment unless the voters got a choice to directly vote.

          I cannot see it having a different result . It might play differently if a Gov appointed the Senator but I don’t think Americans would go for that .It happens today until elections .

          BannedbytheGuardian in reply to Karen Sacandy. | June 28, 2012 at 11:49 pm

          PS The house of Lords is a Hoot.

          And yes why wouldI not know about a republic ?

          There as been a few before the USA.

PrincetonAl | June 28, 2012 at 7:15 pm

I’ve been saying this all day long. There is no long term win here at all.

I can’t tell if its delusion, or a meme being spread to demoralize us in the midst of what should be a full blown, ahem, legal insurrection against this monstrosity.

If freedom didn’t die today, it had a coronary. Mark the date. Today and every year. June 28th. And while I want to cue the Don McLean music, I won’t.

I won’t mourn at length, and yes, I will stand athwart history crying “Stop!”.

So not only was a huge stop-it-in-the-tracks opportunity missed, which will take 10x the work to reverse, but I’m not even sure I see the ability to tax in such a ridiculous fashion closing the door to mandates, but opening wide to new and crazy schemes.

There is no time for mourning, because we have only one opportunity to repeal before the tentacles of this blood-sucking monstrosity kill the spirit of this country. Like a parasitic agent writ large, once in place for too long, killing it will raise fears of killing the host it is intertwined with too that will prevent the surgery necessary from ever taking place.

Let’s make their victory a Pyrrhic one, let’s wipe the gloat from their faces with a sustaining belief and drive to take our country back. Because I don’t think the desire for freedom can ever be stomped out of this country’s people.

I was hoping that’s how you would see it, Professor.

I was a little worried, frankly–

So many on “our side” are peddling this garbage.

“At the end of may be good–”

Stop it.

At the end of the day, Obamacare stands in it’s entirety.

People can stop acting like the entire 2,600 pages was all “individual mandate” any time now.

I wanted to say this, but Barry Friedman beat me to it: “They can’t make you eat broccoli, but they can tax you for not eating it.”

There is no longer any limit to Federal power.

    TrooperJohnSmith in reply to JerryB. | June 28, 2012 at 7:26 pm

    But seriously, this presumption, while wholly evil, does have its limits. Taking your broccoli analogy a step further, at some point they will ether have to hand feed me or have someone (TSA maybe?) go through my poop making sure I ate it. I think we’re still a long way being like the Euros, who routinely settle for that. Maybe the seeds of its undoing is its power to rankle that independent streak in all of us!

      It’s up to the electorate now, yes. Our economy is about to go into recession, if it hasn’t already, because companies must now plan for ObamaCare. The Fed’s printing press is effectively out of ink, and consequently we will be rationing toilet paper within a few years unless Romney gets in and kills CommieCare. This might save us now, but we have more and more folks willing to bend over as long as they get free stuff from the gov.

      This isn’t workable in the long run. The Constitution will have to be amended to prohibit Federal blackmail, or better, to prevent transfer payments, i.e., handouts, or handouts-in-kind. This is the big uphill battle.

Did the Chief Justice succumb to the intimidation perpetrated by Obama and his minions or does he actually believe what he wrote in his opinion? I’m not sure which I hope is true.
A horrible day for the United States of America but we have no choice but to suck it up and drive Obama out of the White House and turn the Senate over.

    If he ever had them, Obama is probably was holding CJ Roberts’ balls hostage.

    Or maybe CJ Roberts had a dead fish delivered to his personal residence… or maybe a severed horses head.

TrooperJohnSmith | June 28, 2012 at 7:20 pm

Sadly, he just shifted the baseline upon which rests “enough government”, to the left. Now, the power to tax behavior/activity punitively, will be the new starting point for, “We need to pass a law that ____.”

Drawing a military history parallel, we’ve got our backs to the sea, as the UN did at Pusan. We can’t take another step backward, nor can we stop fighting for one second. Finally, no one will deliver us but… us.

Placing the mandate as a tax and not rooted in congress’ power to regulate commerce is significant.

To quote DNC Executive Director:
‘It’s Constitutional. Bitches.’

Big whoop, congress’ power to tax is constitutional.

It also makes for repeal of said penalty tax much easier, in procedural terms.

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | June 28, 2012 at 7:23 pm

What is most infuriating is that in the time since the oral arguments were made, the left leaning press had convinced itself the mandate was going down, if not the entire law.

They would have pissed and moaned for a week or two if it were struck down, but it would not have been a surprise to any of them if Roberts had done the right thing.

It makes me sick at my stomach how Roberts twisted his logic into pretzels to let a horrible, unconstitutional law stand.

Those who think this decision is something good are liberals, Beltway Insiders, or wannabes. This “conservative” praise is rationalization, groupthink, and self-delusion. (As Mark Levin said, what about saving your praise for the four justices who wanted to throw out Obamacare in its entirety?)

