Image 01 Image 03

Alone again, naturally

Alone again, naturally

On its face, Chief Justice John Roberts’ Obamacare decision was a strange bird.

A mandate to purchase a product from a private company under penalty for non-compliance, which did not purport to be a revenue measure and which was enacted politically only because it was not a tax, was sustained on the very basis that it was a tax.

If so, the mandate was the strangest tax in memory, one enacted for the purpose that it not be collected since the purpose was to compel a private transaction which itself would not be taxed.  If the mandate worked as designed, the Treasury would not have seen a penny out of it.

CBS News reports that Roberts initially sided with Kennedy, Scalia, Alito and Thomas in striking Obamacare in its entirety, but moved away from that position in May as the pressure campaign to delegitimize the “Roberts court” mounted among Democratic politicians and liberal media outlets, should Obamacare or even the mandate be held unconstitutional.  The article notes Roberts’ awareness of the campaign but quotes sources as saying he did not give in to the pressure.

Whatever.  There is and will be plenty of time for recrimination and court leaks/gossip.

As tempting as it is to lash out at Roberts or to bemoan the fact that we did not scream as loudly as Democrats and the mainstream media to our constitutional detriment, I think there is a deeper feeling which transcends the why’s of Roberts’ decision.

The sense of abandonment by the policies of the Bush administration was a key if not the key motivating force behind the rise of the Tea Party movement.

And now the crowning glory of the Bush judicial appointment program abandoned us for reasons about which we can speculate, but which constitute an abdication of responsibility regardless of motive.

That’s my sense of where we are right now.

Alone again, naturally.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Why do you keep harping on this, its illogical and showing an extreme shortsightedness…

How is this “inactivity tax” any different then, say, the “Unemployment Tax”?

In it, you are forced to buy Unemployment Insurance in case you are ever fired. The only difference is there is no private company offering such insurance, so we are all forced to pay.

Similarly, Social Security Tax is collected from everyone in case they ever get to the age of 65+ and havent prepared for themselves. This is mandatory for all instead of just those without 401Ks – so in many ways, ObamaTax could have been even worse under current president – but the premise is otherwise exactly the same on SS as ObamaTax.

Same holds true for Medicare Tax – which is forcing you to buy insurance years in advance of your needing it just in case you do need it once you become 65+.

This is clearly a Tax, was initially presented to Congress as a Tax until they realized they could get no support calling it that, was argued in the court as a Tax initially and stands as a Tax in the mold of the other inactivity Taxes we already suffer under.

If you want to be productive, work towards removing ObamaTAX plus figure out ways we can privatize Unemployment Insurance, Social Security and Medicare. Work on ridding us of all the Socialist Taxes, dont just keep whaling this one though as it is somehow different when it just isnt!

ObamaTAX is a TAX, and Roberts was not out of line for allowing it to stand as such. Get over it already, and instead focus your anger at the Taxes which allowed it to stand! THAT is where the problem is, not Roberts.

I’m almost to the point that I dont want to come to this site anymore with the same constant nonsensical ranting ignoring the blatant reality around us – IT IS NO DIFFERENT THEN THE OTHERS!

    MacsenMcBain in reply to Darkstar58. | July 1, 2012 at 5:56 pm


      Darkstar58 in reply to MacsenMcBain. | July 1, 2012 at 6:10 pm

      Yes, I’m sorry… in my frustration I made spelling errors (including more than just the one you pointed out). But thats the Liberal way of avoiding the facts by diverting the conversation – and the facts is this Tax is no different than the other inactivity Taxes.

      Had the Government gone in and said only “we can do this because Unemployment Insurance Tax allows us to” it would have stood. Had that happened, what poor excuse would have been used then?

      The only thing anyone is doing with all these nonsensical rants against Roberts is making people hate the Court when its not the Court anyone should be mad at – its Social Security Tax, and Medicare Tax and Unemployment Tax and on and on that allowed ObamaTax to stand. Besides, how is it helpful to hate the Court when Obama and teh Democrats are still in control of the Country, ignoring the Court half the time?

      You are never going to win a war when you dont even realize what your target is – and shooting into the crowds, or worse, your own battalion because someone there followed the Rules is the single easiest way to ensure you never get ahead.

      Address you anger at the Socialist Agenda of FDR which started all this nonsense, not the guy who said x = x

        BannedbytheGuardian in reply to Darkstar58. | July 1, 2012 at 7:46 pm

        Darkstar -I particularly like the ‘whaling’ . I was looking forward to a Moby Dick theory but instead you meant ‘wailing’.

        I do think Moby Dick might get a look in here if posters had a literary /historical bent.

        Good try.

          Darkstar58 in reply to BannedbytheGuardian. | July 1, 2012 at 8:02 pm

          yeah, “whaling” was the first one I noticed, and the one I figured the trolls would jump on most as they tried to avoid substance with distraction.

          But no, it’s probably not worth waiting for people to start looking to history anymore – unless they are told to, of course.

          BannedbytheGuardian in reply to BannedbytheGuardian. | July 2, 2012 at 2:19 am

          Haha Is that 3 dislikes for me or Moby Dick? I would be very sad if it is for Moby.

    William A. Jacobson in reply to Darkstar58. | July 1, 2012 at 6:14 pm

    social security and medicare contributions are based on wages, and the federal unemployment tax is paid only by employers based on the employee’s income. so they operate very differently from the mandate.

      Darkstar58 in reply to William A. Jacobson. | July 1, 2012 at 6:26 pm

      So is ObamaTax

      Its a flat rate ($95 in 2014, $325 in 2015, $695 in 2016 and beyond) only if you make under a certain amount, or a Percentage if you make more (1% in 2014, 2% in 2015, 2.5% in 2016+)

        and based on being alive.
        not based on a wage or purchase, based on mere existence.

          Darkstar58 in reply to dmacleo. | July 1, 2012 at 6:44 pm

          Nope – merely having income, or a combined household income over a certain amount.

          A family full of welfare recipients will not have to pay this tax.

          …Just like Social Security or Medicare – other inactivity taxes you can not avoid (which are technically even harsher since you have to pay even if you have your own 401K)

          those w/o jobs don’t pay SS/fica.
          those with a high enough income with no insurance will have to pay for….living.
          even if they have always paid for whatever healthcare they got they will still have to pay…for being alive.
          many that are on the income level limit that don’t pay now will still not pay, others will pay for them. as they always have, except it will cost them more over the long run.

          anyone that supports this over reach is retarded.

          Darkstar58 in reply to dmacleo. | July 1, 2012 at 7:13 pm


          The law makes a number of exemptions for low-income persons and hardship cases.

