Image 01 Image 03

The reaction

The reaction

Romney’s statement:


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Brother Cavil | June 28, 2012 at 12:14 pm

Go with what we have. Go big or go…where?

Conquer we must, for our cause is just…

Do not think that Benedict Arnold Roberts, the unethical Kagan and their liberal activist cohorts have done the Democrats a favor. The ruling concerning Medicaid expansion, likely will have the effect of blowing the whole thing out of the water. The cost of Obamacare will skyrocket if States opt out of the Medicaid expansion, which at least 26 are likely to do.

Without the Medicaid expansion, individuals under 133% of poverty not eligible for traditional Medicaid would now qualify – and need – the full subsidy under Obamacare exchanges. This means that the law is not paid for. In fact, it could not have obtained the CBO blessing originally proferred and would not have been enacted.

Most importantly, this means Obamacare can be repealed under Reconciliation with 51 senators!!!!

    Neo in reply to lalalaw. | June 28, 2012 at 12:31 pm

    Interesting enough, the same Reconciliation rules are still in force, since there hasn’t been a new budget passed and signed by the President in over 3 years.

    Juba Doobai! in reply to lalalaw. | June 28, 2012 at 1:19 pm

    Think again. There’s method in Roberts’s madness: 1. The massive tax burden and the economy. 2. The Church gutting implicit in Obamacare. 3. The IRS as enforcer sicced on us. 4. The Democrat erosion of our Constitution.

    All of these things push the country rightward to reclaim the Constitution. Roberts is forcing us to depend on ourselves to secure our liberties, as the framers intended.

      lightning in reply to Juba Doobai!. | June 28, 2012 at 1:42 pm

      Problem is that your statment requires one to take on faith that the Supreme Court will side with Catholics in regard to a “tax”. It also suggests that there will be a tax revolt. Although I would like to believe that there will be a tax revolt, how many will actually join? How many will simply accept the new status quo on the fear that they might get cancer, and not afford it since the economy is in the trash? Our current economy has many out of work – do you really believe that this groups (regardless of political affiliation) will vote against getting “free” healthcare?

      SmokeVanThorn in reply to Juba Doobai!. | June 28, 2012 at 2:17 pm

      Instead of doing his job.

      persecutor in reply to Juba Doobai!. | June 28, 2012 at 3:32 pm

      The Court has always shied away from political questions, and the fact that Roberts and the precedent defined Obamacare as the Obamatax, means that the Dems now have to justify their vote for the bill as a vote for higher taxes.

      Roberts very deftly preserved the Court’s good name by taking away the ability of the Dems to denounce the “activist court”.

      I’m glad Kennedy had a pair to say NO. We have to go with the General we have. And that General is Romney. And I am not violating Stolen Valor by saying that!

Romney is weak and hardly conservative (nor is he heroic), but he is hands down better than Obama on almost every issue. And he is shrewd enough to do the right thing on this (whether he believes it or not).

What an incredibly lame, uninspiring speech from Mitts. Didn’t mention the Constitution once.

    I’m not sure mentioning the Constitution would have been appropriate. It would have confused the issue which now is purely political. What the court has decided here is that the Mandate wouldn’t be Constitutional as a Commerce or Necessary & Proper action, but is entirely allowed as a Tax, with a special condition. On the Constitution itself, the SCOTUS got it right.

    I’m not sure Romney is quite ready to bite off floating a repeal of the 16th Amendment (although I would applaud him if he did).

    PhillyGuy in reply to quiznilo. | June 28, 2012 at 3:09 pm

    The Supreme Court just handed the Presidency to Mitt Romney. They galvanized the right behind Romney and tilted the leaners towards him too.

    Obama now presided over a huge tax increase on all Americans while doing nothing to fix the economy. It makes him look like an enormous liar. I’d say we have a better than 50-50 shot at a big sweep now.

    We can look at this as a negative and act like losers. Or we can take advantage of this and become winners.

    Contribute and/or fight. Take our country back.

The Supreme Court decision was an illegal left turn from the right lane.
Keep Romney’s feet to the fire. No retreat from his statement.

Romney vows to total repeal of Obamacare.

Romney also say’s he intends to replace it.

groan, suckered again.