Washington is an imperial capital, as morally degenerate as everything that title implies. This decision should dispel any doubt about that.

radiofreeca | June 28, 2012 at 7:29 pm

Of course, this ALSO means that a Republican government can pass a law taxing all those who do not have guns, or who do not fire at least N rounds per month, or maintain a certain standard of profiency. Because violent crime goes down when the rates of gun ownership go up. Whether or not Obamacare itself is later removed, the breach in the walls has been made. Figure out how to get through the breach to *their* side, because most assuredly, they’re figuring out how to get to the breach to *your* side.

It will also be interesting to see how people in a few years really feel about the Democratic party and ‘government’ once they’ve had to deal with the real Obamacare, as doctors retire, forms and procedures become ever more complex, and wait-times trend to past your life expectancy.

    Phillep Harding in reply to radiofreeca. | June 28, 2012 at 10:07 pm

    True, but from the behavior I’ve observed and from assorted rumors, the top level of the Republican National Committee is in favor of strict gun control, they just recognize that the seat of their britches would have road burns if they actually came out and admitted it. (Consider how the Republicans were nearly catatonic from shock at how much support they got after Clinton got the 94 gun control bill passed.)

    Fun thought, though.

Thank you. I have been sickened today by attempts to portray this as some down the road, under the radar plan of benedict roberts to ensure victory “later.” He’s a traitor. He sided with the commies on the court. It’s a horrible defeat.

Worse yet, where is Romney’s standing on this, because Ruth Buzzi Ginsburg said:

1. I agree with the post.

2. In addition to the conservatives who misinterpret the ruling as a victory in disguise, at the other extreme are those who view it as the end of the Republic. Dr. Franklin’s warning is ever before us:

In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other.

Sobering words. All things pass…but the passing need not come this year, or this decade, or this century.

“With firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right.”

This was a rare opportunity to draw a bright line protecting individual liberty.

Roberts didn’t do that.

Instead he made this a horrid, horrid day for the concept of limited government.

One more step down the road to serfdom.

One definition of an enemy is someone who stabs you in the front.

Obamacare will cure the health system like the Great Society war on poverty cured poverty.

This ruling is bigger than healthcare. It is a vehicle for the Federal leviathan to insert itself into every aspect of your life.

And, make no mistake, in time they will use it to do just that.

I share your view. It seems to me that the fig leaf that protects the Commerce clause…isn’t. Because Roberts redefined what was explicitly not a tax…the mandate…as a tax, then Congress is free to impose all sorts of monetary costs on individuals which can be defined as anything but a tax…until it goes to the Supreme Court, which then will cite precedent to redefine it as a tax.

In a nutshell…Roberts gutted the Commerce Clause with an IRS regulation. Whether or not Obamacare is repealed…that seems to be a terrible precedent.

Let’s take a few steps backwards here. The sorry state of liberty in the United States today can not all be laid at John Robert’s door. Yes, his decision is absurd on its face and a huge disappointment, but Obamacare has been a long time in coming.

The long march towards Big Government (or statism or socialism or fascism or whatever you want to call it) has been going on since the 1930s. The American people have again and again elected politicians who promise them lots of government goodies. Barack Obama is just the latest and not the last. Before the election, Obama specifically said “we are just 5 days away from fundamentally transforming America.” Yet Obama handily beat McCain.

I hate to point out but those were our fellow citizens out there swooning as Obama talked of “hope and change.” And even after all Obama has wrought, we still here that the election will be very close! Let’s face it: our fellow citizens don’t give a crap about liberty. They don’t even know what it is.

Things will get worse before they get better.

This can’t even remotely be construed as a win. For whatever reason, Roberts and the 4 progressives took it upon themselves to rewrite the legislation from the bench in order to pretend the original legislation passed constitutional muster.

Yes, they rejected the commerce clause argument but they forwarded a much more dangerous argument… that the government is legally allowed to use taxation to punish people who choose not to obey their dictates.

The Left has always used a “Living Constitution” in which its meaning can be bent and reshaped at will out of the text given to find the laws they write constitutional.

Chief Justice Roberts today has shown us that there is a second way to do this same deed. He has found his legacy in “Living Law”. No need now to bend the Constitution, simply bend the meaning, the intent of the legislature into a form that is constitutionally allowed. Easy peasy,

All of the Constitution [the left], all of our law [Roberts] are simply sound and fury. Signifying nothing until a “Justice” breathes meaning into them.

This kind of reminds me of Bush v. Gore. In that case, SCOTUS decided in a way that upheld reality. Florida voted for George Bush, the Secretary of State certified it and Democrats were using shenanigans to hold up the result. The court basically had to hit the stop button and make a minor decision on state autonomy that had a large impact on government.

I think Roberts, instead of threatening to cut the baby in half, just decided to cut the baby in half to shut it up. This decision basically said that Congress can’t use part of the Constitution to fund a bill because it is unconstitutional. On the other hand, he said that the Democrats could use taxation authority, something they could have used in 2009, but were afraid to use because they would get voted out of office.