          “Individuals who cannot afford coverage”: If an employer offers coverage that would cost the employee more than 8 percent of his or her household income (for self-only coverage) that individual is exempt from the tax.

          “Taxpayers with income below filing threshold”: Also exempt are those who earn too little to be required to file tax returns. For 2011 — as previously mentioned — those thresholds were $9,500 for a single person under age 65, and $19,000 for a married person filing jointly with a spouse, for example. The thresholds go up each year in line with inflation, so those cut-offs will be higher in 2014, when the tax first takes effect.

          “Hardships”: The Secretary of Health and Human Services is empowered to exempt others that she or he determines to “have suffered a hardship with respect to the capability to obtain coverage.”

          Other exemptions: Also exempt are members of Indian tribes, persons with only brief gaps in coverage, and members of certain religious groups currently exempt from Social Security taxes (which as we’ve previously reported are chiefly Anabaptist — that is, Mennonite, Amish or Hutterite).

          …Those people are alive and still not being asked to pay…

          you said nothing in that whole diatribe that disputes what I wrote above.

          Darkstar58 in reply to dmacleo. | July 1, 2012 at 7:38 pm

          It was merely a copy and paste of who is alive but not paying.

          You never actually said anything though. But since you want it addressed, fine… You wrote: (with my additions in brackets)

          those w/o jobs don’t pay SS/fica. (and wont pay ObamaTax)
          those with a high enough income with no insurance will have to pay for….living. (and would be paying SS/Fica too)
          even if they have always paid for whatever healthcare they got they will still have to pay…for being alive. (if they are paying for Health Coverage, they will not pay ObamaTax)
          many that are on the income level limit that don’t pay now will still not pay, others will pay for them. as they always have, except it will cost them more over the long run. (This has nothing to do with ObamaTax being any different then anything else)

          anyone that supports this over reach is retarded. (nonsensical, out of place rant. Almost no one supports it, I certainly dont, but that doesnt mean you are making sense either. Implying I am a “retard” for pointing out how you are incorrect doesnt just make you correct – it makes you childish)

          those w/o insurance who pay their own way will get “taxed” now.

          this is a tax on existing. thats my point.
          its a lot different then ss/fica taxes as those apply to those receiving a product, namely a paycheck.

          and if you don’t see the difference then you are retarded.

          Darkstar58 in reply to dmacleo. | July 1, 2012 at 9:33 pm

          No, no it isnt – its a tax on making money; as opposed to your argument which is… well, making money

          You can exist and not pay this tax – that is pure 100% undeniable fact, a fact you yourself even admitted above. Your own statements make your “existing” rant nonsensical.

          so as you would say: “if you don’t see that then you are retarded”

        William A. Jacobson in reply to Darkstar58. | July 1, 2012 at 7:31 pm

        It’s not a tax on income, it’s a penalty with a sliding scale, but no one pays it if they can present proof of qualifying insurance.

          Darkstar58 in reply to William A. Jacobson. | July 1, 2012 at 7:44 pm

          Its as much tax on income as Social Security and Medicare is, just with a sliding scale instead of straight percentage. That doesn’t mean it isnt a Tax – its still the same old Barbie, this one merely has a new hat…

          You do not pay it by having your own, correct. And let me tell you, that is an exemption I would love, love, love to have on Social Security as well!

          lightning in reply to William A. Jacobson. | July 1, 2012 at 9:37 pm

          Actually the “tax” on individuals (and “individuals” is very important because it is seperate from business) in PPACA is 2.5% on income after 2015. There are also many other weird cost/taxes on the individual mentioned in the paragraph below it. Example: Indexing amount after 2016 starts at $625 and is then multiplied by the cost of living amount – if not a multiple of 50 it is rounded to the next lowest 50. Also in this section I read a religious exemption. Please understand my information comes from the Act itself. I can’t say I have read the whole thing, just sections. Now that it is law, we probably all need to read it no matter how painful. The site where I retreived my copy is

          The 2012 election is a referendum on Obama, naturally by taking up Pelosi talking points you are decidedly NOT alone.

    Thomas, Kennedy, Scalia and Alito did not agree with Roberts’ reasoning that the mandate was a tax. Nor did the four liberal Justices. Nor did the Obama Administration, Congressional Democrats, or supporters like liberal law professors, Hollywood and the press.

    Roberts is the only one who claims the mandate is a tax – the only one. And the only reason he did is because he knew that is the only way it would be constitutional.

    Does that not disturb you – the mandate is now law because it was called a tax by just one man? With the eight other Justices in agreement that it is not a tax? Forget the Imperial Presidency: we now have the Imperial Chief Justice who can rewrite and pass laws by himself!

      Darkstar58 in reply to rec_lutheran. | July 1, 2012 at 6:28 pm

      You’re kidding yourself.

      The very first time it was ever defended in court it was said the case against it was not valid because this is a tax and could therefore not be fought until it has been collected on someone.

        There’s a minor problem with that analysis in that Chief Justice Roberts indicated that it was specifically not a tax for the purposes you just mentioned and for which the Government argued (the purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act).

        This is largely the problem with inconsistency in Federal Law. Something can be classified as X for one purpose, but can be classified as Not-X for another, which leads to dichotomous outcomes.

          Darkstar58 in reply to Chuck Skinner. | July 1, 2012 at 7:22 pm

          why technically correct, its kind of splitting hairs…

          …unless your argument is that the Court should have never even heard the case and instead you want it to be put in place and properly filed as a fight against a tax in 2014? Is your stance you want it deemed Legal until the people are able to fight it in 2014 after having already suffered under it?

          We were given the ability to fight something early by fighting one half of a two-sided argument made by Obama. (he argued it as both a Tax and being valid under Commerce) Had he never argued the Commerce aspect, it would have never made it to the court – he got greedy by trying to expand that clause, and we got the ability to fight it early.

    Browndog in reply to Darkstar58. | July 1, 2012 at 6:18 pm

    The problem is, and has been pointed out-

    The mandate was not written in legal tax language. Therefor, there is no tax “text” to be overturned in the law via conciliation.

    Harry Reid is about to make that perfectly clear-


      Darkstar58 in reply to Browndog. | July 1, 2012 at 6:49 pm

      huh? Where do you even get this stuff?

      It is spelled out in Title 26 of the U.S. Code — the “Internal Revenue Code” — under Subtitle D — “Miscellaneous Excise Taxes.”

      The law says that the IRS will collect the tax “in the same manner as an assessable penalty under subchapter B of chapter 68” of the tax code. That part of the tax code provides for imposing an additional penalty “equal to the total amount of the tax evaded, or not collected.” It also requires written notices to the taxpayer, and provides for court proceedings.