I get Roberts is playing chess (at least Roberts thinks so) and that this decision is very Holmes-like. Yes it is nuanced and has limitations on the commerce clause and certainly on mandates. Yes it may help tip this election to Mitt Romney and may prompt Congress to do some heavy lifting for a change. Still, it is a grave disappointment. He could have gone with the dissent and still written the opinion he did. Rather he wanted to look independent and he is at his heart a Statist.

    quiznilo in reply to EBL. | June 28, 2012 at 12:31 pm

    Roberts and the other four are not fit to serve on our supreme court. When they swore an oath to OUR constitution, they swore an oath to defend our rights and freedoms. They have failed.

workingclass artist | June 28, 2012 at 12:32 pm

Obama owns the biggest tax hike in history…so sayeth SCOTUS

Romney is lying and will never overturn Obamacare. On what do I base this statement? His contention that we will “keep” important provisions like pre-existing conditions, etc. Folks, the democrats had one thing right and that is that insurance companies CANNOT afford to do this unless you have a mandate. Romney knows this – only he won’t tell you until he is in office.

For those who think the Supreme Court is correct in saying a tax isn’t controlling like a “mandate” is horrifyingly incorrect. For citizens who work hard yet only manage to live paycheck to paycheck this is the height of controlling. The government can now “tax” any INACTIVITY if it effects interstate commerce, which if we are honest is nigh on to everything given the highly mobile nature of our society. That and behavior which will in the future cost the government more money. Anything pertaining to health is now “taxable”. Don’t work out? Own guns? Obese/overweight? Dangerous profession? Wan’t kids? All this will cost Uncle Sam money and what is the best way to curtail these things? Why a tax of course. Especially since it is not “controlling”. Welcome to the Socialist States of America.

    lightning in reply to lightning. | June 28, 2012 at 12:45 pm

    Sorry about the grammatical errors, but I am so mad that my language skills are suffering.

    Actually, it’s not related to interstate commerce at all.

    Basically what the SCOTUS has said is that Congress has the power to tax any activity or inactivity as it sees fit (regardless of effect). This is the impetus of the 16th Amendment.

    Although thinking about that I wonder, if someone has no income, yet fails to purchase insurance, can they sue the IRS if the IRS attempts to collect the penalty for violating the 16th Amendment?

    Congress can try to obfuscate the issue by saying it is “regulating commerce” but if that is all the Congress sells it on, it will fail at SCOTUS.

    ThomasD in reply to lightning. | June 28, 2012 at 1:01 pm

    No. Or, not exactly.

    SCOTUS said the Commerce Clause was inoperative. So there is no need for a nexus to interstate commerce. The government can now use ‘taxes’ as a means of coercing you into other expenditures or activities. In other words, taxes are no longer strictly a matter of gaining revenue to pay for governmental activities, they can now be used as a mechanism of societal control.

    The IRS is now the ultimate police power.

      lightning in reply to ThomasD. | June 28, 2012 at 1:46 pm

      I apologize for not knowing that they relied soley on the 16th amendment in regard to their decision. I will assert however, that makes what I said even more true and more horrifying. Congress can basically make up any tax and apply it based on this decision. This makes it so there are zero checks on Congressional power. A sad day for freedom.

        Henry Hawkins in reply to lightning. | June 28, 2012 at 5:19 pm

        Zero checks on congressional power? Does the 2010 midterm election ring any bells? Are you registered to vote? Do you vote?

        Slap yourself till awake, stop whining, and make a plan.

Passion, Mitt. Passion, not to be mistaken for anger (though there’s room enough for it).

Passion that the government is picking our pockets with “one hand,”
taking its sizable chunk, and putting the ever-increasing smaller amount back into our other pocket, all the while making it out to be some sort of grand, grand gesture.

Passion that our govenment – all three branches – are betraying the foundations of our country.

Passion that the person-in-the-streets wants less talk and more action.

Passion for the protection and defense of this nation, its interests, and, and its borders.

Passion, Mitt. It doesn’t have to be Oscar-winning. Just a bit of passion, Mitt. Please…….

    I concur. This was VERY bland, and very subdued. If this is the game he brings to the debates, he’s going to get creamed by Obama’s rhetoric and belief in his own righteousness alone.

    MAB in reply to ALman. | June 28, 2012 at 1:24 pm

    We need the passion and dedication of Sarah Palin.

      ALman in reply to MAB. | June 28, 2012 at 1:37 pm

      Sound systems.

      There was a TV program that was about Alaska and the Palins. I noticed that when she spoke her tone was not “harsh” and more pleasant to the ear.

      Yet, when I have heard her make speeches, there is a shrillness to her voice that is grating to me. So, I think either it’s the sound systems are not properly set for her speaking voice, or she has never learned projection, or a combination of the two.

      Whatever the case might be, I think it works against her.

      ThomasD in reply to MAB. | June 28, 2012 at 1:38 pm

      Obama lied to the American people. Again. He said it wasn’t a tax. Obama lies; freedom dies.