The ruling was a way to make a decision on federal law without getting involved in the sausage making of legislation. It’s lazy and cowardly, but it teaches us one thing. Elections have consequences. Roberts may be the ugliest girl at the dance right now, but if the country voted McCain-Palin, we wouldn’t have Sotomayor or Kagen on the Supreme Court. I’ll take Roberts over either of them.

BannedbytheGuardian | June 28, 2012 at 8:17 pm

4 – 4 split + one Ameliorator. That is possibly representative of the American people at this point in history in any random crowd. Around a camp fire there are strong disagreements but one or two who bring the situation back from open conflict. This is Roberts.

One of the economic factors about America is that everything is so much cheaper than equivalent countries with the exception of advanced health services & hence health insurance. It is Gold Medal standard for sure but I doubt that this is deliverable to everyone .

During the Obamacare debate Many British & Canadians were shellshocked at the vitriol that American conservatives threw at them personally . What did they do that deserved such condemnation -just have a health service that offended the US right wing.

Now you are going to know how a health system operates trying to do more with less. You are broke. Welcome to the real world!

    You have no idea what you’re talking about.

    I HAVE lived in the kind of socialized medicine you praie: the U.S. military. I was routinely denied medication that worked for me because it was “too expensive.” You see, I had a chronic condition because the wonderful government doctors kept screwing up. They almost killed me at one point.

    So I found a civilian doctor and paid him. And bought the medicine I needed out of my own pocket. I would have lived a life of hellish suffering, or been forced to have a major organ removed, if not for this option.

    Obamacare, like all government-managed health care, effectively removes the “independent self-paid second opinion” option. As for the “too expensive” argument: a big chunk of costs is because of government regulations.

    If you’re not an American, you’re welcome to your rotten system. WE DON’T CARE. But stay out of our debates.

      OcTEApi in reply to CalMark. | June 28, 2012 at 8:46 pm

      I believe BannedbytheGuardian once posted that they are from Australia.

      I have an internet acquaintance who works for the Australian Government Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA).
      They are steeped with all kinds of nutbaggery over there, they produce a study that say’s new drivers have a propensity to get in accidents if they drive a car with more horse power and bamm.. teens are banned from driving certain cars.
      Some knuckle head gets in an accident and its free healthcare for life … there’s drunk driver checkpoints and all kinds of other stuff.
      My friends Gov’t job is driving a bus around to bars and giving free rides home to drunks.

        BannedbytheGuardian in reply to OcTEApi. | June 28, 2012 at 9:14 pm

        An RTA would be a state body. This sounds like NSW.

        A state polices their roads etc just like any US state sets policy levies etc.

        The booze buses are a very good idea & keeps drunk drivers off the roads. Sometimes a local council will do the pub tour & sometimes clubs offer their own.

        There is a Compulsory Third Party insurance scheme paid yearly for every car. In NSW it can range from $400 -$600 depending on age & driving record. I have been lucky enough never to need it but it is a public insurance scheme accepted by the citizens.

        Specifically in health – no system is perfect but the state of NSW just released figures showing them to be world leaders in 5 year cancer survival rates. It is a mix of public & private .

        Why don’t you come & visit us & check us out? You can stay at my beach shack!

          Maybe you’re young or healthy but my family in OZ have to buy private insurance to make sure they get the care they will never get on the government program… they pay twice for equal at best care to what we have.

          My grandma had to wait 9 months to see a Cardio doctor and that was with private insurance. I know it is an anecdote but so are all examples.

          Good for you, celebrate your socialist collectivism down under and stop trying to portray it as middle of the road, something that should be acceptable to Americans.
          What may somewhat work for 22 million Aussies won’t work here.

        BannedbytheGuardian in reply to OcTEApi. | June 28, 2012 at 11:10 pm

        SCFANJI- If you think granny gets a poor deal -why don’t you band together & help her pay the $1000 per year private insurance which would give her wider & quicker access?

        No cause you don’t think she needs it . BTW if she were a War Widow spouse she could get AAA service free for life . What did Gramps not go & fight WW@ Korea Vietnam? Shame.

        OcTEApi – that is not very friendly is it ?

          I really don’t give a rats ass and frankly we’re offended that you come here spreading your garbage about European and Down Under or whatever jackass idealism is so much better.

          BannedbytheGuardian in reply to BannedbytheGuardian. | June 29, 2012 at 12:22 am

          OCTEApi – Who is the “we” ?

          You addressed me with some rant about totally unrelated things like Roads & transport Authority. , the ills of free buses & accident victims receiving free care.

          I pay my subsciption in valuable currency thus propping up your foreign debt balance.

          And until I get banned I will continue to contribute.

          BannedbytheGuardian in reply to BannedbytheGuardian. | June 29, 2012 at 12:41 am

          SCfanji -apologies -on rereading I see Granny did have private insurance. But I do not believe that it took 9 months for a consult. No way Jose.

          It is a big claim & you should prove it just as you would ask me to do if I had a story about the US.

          Why spread untruths ?