        Browndog in reply to Darkstar58. | July 1, 2012 at 7:16 pm

        To quote “Office Space”

        -“ummm, yea.” I’ll need you to re-read my post. Not sure what is correct, and what isn’t.

        But, I damn sure know Harry Reid–the Senate rule-maker–and the argument he is going to make for refusing reconciliation-

        Where do I get this stuff?

        “it’s not a tax” ring a bell?

          Darkstar58 in reply to Browndog. | July 1, 2012 at 7:27 pm

          Youre just running around in circles and not actually saying anything…

          So how about you just tell us what exactly you feel isnt in “tax language”? Cause I mean, I showed you the Tax Language, so what do you have other then your conspiracy theories here? Anything resembling an actual fact?

        Raquel Pinkbullet in reply to Darkstar58. | July 1, 2012 at 7:38 pm

        Pathetically transparent goading from a pathetic troll

      Sen. Reid can argue that it’s not written in tax language, and thus reconciliation cannot be used to repeal ObamaCare by 50.1% vote and immune to Senate Filibuster.

      Bad news for Dingy Harry is that he would be wrong on the merits of the argument. A law may always be repealed by the same mechanisms that implemented it unless there is some specific repeal mechanism included in the law itself.

      That is the sword of Damocles that will allow for repeal if there are 51 (True) Republican Senators, a Republican House and Romney in the Presidency in January 2013.

        read the reconciliation used to process it, its kind of ironic.
        To provide for reconciliation pursuant to Title II of the concurrent resolution on
        the budget for fiscal year 2010 (S. Con. Res. 13).

        not often we see anything budget related from senate lately…

      OcTEApi in reply to Browndog. | July 1, 2012 at 9:13 pm

      That’s not how the Budget Reconciliation Act works
      There are indeed portions of Obamacare that definitely do effect the Federal Budget.
      I believe about $500 Billion.

      You pass a budget.
      You describe in a legislative measure how changing a bunch of SHALL’s to SHALL NOT’s built into Obamacare will reduce the Federal Budget.
      You get a simple majority to agree to the legislative measure and it (the rescinding) SHALL be done.

      Now you can continue to chase your tail and say Harry Reid will never allow another Federal Budget to be passed.

    Conservative Beaner in reply to Darkstar58. | July 1, 2012 at 7:15 pm

    Could the reason be that we were told it wasn’t a tax is because the regime told us they would not raise taxes on the middle class, calling the penalty a tax would break that promise.

    This tax like all taxes will have a habit of going up. Social Security started as voluntary and then became mandatory, the tax rates started going up. I would rather have had the option the public servants in Galveston County have. They opted out of SS and they have a better retirement than the SS recipients. The best thing about it is if they die their hiers get what’s left.

    We then got Medicare and Medicaid. Taxes went up,yes we have a temporary cut but that expires along with Taxmageddon.

    The problem with all this tax collection is taxes collected doesn’t always go to the purpose of the tax.

    Tell me, if someone is here illegally and need medical care and they don’t have mandatory insurance, will we be able to collect the tax, oh I mean penalty.

      Strangely enough, yes, the tax will be collected from illegals who file taxes. Now, there are going to be some proof problems to deal with, but it will be an assessment on the filed income taxes.

      The problem I see is that illegals who are employed under false Social Security numbers are going to appear as being “insured” depending on how the government cross-references the insurance. But it should send up a flag if one system says that the employee is insured, but another system says that employee is not insured. Whether the IRS will follow up on that flag though is anybody’s guess.

        page 274 of the 2409 page version says employer needs to submit all sorts of info on immigrants, DHS has to affirm person is legal, yet this is supposed to be dome already prior to employment nd we see how the feds fight that.
        this part is just another quagmire that will lead to more dream act crap…

      You’ll be able to collect the penalty . . . er, tax, from illegal aliens in the same way that hospitals now collect the bills for services rendered to illegal aliens who get treated in U.S. emergency rooms. (IOW, if you’re the one keeping the accounts, buy lots of red ink).

    Karen Sacandy in reply to Darkstar58. | July 1, 2012 at 7:22 pm

    We, and the Professor, are entitled to discuss this for some time, and not your arbitrary 72 hours. This is a radical restructuring of society, abetted by Roberts. Reaction to such treachery and betrayal is natural, as is trying to understand it.

    I agree with all the posters who’ve noted the GOP isn’t worth the words coming out of their mouths, and that the dems’ officials never care about what most of us think. They don’t bend. I, too, am frustrated beyond belief that with a GOP prez this is the best we could do.

    If you can’t understand these human feelings, something is out of kilter with you.

    We do need to work on our platform. Honestly, I believe the best approach to medical care is what the country started out with: actual, not fake freedom.

    Totally deregulate medical insurance, TOTALLY, no subsidies, no requirements, no tax incentives, just freedom. As Dr. Paul has said, people paid their bills in the 60s and people weren’t dying in the streets.

    Charities can help those few who could afford medical care under a free system.

    If there is to be any incentive whatsoever, assuming the income tax continues, then all medical insurance premiums, all medical expenses of any kind or nature whatsoever, should be deductible from the first dollar.

    Free it, watch the bubble disappear.

      lightning in reply to Karen Sacandy. | July 1, 2012 at 9:57 pm

      You are right, and Dr. Paul isn’t the only doctor who advocated this. Medical costs have risen dramatically due to the relience on HMOs for every aspect of care along with the Regan era edict that doctors and hospitals HAD to treat folks regardless of their ability to pay. Prior to that, people weren’t turned away, but it was a stupid political stunt designed to make politicians feel good about themselves. If we kept medical insurance for catastrophic events (or high cost) and payed out of pocket for preventative, medical costs would decrease exponentially. Unfortunately, there are more people who want free stuff than taxpayers who wan’t personal responsibility.

    Raquel Pinkbullet in reply to Darkstar58. | July 1, 2012 at 7:39 pm

    Pathetically transparent goading from a pathetic troll, Moby along.

      Darkstar58 in reply to Raquel Pinkbullet. | July 1, 2012 at 7:52 pm

      Oh yeah, thats the ticket – anyone who points out the blatant truth we dont want to hear = Troll, dont listen to them…

      …meanwhile, let’s all go back to our little obsessive circle-jerk ignoring the problems facing the world and instead wondering how someone could call something what others call it, and what it was written as, but we just refuse to see it as…

      After how many years of pondering with your small selective facts will you develop the ability to actually to reverse the world around you?

        Raquel Pinkbullet in reply to Darkstar58. | July 1, 2012 at 8:01 pm

        Roberts wanted to keep the law and kill the mandate, but then later realized he could not do both so he invented a way to keep the mandate so he could save the rest of Obamacare. Your reasoning is about as tortured as Roberts’. No wonder you’re covering for him.