      -Sarah Palin tweet

    Henry Hawkins in reply to ALman. | June 28, 2012 at 5:04 pm

    Unfortunately, an insincere and affected passion plays worse than sincerity blandly offered. Jon Huntsman anyone?

Looks like SCOTUS ends up putting POTUS on the defensive, which could work in Romney’s favor.

Juba Doobai! | June 28, 2012 at 1:15 pm

I forgot this: Roberts also put the Democrats on a bigger collision course with the Church in America.

Years from now, we’re gonna look back and thank CJ Roberts for this decision.

    I certainly hope you and others are right in their assessment of what Roberts did. Right now I still think that it was an unconscionable gamble with this country’s future on his part. He should have just stuck to playing real chess.

    Enolagay in reply to Juba Doobai!. | June 28, 2012 at 2:27 pm

    Willful blindness; self deception is so easy. Hitler didn’t want to believe that the Allied invasion would come at Normandy even though there were all the signs. Roberts wanted to rule as a statist. Believe your eyes.

Just saw this comment elsewhere. Since the Roberts court has declared Obamacare a BIG TAX, it can be repealed using budget reconciliation. It only needs 51 votes to pass the Senate. It can’t be filibustered!

    MAB in reply to McCoy2k. | June 28, 2012 at 1:26 pm

    Provided they don’t do away with reconciliation (which the Dems have wanted to do) before we get 51 votes to overturn this monstrosity.

I wish people would stop talking about Roberts on this.

I honestly think it was Kennedy who was the deciding 5th vote, but the two discussed the political ramifications of it and decided that for the sake of the Court, the two should switch their votes.

Had it been 4 Libs + Kennedy v 4 Conservatives then the Left would have still, despite “winning”, done everything possible to discredit the Court at every opportunity because the “Conservative Judges ruled solely on political grounds showing their partisanship and why we need Obama reelected to protect the court from these extremists”.

If the mandate’s a tax, how can it be valid if it originated in the Senate?

Jay Cost @JayCostTWS That is NOT what Roberts is doing here. He is getting liberal Democrats to smile while he eviscerates liberal legal theory!

Well isn’t that precious? As soon as the decision came out, every Democrat who cares more about legal theory than about, you know, power, instantly resigned.

David Bernstein has a post at Volokh suggesting that Roberts changed his mind late in the deliberations. Lump me together with the tinfoil hat crowd if you will, but I wonder if undue pressure was applied.

James IIa | June 28, 2012 at 2:20 pm

If that is true and he let himself be pressured, then he should resign. He has no business being there if he can’t take the pressure. Sorry, that’s a cop out.

Way too many wimps here. This is a huge opportunity.

Just saw a clip of Upchuck Schumer telling us to be good little doobies and cooperate in a spirit of bipartisanship.

Bipartisan this, Chuckie!

Remember how the sky was going to fall if a partisan divided court struck down OCare 5-4? How it would delegitimize the court? Throw our ‘divided politics’ into even greater turmoil?

5-4 is a beautiful thing to them now. And once more, a ‘conservative’ justice is revealed to be a statist at heart. Even Kennedy said the entire law should be declared null and void.

The surprise for me is in the sections written by Ginzberg. Very unimpressive. It boils down to, I like this law, and we can do anything we please. She doesn’t even bother with recognizing that our country has a structure. Her writing reminds me of Bob Bork’s economic writing, only on the other side, of course.

    ALman in reply to Valerie. | June 28, 2012 at 3:52 pm

    It’s a shame he never made it onto the court. One can only wonder in what state the court would be today if he had.

Ginzberg wouldn’t look to our Constitution if she were writing one, remember? Apparently she also wouldn’t look to it to inform her opinions either. You know, the one she took an oath to uphold.
All I can say is Verilli was apparently very persuasive in not answering Roberts’ question about limits on Congressional authority.
There’s one guy off suicide watch.

I’m not convinced Roberts didn’t limit the commerce clause, set the stage for a GOP rout in 2012, and increase the probability of legislative repeal of ObamaCare, all without leaving his fingerprints.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to Listkeeper. | June 28, 2012 at 5:09 pm

    Bingo. People * already * hate Obamacare. Now it’s the biggest tax hike in world history. That is soundbitable even to the low info voters.

    November 6th, 2012 = PAYBACK TUESDAY

Palin posted a lengthy response to the ruling a few hours ago to her FB page:

The post now has over 44k likes and climbing.

It was then cross-posted to Breitbart’s Big Government.

Palin: Rise up Against ObamaCare, The Largest Tax Hike in History

Over 24k donations, $2.5 million raised online for Mitt Romney since Obamacare ruling