    WarEagle82 in reply to BannedbytheGuardian. | June 28, 2012 at 8:36 pm

    I don’t know a single conservative who threw personal vitriol at Brits and Canadians.

    We surely gave their system and the politicians the criticism they deserve.

    Nice to hear you are so excited at the downfall of the American healthcare system and the economy. If America gets a cold, Britain will get the flu. Keep that in mind.

      BannedbytheGuardian in reply to WarEagle82. | June 28, 2012 at 8:56 pm

      In your attacks on Oamacare maybe not you but many posters & sites did attack “socialized ” health system in a derogatory manner. As i stated Brits & canadians were surprised to be attacked but also brought in the debate. Calmark proves my point.

      The facts are now financial. not ideological . You are shooting the messenger which is very expensive either way.

      BTW people are not falling down dead in either USA or the West .

        iconotastic in reply to BannedbytheGuardian. | June 28, 2012 at 9:41 pm

        socialized medicine is just a scam on the masses. Only fools and criminals believe it works. Which are you?

        No, they’re just euthanized in the UK because they are “prolonging” the inevitable.

          BannedbytheGuardian in reply to heimdall. | June 28, 2012 at 10:31 pm

          Keep proving my point.

          BTW euthanization is a PRIVATE industry . People pay big money to go to private clinics to end their lives.

          But you can just not eat or drink -far cheaper all around.

        You are arrogant, offensive, and presumptuous. I see why the Guardian banned you. Given the Guardian’s tone, that’s a real accomplishment. I wouldn’t be proud if it, if I were you.

        Like your socialist system? Fine, have it in your country. BUTT OUT OF OUR POLITICS. What makes you Euro-socialists (this includes British Commonwealth)so presumptuous?

        You lecture us. Then you come to America for “last resort” health care. Or to bail you out of world wars your own politicians caused through ineptitude or criminal stupidity.

This may be the second most important and second worst- reasoned SCOTUS decision in my life-time. The first, being Roe v. Wade. This is up there with the Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson.

This is a nation-altering, culture-destroying decision and John Roberts has been on the wrong side of the last two major SCOTUS decisions.

It is almost like they are intentionally pushing and taunting conservatives with these flagrant, unconstitutional actions.

The elitist, government establishment types refuse to recognize any limits on the power of the central government and on the limits of their own presumed authority.

Like I said, increasingly, this is looking like it cannot be decided at the ballot box. And it is increasingly looking like that is these statists want.

I am furious. The choices before me affect the lives and liberty of my children and grandchildren. I suspect I am but one of a very large number of Americans who feel the same way…

Thanks for saying this, professor. I’ve been arguing with friends all day about this and can see no good in it. When the NYT praises Roberts as a great Chief Justice, you know he screwed up.

    sablegsd in reply to gasper. | June 29, 2012 at 1:50 am

    He didn’t “screw up.” Screwing up is running out of gas on the way to work because you had a headache and forgot to fill up. Screwing up is leaving the iron on and leaving for the weekend.

    He deliberately CHOSE to become a traitor.

      gasper in reply to sablegsd. | June 29, 2012 at 9:29 pm

      Feel free to use your own words, but please don’t parse my comments to suite your definitions. Screwed up to me is to make a mess up something, whether deliberately, or accidentally. And Roberts has made a mess of this law. Your overall comment is alright, but you didn’t need to reference mine, or anyone elses to make it.

Mark Percich | June 28, 2012 at 8:37 pm

John Roberts is incredibly naive to sign up to the Arizona and the Obamacare decisions. No one should dress it up as anything other than arrogance, silliness, and cowardice. We have to protect the constitution by dis-electing every Democrat in sight, beginning with Obama.

I share the disgust and dismay expressed by so many above.
Nevertheless, it is not completely over. We need to elect Romney if we want to get rid of Obamacare, for there now is no other route. In addition, we know that we need to elect true conservatives who will be steadfast in the likely required constant effort to keep a President Romney in line.
We shouldn’t give up the ship; rather, we should redouble our resolve to achieve our goals in November.

Professor (and fellow commentors) – Has anyone considered if the Supreme Court can be challenged based on the tax violating case law precendent regarding contract law. In the current Obamacare decision, the court stated the government couldn’t force states to set up the medicare exchanges via threatening the taking away of all their medicare/medicaid funding. Could an individual argue that this tax forces them into a contract under duress by the government? If you look at all the taxes that will come about due only to Obamacare it is quite staggering. What do you all think about this?

Among the many aspects of this that is so infuriating, the worst one for me was that ObamaCare was being challenged AND defended based on the commerce clause and Roberts clearly ruled ObamaCare unconstitutional on that criteria. That should have been the end of it.

But his opinion was based on the issue of ObamaCare being a tax. That was pure Roberts being an activist rather than an impartial judge. It’s as if, unimpressed with the evidence and arguments presented, he substituted his own.

I haven’t been this angry in a long time and I really don’t think I will be calming down for a while. I spent the day in an escalating burn as I listened to pundits and politicians opining so dispassionately with a tone of reasonableness as they explained to us how we lost the First Amendment thus repealing the US Constitution. How can everyone be so calm? “Wake up!” I kept thinking.