        You don’t happen to practice law do you? Because only lawyers buy off on this level of bullshit.

        You know, you’re right. He’s not a bad guy after all.

        Lord love a duck.

          Darkstar58 in reply to Raquel Pinkbullet. | July 1, 2012 at 8:07 pm

          Ahhh, I see – when told you are compared to a conspiracy nut nonsensically focusing on what amounts to nothing, you reply with… a conspiracy! Oh, and some gibberish. Fantastic, thanks for the insight there man… :/

        Raquel Pinkbullet in reply to Darkstar58. | July 1, 2012 at 8:15 pm

        I don’t cotton to calling other people stupid having a different opinion.

        Re: Roberts and why he has proven himself to be a lousy justice

        It’s not just this Obamacare decision. Roberts went 0-for-3 this week. AZ, Stolen Valor, and Obamacare.

        Roberts made 3 out of 3 shitty, baseless, wrong, foolish, and highly political decisions this week.

        John Roberts is a lemon, not some genius conservative Constitutionalist.

        Raquel Pinkbullet in reply to Darkstar58. | July 1, 2012 at 8:17 pm

        And second I am a WOMAN not a man. Now go gurgle on some razor blades douchebag.

        So you couldn’t help yourself, could you? Had to throw in the “circle-jerk” term even though your points were generating a certain amount of interest. But true to the troll-doctrine, you obsessively had to soil the punchbowl of social discourse or lose your troll-cred. Fail on that one, bub.

          Darkstar58 in reply to 49erDweet. | July 1, 2012 at 8:56 pm

          My “points” are that obsessively bitching and moaning that Roberts called this Tax a Tax over and over again is doing absolutely nothing but hurting everyone involved, and instead we should focus our time and energy on getting the Government out of Health Care, Retirement and Unemployment

          …and yes, I’m sorry, but mindless lemmings rushing to the defense of unwarranted belly-aching, attempting to gang up on a person trying to actually gut Government Power by trying to get people to focus on the actual problem instead of the meaningless distraction… well, that is perfectly circle-jerk territory; regardless of whether you feel that term should be used by a Conservative or not.

        Oh yeah. That’s the ticket. Anyone who disagrees with me is a troll.

        Toddle off, bugger-boy. Go pollute pixels somewhere else.

    retire05 in reply to Darkstar58. | July 1, 2012 at 9:41 pm

    Darkstar, what you ignore is that Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, were unconstitutional to begin with. So now you want us to quit “whining” that another law has been passed that basically violates our individual Constitutional right to not participate in commerce?

It was often posed…no, screamed-

“WHERE WERE YOU WHEN BUSH…blah, blah, blah??”

I’ll tell you where I was-

I was on Huffpo–my first “blogging” experience. That was back before they went full moonbattery, and you could actually have a productive debate most times. I give no quarter to anyone based on their political affiliation.

The only reason Bush looks so good in hind sight is because Obama is a SCFOMF.

I’ll never forget it-and I hope no one else does either-

It was Bush’s failures that made Nancy Pelosi Speaker of the House-

….and she was put there for one reason only–to irritate Bush–as the most liberal member of the House.

It could be a combination of reasons. Roberts may have wanted to avoid being demonized by the press and protect the reputation of the Supreme Court, but he might also have undergone a change of heart since becoming Chief Justice and now wants to legislate liberal social policies from the bench.

Regardless of why he did it, Roberts’ actions have convinced me that we can no longer trust judges with lifetime appointments to the bench. Since Roberts now views himself as combination President/Congress all by himself, perhaps Supreme Court justices should be limited to eight years in office just like the other President. We also need to be able to overturn a Supreme Court decision (perhaps with a 2/3 vote of Congress and a Presidential signature).

Risky, perhaps. But less risky than letting a group of five tyrants have their way with lifetime appointments.

    Browndog in reply to rec_lutheran. | July 1, 2012 at 6:09 pm

    I rejected the notion that Roberts was a lib–or has liberal tendencies–on it’s face, following the ruling.

    I’m starting to warm to it-

    Only a lib believes that appearance trumps substance.

    Conservatives believe that substance is tantamount, and appearance will take care of itself.

    I say that IF what appears to be true actually is. We will never know for sure unless we get it from the horses mouth–

    …but, it sure seems like it’s true; Occam’s razor

The sense of abandonment by the policies of the Bush administration was a key if not the key motivating force behind the rise of the Tea Party movement.

Truer words have never been spoken.

    OcTEApi in reply to Browndog. | July 1, 2012 at 10:48 pm

    Riiiight… FOCUS !

    This election isn’t about repudiating Obama and Obamacare.

    This election is about repudiating Bush and Robertscare.

    Milwaukee in reply to Browndog. | July 1, 2012 at 11:13 pm

    Bush managed to become President, like Barack Husein 0bama, because of the failure of Affirmative Action. Wealthy White people didn’t give up their seats to people of color, middle- and low-class Whites did. Further, those middle- and low-class Whites were the hard working achievers. A middle-class White child who aimed for Harvard was above their peers, who were satisfied with State U.

    If we hadn’t promoted 0bama to ease our White guilt, he never would have graduated from college. Miami “Heats”? 57 States? Intercontinental Trains? How does this bozo make that much shit up?

    We better be damn sure to get ride of Affirmative Action before the Dream Act. And now that Asian immigrants are outnumbering Hispanics, do we still like the Dream Act?

Bush does not look good to me in hindsight. He was the spark. For that reason alone, I never want to see another Bush anywhere near the White House.

More Separated at Birth: John Roberts and…?

I wonder why John Roberts switched. Are we seeing that classic Republican morphing where the lowly GOP judicial caterpillar transforms into a beautiful liberal (life time appointed) butterfly? [*snark*] Earl Warren, William Brennan, Harry Blackmun, etc., etc. All courted by the left. That subtle steady pressure to be liked seems to work. Maybe is a form of Stockholm syndrome.

Or maybe someone in the Chicago machine had some embarrassing information and that got him to switch? I doubt that, but anything is possible.

    Browndog in reply to EBL. | July 1, 2012 at 6:23 pm


    I think being scolded by the President of the United States on national tv (SOTU Address) is a bit more persuasive-

    Need to be liked<Need to not be hated

    “This could be a huge day in the evolution of Chief Justice Roberts as a great chief justice,” said Laurence H. Tribe, a liberal law professor from Harvard. Mr. Tribe, who taught Mr. Roberts, said he had not opposed his nomination because he believed Mr. Roberts was less of an ideologue than many had charged. “I have some sense of gratification,” he said.