The creepiest and most infuriating day of my life. And now we have to listen to the GOP arguing that the antidote is to elect the very architect and chief lobbyist for ObamaCare because defeating Obama trumps all. I think we all died and went to hell.

    gasper in reply to Pasadena Phil. | June 28, 2012 at 9:11 pm

    I’m not sure about dying and going to hell, but I damned sure felt like I went to sleep last night in one country and woke up this morning in another.

TeaPartyPatriot4ever | June 28, 2012 at 8:54 pm

The US Supreme Court no longer has any Legitimate Moral Authority as it has Forsaken the US Constitution and the Will of the American People.

28 June 2012 is truly the saddest day in America’s history, even worse than the Civil War. This ruling by the US Supreme Court now says that the US Federal govt has total and complete authority, rule, and power over the American Individual person’s sovereignty, aka “We the People”.

Thus the US Supreme Court 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. 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.

But if people are relying on Romney to repeal Obamacare, think again-

Obama-Harvard Grad- Radical Liberal Progressive Socialist who implemented Obamacare, forced mandated substandard inferior State Socialized Medicine that bankrupts the residents, citizens, and Independent businesses and companies in the Free Market Capitalist Free Enterprise system in the Nation, which has all but destroyed private healthcare in America, not to mention stripping American’s of their Freedom, along with Borrowing, Taxing, and Spending America into Bankruptcy oblivion, which is crippling the US Free Market and America’s Economy.

Romney-Harvard Grad- Moderate liberal Mass. Progressive Republican, aka RINO / Republican Obama Facsimile who implemented Romneycare, precursor of Obamacare, forced mandated substandard inferior State Socialized Medicine that bankrupts the residents, citizens, and Independent businesses and companies in the Free Market Capitalist Free Enterprise system in Mass ,which Romney refuses to refute, but says he will repeal Obamacare, which has all but destroyed private healthcare in Mass, that have all but crippled and bankrupted his State’s govt, the resident tax payers, and especially the economy in Mass..

How can a  true conservative Republican create and defend a Ted Kennedy collaborated forced mandated substandard inferior State Socialized Medicine that bankrupts the residents, citizens, and Independent businesses and companies in the Free Market Capitalist Free Enterprise system of a State, let alone the Nation, but then turns around and argues that he must repeal Obamacare, the very same thing he implemented and refuses to refute and repeal in his own State called Romneycare.

Romney will not repeal Obamacare. When Romney gets into office and does not sign the Congressional repeal of Obamacare legislation, if it even gets that far, what then will the American People do, what then will be our options when these corrupt elected officials ignore the will of the people, and the consequences of the flame of Freedom and Liberty that has been all but blown out of America’s torch.

I just hope for America’s sake, the People’s sake. Freedom and Liberty’s sake, Democracy’s sake, and Romney’s sake, that Romney if elected President, does not let the American people down once again as I know he will, as so many elected officials have done.

suppose a person does not purchase insurance for his spouse or dependants. who would pay the fine er tax? if the dependant earns no income and files no tax return how would that come about? does the law require an individual to buy insurance for others? i think its clear that this tax is a direct or capitiation (?) requiring apportionment. nobody has challenged it because nobody knew it was a tax until today.

    1539days in reply to javau. | June 28, 2012 at 9:13 pm

    How about if the parents are divorced? The IRS is notoriously bad at separating the finances of people who are separated. Imagine having to pay an ex’s tax because they didn’t file.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Preamble to Constitution

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it

History is on our side.
Make November 6th, 2012…the New 4th of July.

    iconotastic in reply to Aucturian. | June 28, 2012 at 9:39 pm

    You really believe a New England Republican will do anything more than appoint more phonies like Roberts while growing the federal government in wholly new directions? Do you really believe a single useless cabinet department will be shut down or a single overpaid fed porker will be fired?

    At best it will be a plateau until the next great upheaval of the nation to elect another socialist. At worst it will be continued growth of “good” government (rather like “compassionate conservatism”).

    I will believe it when I see Wrangel, Pelosi, Holder, and the others perp-walked into a federal prison for corruption. I will believe it when I see the insidious Dept of Education (Indoctrination is more like it) shut down. I will believe it when I see Romney shut down Obamacare dead in its tracks despite the wails of anguish from millions of progressive throats.

      Doubt and Despair is not an option. Purpose and Action is.

      1. You will make your own pamphlets outlining Obama’s assault on the economy and individual liberty.
      2. Map out where your local voting stations are
      3. Go door to door and hand out these items
      4. Direct those not registered to vote to do so.
      5. Create dissonance and dissent where you can.

[…] government does tell us what has to be in the policies we purchase and driving up the cost.Update: Professor Jacobson sees no silver lining in this decision. Also, Smitty posted Michelle Bachmann’s response which was spot-on, […]

1. The following is posted mainly to blow off steam, but if SCOTUS has become a loose cannon rather than a check and balance, that should be addressed at some point after the election.

2. Why did Roberts rule as he did? Possibilities:

a. A grievous error of judgment, though made in good faith. Perhaps the beginning of a leftward drift.
b. Yielding to intimidation.
c. A wish to demonstrate to the Court and the world how go*dam smart he is. (I’ve had the misfortune to work for a couple of “leaders” like this.)
d. Personality conflict within the Court. I read somewhere that such a conflict with Rehnquist started Souter’s move to the left.

3. Heh. I deleted the above, but then I saw Pasadena Phil’s remark:

That was pure Roberts being an activist rather than an impartial judge. It’s as if, unimpressed with the evidence and arguments presented, he substituted his own.

Boldface mine. Cf 2c.

[…] One might think he will be shortly hanging out a shingle in Buttwipe, or Fum Buck, Montana, but that is as likely to happen as a Romney presidency. Roberts is what he is. Jacobson gets it perfectly! […]

iconotastic | June 28, 2012 at 9:33 pm

Roberts is evolving. He wants to go to the nice cocktail parties in DC and not be shunned. It is much better to be a big government jurist in DC than anything else, so look to see Roberts evolve into a squishy swing vote who goes with the fascists whenever the chips are down.

But it serves all of us right for putting our trust in anyone in DC. The entire game is rigged and any thought that sending this person or that person to DC will change the game is just delusional. The only real answer is to restore power to the states in order to restore the balance from an imperial outlook to a truly federal one. But there is really no way to do that now. Even were the country desperate enough to call a Constitutional Convention to muzzle those parasites it would be expected that the SCOTUS would just decide that the article covering CC was obsolete–tough luck, rubes.

One of the magical aspects of our system is that it allowed a minor revolution every few years to avoid a real revolution. Well, that attribute is nearly gone. Regardless of who is elected, the bureaucracy and the insane collection of useless departments will continue to aggrandize power and money at the provincials expense. Congress, the Judiciary, and the Executive branches are all at the trough slurping down everything that comes by and demanding more. They would no more limit their slop than they would cut their own throats.

jeannebodine | June 28, 2012 at 9:49 pm

Thank you for posting this, I thought I had joined the Choom Gang!

SmokeVanThorn | June 28, 2012 at 10:04 pm

Roberts had no grand strategy. He is either a coward who wrote a laughable opinion because he doesn’t have the courage to endure the attacks that would have followed a decision declaring the ACA unconstitutional, or an icompetent.

I think the former is more likely, but in either case he is contemptible.

    BannedbytheGuardian in reply to SmokeVanThorn. | June 28, 2012 at 10:20 pm

    SVT – You are doing exactly what Tomasky of the Daily Beast/Newsweek & travellers did prior to the decision except they were attacking the court for striking it down. They were charging everything up to treason.

    My view is that Roberts is an ameliorator . There is one in every crowd for good or bad . It is not an unusual position . I see Charles Krauthammer agrees but is kinder with stuff about judicial decisions leading to historical rancour eg 2000.

    Some see a civil war erupting & /or dissolution of the USA. Some try to stop it. Roberts thought he was doing that. It mostly works because it broke down once before & 660,000 died.

      SmokeVanThorn in reply to BannedbytheGuardian. | June 28, 2012 at 11:48 pm

      Oh, now I see – Roberts is the Henry Clay of 2012. How did that work out?

      It’s not his job to be an “ameliorator.”

      And the “amelioration” meme is just bullshit. It would have been more “ameliorative” to hold that the ACA as enacted is unconstitutional but it would pass constitutional muster IF it was re-enacted with a tax instead of a penalty. If that’s what Roberts had done, there would be a clear opportunity for Congress to pass or refuse to pass such a provision. Such a process would give the ultimate decision far more legitimacy than the farce we have now.

      But that would mean that Roberts would be the subject of nasty editorials and commentary. And that was too high a price for him to pay whne the only thing at stake was the liberty of the American people.


conservative not republican | June 28, 2012 at 10:10 pm

Those who tell us that we are “winners” today will be telling us soon that we need to elect Republicans so that we can control the Supreme Court. Check it out–for well over 50 years there has been a majority of Justices who were nominated by a Republican President. That’s right–pick out what you think is the Court’s worst decision in the past 50 years (or 12 hours) and it was decided by a Court with a majority of Republican appointees.

Roberts just joins Blackmun, Stevens and Souter. Now we know that if the media pressures him he will collapse like a house of cards. He can maintain the reputation of the Court in his view by being a stooge for the left. There are three conservative Justices. Kennedy and Roberts will continue to rope-a-dope the conservative base.

There is no way in hell that Obamacare can ever be implemented. It relies on state and federal agencies to build the software systems to manage the exchanges by 2014. That is an impossibly short time-line for such a task, even in the private sector.

For a clue as to how this might turn-out, look at what happened to the British NHS’s efforts to build a national medical records system:

TrooperJohnSmith | June 28, 2012 at 10:53 pm

I think this is roughly where conservatives are at the moment…

Let ’em underestimate us!