    *gag me*

    listingstarboard in reply to EBL. | July 1, 2012 at 8:23 pm

    There is speculation that there were “irregularities” with the adoption process of Roberts two children. This regime will stop at NOTHING to implement their plan , and if you think Brietbarts death was an accident WTFU. Roberts was “persuaded” you can count on it.

    Phillep Harding in reply to EBL. | July 1, 2012 at 9:10 pm

    I’m still wondering about that Georgia judge letting Obama off the hook on proof he was born in Hawaii.

    If I’m a “birther”, then so is Obama. How long was he claiming in the “about the author” that he was born in Kenya? How about that video of him saying he was born in Kenya?

Professor, I know that you’ve expressed your feelings on those of us who may have hitched a ride on the Starship Silver Lining, but I truly believe we got more than dicta out of the decision.

When I read the decision (and I admit that it’s a fast read and not a studied one), I read that the legal reasoning employed by the Warren court to arrive at the holdings of Ollie’s Barbeque and Heart of Atlanta Motel have been pronounced dead. Kagan, the Wise Latina, Breyer and Ginsburg signed on to the majority opinion no matter what Ginsburg may say in her partial dissent.

Useless optimism? Looking for the pony in the room filled with horse manure? Perhaps, but if we got the liberal wing to repudiate the convoluted reasoning of those cases from the sixties, then what have we done? We’ve finally put to rest that kind of judicial activism that members of the Federalist Society like Justice Roberts have been bemoaning for decades.

I can understand the frustration that all of us feel at the decision, but I’ve always felt that we need to kill that behemoth at the Hill, not the Court, and by labeling it a tax you’ve put legislators, a majority of whom are up for reelection this year are going to have to justify their vote in 2009, not in the manner that they did in 2010, but in the manner that they voted for a middle class tax hike (and if they’re against renewing the Bush cuts, a double whammy for their constituents). Raising taxes has never been a popular thing- just ask Bush 41. It’s usually easier to get votes to repeal a tax than it is to impose one.

And to say that Roberts has somehow expanded the Congress’ power to tax, I would remind you that Congress has always been very creative in trying to impose levies on the citizenry.I don’t think that the opinion gives Congress more power than they had before the decision was read–they think they can tax any thing they damn well please.

We conservatives have always been alone when it comes to many issues that the GOP is squishy about. It’s up to us to act like the NRA and make the GOP know that a particular vote is one where we’re taking names,and it’s sites like yours that allow our points of view to be made crystal clear to McConnell and Boehner, and hopefully, Romney.

Thanks for the mini soap box.

Karen Sacandy | July 1, 2012 at 6:37 pm

I have not read the opinion, but my sincere hope is that Roberts’ opinion has one useful side effect:

When a GOP congress passes wonderful legislation reinstating freedom (eliminating cabinet departments, reducing welfare, outlawing Roe V. Wade on the federal level, removing the federal courts’ jurisdiction to decide religion establishment cases), and the democrats howl bloody murder about what extremists they are, the Roberts court will uphold the legislation, taking a deferential approach to Congress.

That means, we REALLY have to be mindful of who gets elected.

(SCOTUS): Roberts is Souter in loafers.
Boosh 41:Souter
Boosh 43:Roberts

No more Booshes.

To quote a line from a Rodney Crowell song: “Alone but not alone”.

We need to double up on the prayers to G-d that he vanquish our enemies (Liberals, Progressives, Democrats) and double up on the Tea Party activism.

No more Republican establishment elite RINO porkers. No more Booshes.

    A grateful nation to the Bush family … go away .. permanently.

    Reagan: Kennedy
    Reagan: O’Connor

    What we need is a Senate with enough Republicans so we can stop putting up “stealth” candidates.

      Right about now, Kennedy does not look so bad, does he. The man was furious with Roberts, and rightfully so.

      So, right now Roberts is a bit marginalized. His reputation will go down in history as a toady, afraid of his shadow and with values and principles so thin that he’s willing to side up with Lib-tards like Kagan and Sotomayor and the other two wastes-of-flesh rather than stand up to a Chicago thug.

      Had enough? Republican isn’t good enough. We need Tea Party conservatives.

    Bush 41: Thomas
    Bush 43: Alito

    I guess you hold it against the Bushes that they also appointed two of the most consistant originialists we have seen since the death of William Rehnquist?

Serious question, Professor, ’cause I’m stuck: If employers are sole source of funding for UI, where do they get their money trees? I’d like to plant a few. Not a marxist. Thanks.

    persecutor in reply to Bob L. | July 1, 2012 at 7:39 pm

    Those trees are grown in a Chinese garden.

    Browndog in reply to Bob L. | July 1, 2012 at 7:52 pm

    Employer ‘contributions’ to the unemployment “insurance” fund are usually met by matching State funds, or a percentage thereof.

    It is based on a percentage of payroll–at least that’s how I paid it in Michigan.

    For employers in the private sector. here-to-fore the “money tree” has been fed by an ugly device called “profit”. Since that device is now being regulated out of existence the trees will soon no longer grow anything useful. But that’s OK. We can always print more money.

    lightning in reply to Bob L. | July 1, 2012 at 9:09 pm

    Actually, employers and individual both pay the “tax”. Proof of this is easily found via Google (or Moonbattery had it up either yesterday or the day before).

      creeper in reply to lightning. | July 2, 2012 at 12:51 am

      I’d appreciate a link, Owen J, because I sure can’t find anything that indicates unemployment insurance premiums are paid in any part by employees.

      I have some passing knowledge of payroll and I can assure you I never deducted a cent for this purpose.

        quiznilo in reply to creeper. | July 2, 2012 at 9:45 am

        You may not have a line item showing on a paycheck saying “Unemployment Insurance Compensation”. The point still stands though, this is the cost to employers to hire an employee, so in the end the employee pays it. Even if it is a pure tax-based system, it’s employees who bear the cost of those so, again. The accounting numbers hide the truth.

          creeper in reply to quiznilo. | July 2, 2012 at 11:20 am

          By your reasoning, people whose companies are picking up the full tab for their health insurance and pension plans really aren’t getting anything at all. They’re paying for it, too.

          Ask them how many of them would like to change that situation.

“…constitute an abdication of responsibility regardless of motive.”

Quite accurate and succinct, Gilbert, and highlights that the court is definitely not apolitical.

Here is where hope lives: Obamacare can be repealed in reconciliation and can not be filibustered.

Upward and onward to repeal. No more Booshes. This includes of course Jeb Boosh, Mitch Daniels, Pawlenty, that gov. from Virginia …

Add to the list.

So now what? Do we become like the Ross Perot Party? Just sit in our dark little corners bitching about how right we are while offering no solutions?

Are we going to waste God knows how much time, effort, and political capital on impeaching the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court?

Thus far these seem to be the two main efforts of the conservative/libertarian movement. Weak!

Deal with the damned problem already: ObamaTax. Deal with the insidious scum who invented it: Democrats. Kick their despicable asses out of office and demolish their bureaucratic monstrosities.

How about we give the Bush family a rest.

No more Bushies in the White House, the House or the Senate.

Raquel Pinkbullet | July 1, 2012 at 6:56 pm

If there is actually a sliver of silver-lining to this outcome, its that it might make some conservatives actually see the trees despite the forest.

We keep losing because our representatives are timid and mealy-mouthed. They aren’t bold. Whatever you say about the liberals in Congress, they were aggressive in pushing this legislation through, despite the fact that it was in the middle of a bad economy and against public opinion. We simply don’t have enough ideological warriors in government. The GOP is terrified of “appearing” extremist, the Democratic party is not. Republicans always want to reach “across the aisle.” The Democrats NEVER reach across the “aisle” Republican judicial appointments, have a tendency to trend LEFT, Democrat Judicial appointments NEVER trend RIGHT. I mean Dread Roberts could have said he was upholding Obamacare because it was Thursday, an all the Libtards justices would have joined him in the opinion. Truth is was there EVER ANY DOUBT that all 4 libtards would vote in lockstep to uphold Obamacare under whatever justification they could find?
Aw hell, I’m not sure that even this pile of dung decision will be enough to wake up the party. Maybe we do need a new one.

    Karen Sacandy in reply to Raquel Pinkbullet. | July 1, 2012 at 7:35 pm

    I ran as a Libertarian 20 years ago for a Ga. House seat. I had to get about 3,000 signatures in the summer heat just to get my name on the ballot. The way it’s set up, running on a 3rd party ticket is a burden without benefit.

    That said, after my brief engagement with the GOP this year, what I’ve seen is not encouraging. Although the “old timers” guard all posts carefully, they don’t recognize their own contribution to the problems.

    lightning in reply to Raquel Pinkbullet. | July 1, 2012 at 9:15 pm

    I don’t think they are mealy-mouthed. I truly don’t think they are significantly different than the democrats in a lot of ways. Maybe Glenn Beck was correct when he said progressives can be both democrats and republicans. Ms. Kathy, I am sorry to hear of your difficulty in getting elected as a 3rd party. I personally support (by signing petitions, etc.) 3rd party candidates. The reason you had it so was partly due to McCain-Feingold. PBS did an excellent special on this legislation a few years back. The details are scary. It effectively blocks good people who are not established members (of either party) from getting into public office. Please watch this if you haven’t had time. It is extremely informative especially since this is such an important election year.

steveadams21 | July 1, 2012 at 7:03 pm

My neighbors have a right to tax my income to pay for my EVEN SHARE of the fundamental functions of the state. My neighbors, and therefore the state, have no right take my money based on my choice on health insurance.

That is the fundamental issue regardless of the constitution, laws, precedent, or judges. Based on first principles of human rights and freedom, the ACA and half or more of the federal government has no moral right to exist. Year in and year our this principle is ignored and the role of the state, politicians, and the bureaucracy continues to grow. Our system is broken and unfortunately it’s unlikely Romney will do more then slightly slow the leviathan’s growth.

Raquel Pinkbullet | July 1, 2012 at 7:06 pm

Enough is Enough! When will conservative men grow a freaking pair? Why is it US WOMEN that are the only ones standing up and fighting the oppressive LEFT?
John “excuse me while I cry” Bohener, Mitch “surgically removed spine” McConell. Juan “Let me lose with class” McVain
Lindsey Shamnesty, and many many more.

These same conservative “men” let Sarah Palin and her whole family be mercilessly assailed by the Left without uttering a word. And when the media tried to pin the Giffords shooting on Palin, some of these same RINOs joined in.

Enough already. The tea Party needs to take a (figurative) bat to the Establishment.

    There are NO men “with a pair.” It’s time to put a woman in office as President!!

    Eeeeasy, there.

    I’ve got a pair. I’ve tried to become involved in Republican politics, and have gotten swept aside. Probably because I DO have a pair.

    The GOP “men” in charge are, in fact, eunuchs. Whenever someone appears with strong conservative ideas, feelings, opinions, and actions, the entire structure (this includes women) finds a way to dump him. It can be as simple as giving him only menial tasks to do within the party, and then only during elections, then removing him from email lists when the election is over.

    Speaking from personal experience. It is beyond frustrating.

The problem is entrenched business as usual ,seat at the table leadership in both parties. Despite over 3 years of T party rallys ,townhalls ,attending cauci ,working the system ,midterm elections ; the inside money still run the show. With the GOP they still use that money to discredit those they dont favor to gain the candidate they want. ln working very dilligently over the past 3+ years to change all this it is very frustrating. There is a bulk of old line GOP enough to thwart you. Many become frustrated & quit. Even if we win the election l have no faith leadership will be other than what it has been. The base dems are so hopless they dont even try. l’m not saying quit , l am saying work for achievable goals. Work around the obsticles.

    Karen Sacandy in reply to secondwind. | July 1, 2012 at 7:37 pm

    True, true, true.

      Karen: You along with Pink , go girls! Our new Pueblo co. chair is a woman. We have both worked together for years. We are both libertarians. lt is a trial for her to work with many disfunctional GOP. Most of the effective work l do is thru women. l have over 12 of them l work with now. Men 1. As a man l have always found this true in whatever effort. l know a number of effective men but they often delegate the dirt work to women. They palaver behind closed doors coming up with i’m not sure what. The ladies l work with usually have very good social skills. The men not as much.

    quiznilo in reply to secondwind. | July 2, 2012 at 10:00 am

    Too defeatist for me. This is the Internet Age, we have more tools at our disposal than ever before for communicating with others who think as we do, for organizing for our cause, for gathering information and draft strategies to defeat the statists. Our cause has popular support, and we are witnessing the decline of the old-school gate-keepers and institutions hostile to our way of living.

    20 years ago, obamacare would’ve already been settled, and it’s implementation complete in all 57 states by now. But now, the only recent leftist victories have all been extra-constitutional. The primary task remains to defund the left, in the states and in the federal government, and Scott Walker and other governors have showed us the way.

Roberts is responsible for Roberts.

Blaming Bush for Roberts is…well…Obamic.

    Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | July 1, 2012 at 7:20 pm

    Put it another way…

    Bush gets credit for Citizens United.

    Seriously people…

    Browndog in reply to Ragspierre. | July 1, 2012 at 7:38 pm

    Harriet Meyers wants to know what you mean-

    (Obama thanks you for disassociating him with Eric Holder)

    …Executive privileges.