In a year or so, I will very, very likely renounce my US citizenship, and retire to Central America where temperatures are warm, taxes are low, and life can be really be enjoyed. This is NOT the America in which I grew up.

I have seen so many liberties lost in my lifetime; is it really worth being a US citizen anymore? We are quickly headed toward Spanish-speaking, 3rd-world ‘craphole’ status via the back door the feds left open at Arizona. Don’t really want to be so pessimistic- but I won’t sugarcoat.

I feel sorry for those much younger who don’t have the options I am fortunate to have. To those still here, God Bless and good luck.

    BannedbytheGuardian in reply to walls. | June 29, 2012 at 12:54 am

    but Walls –

    Do you intend to go native & visit the local clinic or fly back to Florida for treatment.?

      Go native, of course. The dems seem to think health insurance is a guaranteed human “right”; I disagree. It is a commodity. If you want it, buy it. And if you don’t want it, don’t buy it.

      What’s next as a “right”? A car? A computer? Wireless? College education? I supposed it is whatever the gubmint wants to subsidize/transfer wealth to gain dem votes. Utterly disgusting.

my favorite layer joke: what do you call a lawyer with a 50 IQ? your honor.

i will update it: what do you call a lawyer with a 50 IQ? mr chief justice

dorsaighost | June 29, 2012 at 4:15 am

A year ago nobody thought we could depend on the Supreme Court throwing this out … we are at the same point today … so no, we didn’t lose anything …

Repeal has always been the best way to overturn this law …

[…] its because my family fled communism that this form of government overreach is so upsetting. But even if you’ve lived here for generations, the events of the past few weeks should make […]

jimzinsocal | June 29, 2012 at 7:41 am

Agree with the Prof on his point. Time for reality not shoulda coulda woulda. The only concilation I noticed was from Volokh late last night with the suggestion to quickly force legislation that gets democrats to admit by vote that the mandate provisions are indeed based on tax. Tax not “mandate”. If they dont agree? The bill fails as does the ability to fund.
It was a hard loss in court.
The campaign is all about Obamacare again.
Recall? Waay back when some of us wondered who best to bring the issue to the voters?
Some of us said Newt. For obvious reasons.
And here we are.

    CalMark in reply to jimzinsocal. | June 29, 2012 at 12:45 pm

    I heard Romney’s response to the Supreme Court. WEAK!

    After his confident, polished debate performance, I was expecting a strong, firm response. Nope. Seems ol’ Mitt is really good at bullying Republicans with an MSM “posse,” but playing solo in the big leagues–not so much. I’ll work to get him elected, but he’s looking increasingly like McCain II.

    America is finished.

As a retired detective who has dealt with both the criminal and civil side of the courts, I am very disappointed in the way LAWYERS are upset that a LAWYER did what he did.

You know how the way lawyers have been taught as changed over the years. No longer do they look at the greater good, they look at only “is it legal”. The Rule of Law rules them. They believe that the rule of law protects society and holds it together. That morality, justice, innocent or guilty, good or bad have nothing to do with the Law. It lives for itself. (that is almost a direct quote from a senior state attorney-felony division- after I complained about one of their ignorant decisions not to prosecute a scumbag.)

Now not all lawyer (Thomas and Alito are examples) follow that mantra. But most do.

Roberts comes from a school of thought where he believes, I think sincerely, that it is not the job of the Supreme Court to fix stupid acts by Congress or the President. Only stop unconstitutional acts. Remember the campaign finance law? Republicans built it, passed it and signed it into law. I swear I remember GWB saying at the time he was uncertain, but was sure the SP would rule it unconstitutional if it was. Then to the surprise of everyone the SP rule it was fine. Only after harm was done did it go back and rule it out.

It is sometimes like the Congress looks to the SP to “stop me before I legislate again!”.

I was recently involved in a civil issue and watched as lawyers blew up the rule of law by “stipulating” to certain facts that were never introduced into the case legally- to make it easier for the lawyers and the judge. I was astonished and embarrassed for them. I complained and they said, “As long as we all stipulate, it is legal.” The only way for me to stop them was to appeal, which they would have lost on procedural grounds. I had to be “harmed” before an appeals court would rule on the harm. Being stupid and breaking the rules to make things go easier was okay.

But that is the current system of law in America.

Further, and as I said in another comment. Roberts is right on the law. Congress can and does reach into our lives under the excuse that it is a “national need” to adjust our behavior and then tax us for it. They do it all the time in IRS credits or taxes, or even more on point, Social Security and Medicare. I was worried about that more than anything during the debate. Congress taxing us for “needs” they identify is settled law. Social Security is now considered a nationalized retirement program. Medicare a nationalized elderly medical program. Congress taxes us in every pay check for that “service” the government provides us.

Why is it that suddenly taxing us for nationalized something is an unconstitutional act by Congress because the law they wrote is a nightmare and will crush our economy? Medicare and Social Security and other “entitlements” created to solve a national need are killing us anyway.