      Ragspierre in reply to Browndog. | July 1, 2012 at 7:41 pm

      Is Holder to Obama what Roberts is to Bush?

      Make that argument for me, please.

        Browndog in reply to Ragspierre. | July 1, 2012 at 7:54 pm

        Still trying to figure out yours-

        You seem confused-

        Bush is responsible for Roberts being on the Court-

        No one is saying Bush is responsible for the recent ruling

Midwest Rhino | July 1, 2012 at 7:10 pm

So when the outcome of Obamacare and perhaps Obama’s campaign essentially rested in the hands of Roberts, did he just shrink from the responsibility? Did he fear the claims that it would be SCOTUS making too big of a decision? Was he a sleeper cell judge all along?

I don’t know, but it sure seems the elites have their own agenda, and “what’s right is right” may be right, but power is not subject to what’s right. The “progressives” sure seem to control the key moves of both sides.

Six Illinois Republican reps voted against opening up government contracts to non union bidders (or against including that in a finance bill). Other key Republicans also voted with the unions on that issue. Some later claimed they were confused, it all happened so fast … but the measure failed by one vote. They make us promises, but when push comes to shove we get the shaft. Others seem to own them.

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | July 1, 2012 at 7:17 pm

Note that the CBS article says Roberts was concerned about the appearance of 5 Republican appointed justices overturning a law passed exclusively by Democrats. So he lobbied Kennedy hard to try to get him to join in the majority opinion.

It’s true that only Democrat lawmakers passed Obamacare. But there were Democrats in the House that voted against it. So the truly bi-partisan choice of lawmakers was not to pass it at all.

Why didn’t Roberts lobby any of the liberal justices appointed by Democrat presidents to try to persuade them to overturn the law on a bi-partisan basis, the way it was opposed on a bi-partisan basis in Congress?

Why do liberal justices NEVER feel compelled to compromise their ideology? It’s always a conservative who flips to help the liberals get their way.

    Of the 4 Democratic appointees, one was nominated by the guy who signed the ACA and the other was appointed by the signer and worked on the wording of the ACA. How in the hell does that give any more legitimacy to the Court?

    Roberts should have went with the real majority and wrote in his opinion that when a president questions the legitimacy of the court in his SOTU, don’t expect them to bend over backwards to support bad law.

      creeper in reply to 1539days. | July 2, 2012 at 1:05 am

      You know, that’s the one that absolutely baffles me. Barry-O rakes SCOTUS over the coals in front of a national audience and then Roberts repays him by kissing his ass.

      I thought Sandra Day O’Connor was bad. Little did I know.

Raquel Pinkbullet | July 1, 2012 at 7:27 pm

The “smart” people like Krauthammer keep saying that Roberts is playing long ball with this and his ruling is looking down the road. I’ve made the statement before that I think that is so much BS. Then, this morning, it struck me, the “smart” people are correct, Roberts is playing long ball on this and looking down the road. Unfortunately, not in the way in which they are thinking. Taking a look at his ruling:
a) Obama care is a tax, but not a tax so he can rule on it
b) The government has the power to levy taxes, but they cannot be punitive
c) Because the penalty is a tax, it cannot be punitive, thus it cannot cost the same or more that if people were buying health insurance. According to precedent, 5% of the cost of health insurance as mandated by the federal government would probably be the largest amount that could be considered non-punitive.
d) By keeping ObamaCare, now ObamaTax in place, many employers will stop offering health benefits and force people into the realm in which they are subject to the penalty tax
e) Despite prevailing wisdom, most folks aren’t stupid and are going to opt to pay the penalty instead of buy the now much more expensive health insurance because it covers not only themselves but others and pays for services they don’t need.
f) Further, this is a logical choice because, because of ObamaTax, insurance companies cannot refuse to insure pre-existing conditions, thus people will opt to pay the penalty, then when something bad happens, buy insurance that must be issued.
g) The consequence of this behavior is obvious to the casual observer, insurance companies are going to be driven out of business very rapidly

So, what Roberts has done is hastened the demise of private insurance companies and accelerated the date at which single payer will become necessary to keep this behemoth going.

Yeah, so Roberts was playing long ball with this ruling. Just not for our side.

Messes With Texas | July 1, 2012 at 7:44 pm

It seems an Orwellian bit of reasoning to say Obamacare is not a tax to avoid having to throw the case out under the Anti-Injunction Act, but then call Obamacare a tax so you don’t have to rule it unconstitutional. The Chief Justice might want to read “1984” before he writes his next brilliant opinion.

Those who state the obvious, that we need to fight the battle against big government at the ballot box miss the bigger picture. The founders created the courts in large part to ensure we are a nation of laws and to ensure we are ruled neither by the whims of a king nor a mob. If our Supreme Court Justices can make up reasons out of whole cloth to justify a pleasing judicial outcome it’s a lot bigger deal than just this one ruling.

If Congress passes another law like the National Industrial Recovery Act or the Alien and Sedition Acts, I for one don’t want a Supreme Court using mutually exclusive reasoning to rubber stamp it to please a President or public opinion.

An engine can still operate without a governor, but once the governor is removed or compromised the odds the engine will fail go up dramatically. If our Supreme Court has become arbitrary and capricious, our Republic is greatly imperiled.

    Darkstar58 in reply to Messes With Texas. | July 1, 2012 at 8:15 pm

    “It seems an Orwellian bit of reasoning to say Obamacare is not a tax to avoid having to throw the case out under the Anti-Injunction Act, but then call Obamacare a tax so you don’t have to rule it unconstitutional. The Chief Justice might want to read “1984″ before he writes his next brilliant opinion.”

    The alternative was to throw out the case, forcing everyone to pay in 2014, and then have it make its way up the system to what could very well then be a Liberal-Heavy court if Obama gets re-elected. At that point, it would be quite likely that Commerce also gets expanded to cover all non-activity, no matter what it is…

    It seems foolish to complain over a positive decision which served to answer a Question which had people everyone demanding an answer. This put everything to bed in a timely manor, instead of leaving people hanging out to dry for another 2 years having no idea what will happen on anything.

      Browndog in reply to Darkstar58. | July 1, 2012 at 8:42 pm

      This put everything to bed in a timely manor

      Yea, wasn’t that the logic behind the Roe V Wade decision?

      Put it to bed once and for all and unite the country?

      Even you can see NOTHING has been put to bed-

        Darkstar58 in reply to Browndog. | July 1, 2012 at 9:10 pm

        Yeah it has – constitutionality has been ruled:
        1 – power expansion desired not granted for Commerce
        2 – Does stand as a valid Tax
        3 – threatening states to expand Medicaid is a no-no

        The alternative was we sat here for 2 more years, knowing it would stand as a Tax, but wondering if the Commerce Clause would also be expanded.