Roberts just kicked what he thought was our responsibility to fix back to us. If we want a better world, we need to “man up” and take on the challenge of throwing out the bums, living a more austere life (honestly, aren’t we asking more than government can provide as a way to get “free stuff”?), and realize government is not the answer or the nanny.

Good luck on that! People are spoiled and greedy by nature. Ask the Greeks, Germans and French how the idea of austerity feels to the voter.

Roberts can’t fix stupid, and he believes it isn’t his job.

He did his best dealing with it, just can’t fix it. That is our job.

man up.

    CalMark in reply to archer52. | June 29, 2012 at 12:53 pm

    You are dead-on about the practice of law in the USA.

    I’ve been injured in accidents where others are at fault on several occasions, with complicating circumstances. The lawyers? They quote law and tell me and cheerfully tell me I’m S.O.L. Not a single one tried to find a legitimate alternate way to get the law to work for me.

    Most lawyers are book-smart, legalistic robots who care nothing about people. It is why people hate lawyers so much.

    SmokeVanThorn in reply to archer52. | June 29, 2012 at 2:02 pm

    As has been pointed out here and many other places, Roberts is clearly not “right on the law.”

    Your advice to “man up” is better directed at the person who abdicated his constitutional responsibility.

[…] based on the power to tax – what else can Congress mandate based on its power to tax? And (d) we still have to live with this monstrosity. “Conservatives” can cheer that the ruling increases the chances of defeating President […]

[…] William Jacobson argues that all of this is self-delusion among conservatives straining to perceive silver linings: But it is Obamacare, it is the takeover of a substantial portion of our economy which empowers the federal government to write tens of thousands of pages of regulations telling us how to live and how to die.This was the hill to fight on for any conservative Justice of the Supreme Court. […]

Krauthammer, who is thankful that Roberts clearly limits the Commerce Clause for the first time since SCOTUS became determinedly activist, does have at least some point to make here.

Perhaps more importantly, if there is a silver lining here, it is that the Constitution was re-affirmed while still allowing the people to have a discussion and vote on the proposed law. IMHO, Roe vs. Wade preempted this discussion on abortion, and Roberts clearly defended the people’s right to have one on health care.

[…] coming at them from all sides, is anyone’s guess. But the ball always did belong to us.Am I among the self-deluded?. Perhaps. I’ve never said I can’t be wrong. In fact, I’m often wrong.But I still […]

[…] Readers: Today, it’s MUT’s movie round-up.  Like Legal Insurrections’s Professor Jacobson, I find it difficult to interpret the SCOTUS decision as anything other than a battle loss.  From […]

Read the text carefully. Once you do, you will realize how close we are to 1776 and why the government refuses to recognize that the Declaration is the foundation of our current Republic.

You’re right about the takeover of 1/6 of our economy, the incredible growth of government, and the death panels, all of it. But if, as many thought would happen, only the mandate were struck down, we’d still have all of that and still need to work our cute little butts off to hold the House, and win both the Senate and the WH in November.

Without the mandate, the hope (I guess) was the dems would just give in and redo it. What a joke, you don’t think for a minute that would have happened; we’d still have the bulk of the badness that is the ObamaCare monstrosity (including the student loan takeover, the long list of new agencies and new powers to existing agencies, the death panels, the other zillion taxes built into it, all the assorted horrors and affronts to limited government and liberty), and we’d still have to insist on full repeal.

celestechristi | June 30, 2012 at 9:46 pm

The only thing standing between America and a Dictatorship is The Roberts Court. We have 3 branches of government. Obama has neutered Congress, and has been attacking the court since his first State of the Union. His intent is clear. Destroying 2 of the 3 branches leaves only the Executive Branch standing.

The court maintains authority only so long as the country perceives it as legitimate. Roberts ruling gives the power to keep or strike Obamacare to the people while maintaining the integrity of the court, strengthening the 10th Amendment, limiting Federal Power, removing the teeth of the law, and, by accurately identifying it as a tax, providing clear procedures for repeal. Brilliant.

If America doesn’t want Obamacare we must get rid of Obama. What the Chief Justice gave us was the ability to use free will. There’s nothing more Constitutional than that.

[…] limit on the commerce clause (infinitely weaker than the founders intended), but I’m with Professor Jacobsen: anyone who thinks that adding an unlimited federal power to tax for the general welfare to the […]

[…] sorry, misguided folks trying to gin up some hope for themselves out there, I’ll let the Prof dispense with that: If this were some other more narrow law, if this was not a monumental takeover of the most private […]

[…] But even if he won, we argued well before last week’s Supreme Court ruling, Obama would lose because the opposition would be even more energized against the hated health scam racket on behalf of Big Insurance and Big Pharma. Now a ruling has come down that provides endless riches to opponents of Obama’s health scam, particularly Republicans/conservatives, but you would not know it from the howls from the right. […]

[…] I among the self-deluded?. Perhaps. I’ve never said I can’t be wrong. In fact, I’m often […]