        I fail to see how the alternative would have been better for us, let alone the country as a whole – especially in the face of Obama possibly keeping his job. Arguing for a 2 year postponement of the loss by pointing to a technicality is getting no one anywhere.

          Browndog in reply to Darkstar58. | July 1, 2012 at 9:24 pm

          The Commerce Clause, relative to this decision is MOOT


          Why do we do this futile exercise?

          To UNDERSTAND and to LEARN.

          DEVO (de-evolution)

          Go forward, move ahead-

          From what? To where? Who knows and who cares, eh?

          Darkstar58 in reply to Darkstar58. | July 1, 2012 at 9:44 pm

          You really have a hard time staying on topic, dont you…

          “The Commerce Clause, relative to this decision is MOOT

          It wouldnt have been 2 years from now had the case been denied as a Tax now – as you seem to be arguing for.

          Liberals take the court under Obama being reelected and rule on this tax and I guarantee you they claim it is a Tax, but permissible under Commerce – thereby expanding it. Then it isnt moot at all – in fact, that’s disastrous…

        Darkstar58 in reply to Browndog. | July 1, 2012 at 9:24 pm

        BTW, I fail to see how RoeVWade has anything to do with anything; what is your point there other then try to stir up peoples nerves?

        The decision on RvW was never going to change, the next judge wouldnt be appointed until 1981 – 8 years after the finding. But one judge wouldnt have made a difference in a 7-2 case to begin with.

        Besides, having it argued when it was only helpful as it gave us our lonely second vote, William Rehnquist – a vote we would not have had if it has been settled even 15 days prior to when it was.

        So when do YOU feel it would have been a better time to argue RvW? 20 years later? 50? Was it put to bed only about 100 years too early in your mind?

          Browndog in reply to Darkstar58. | July 1, 2012 at 9:34 pm

          Do I really have to re-post my comment in retort?

          Darkstar58 in reply to Darkstar58. | July 1, 2012 at 9:56 pm

          Sure, let’s do it…

          “Yea, wasn’t that the logic behind the Roe V Wade decision?”

          No, no it wasnt – the logic was it was a case that needed to be heard. When would be a better time to hear it be though, in your opinion?

          “Put it to bed once and for all and unite the country?”

          Who ever said anything about uniting the country? That’s just you running off topic again.

          So we’ll ignore that and instead just ask you, again, when a better time to argue cases is in your opinion? When they come up, or just wait until the court is aligned in a way you see favorable to us?

          RvW (the case you decided to bring up here, somehow, for some strange reason) would have been ruled in a similar manor for at least 20 years, if not more – and if not RvW then a near identical case in its place. But you are implying it should have been argued at another time. Its a simple question, when is that time?

Raquel Pinkbullet | July 1, 2012 at 7:50 pm

The thing that really sucks about this is that it has always been assumed that when Kennedy retires it will spark the mother of all confirmation battles because whoever replaces him could tip the balance of the court. But if Roberts is the new swing vote then even if Romney gets to replace Kennedy with a staunch originalist, it still won’t tip the court in our favor because Roberts is the new Kennedy. Back to the same old 5-4 song and dance.

    Browndog in reply to Raquel Pinkbullet. | July 1, 2012 at 8:00 pm

    Conversely, if Obama is re-elected, it is said that he will appoint two to the Court.

    Young, vibrant, imaginative marxists–taking away our rights for at least a generation.

    We were 1 vote from losing our gun rights in the recent D.C. case-

    And we had 4 just state that the Commerce Clause gives the government unlimited power to regulate (control).

If Romney loses (RNC & Elite Choice Candidate), then the Republican party will be gutted over the next decade.

If Romney wins and seeks the embrace of moderates and the “working together” crowd, the the Republican party will be gutted over the next decade.

I’m still searching for the book titled “The Great Moderates of History”.

Tea-Party says “grab a helmet… it’s time”. For Dems, 2010 was a love tap.

Somehow, the issue of whether or not ObamaCare is a tax took over this thread right from the start. The point of this post is that this was the crowning blow by the Bush agenda to turn the Republican Party into a clone of the Dems.

I am in the Michelle Malkin camp that Bush, particularly once the Republicans controlled the House, Senate and governorships, pre-socialized the country for Obama to the point that they in a sense created Obama.

I don’t know where we go from here. The “Republican Uber Alles” crowd that has has cast a lifetime vote for all Republicans on the ballot are already celebrating November as if a Rombama victory is going to change anything. It won’t. Rombama is surrounded by his own personal cronies and Team Bush.

The only hope we have is to elect many more true conservatives into Congress and hold a gun to their heads starting the day after the November elections. The first order of business should be to replace House and Senate leadership. Weepy Boehner’s rallying cry of “We are NOT Sparta! We are only 1/2 of 1/3 of government so we have no choice but to surrender!” just doesn’t work for me. Hardly the spirit of “The 300”.

We should be completely focused on “Operation Counterweight”. Forget about Rombama. We are burning our candle at both ends unless we do.

    1539days in reply to Pasadena Phil. | July 1, 2012 at 8:09 pm

    I remember when Bush signed that Medicare drug benefit stuff and thinking “What kind of childish move is that?” He went from trying to privatize Social Security to creating more unfunded mandates.

    I really think there’s something that happens when you get power in D.C. You start to think that the only time you’re doing anything is when you are spending or regulating. Andrew Napolitano once said that Grover Cleveland was one of the greatest presidents in history because he vetoed so much legislation that he thought the federal government had no business getting involved in. Of course, that won’t get you on those greatest presidents lists.

      Browndog in reply to 1539days. | July 1, 2012 at 8:34 pm

      Glad you brought that up-

      If you recall, and I’m sure you do…

      Every single solitary piece of legislation in Congress contained a “Timeline for withdrawal” from Iraq.

      Bush “felt” he had to “compromise” with the left, to get that one provision struck from the legislation-

      Over and over and over-

      They beat him over the head with it.

      Just trying to be fair.

      Karen Sacandy in reply to 1539days. | July 1, 2012 at 9:04 pm

      And Bush signed McCain-Feingold. What a jerk…

      “Congress shall make no law…”

      creeper in reply to 1539days. | July 2, 2012 at 1:19 am

      The Medicare prescription drug program was nothing more than an attempt by BushII to buy the votes of seniors. Shrub had it down pat long before Barry-O showed up on the scene.

        OcTEApi in reply to creeper. | July 2, 2012 at 6:08 am

        meh, Reagan tripled the AMT and liberal progressives were outraged that it merely blew up the deficit by T’$…

        If Barry-O had done it, it would have simply been labeled helping people

          OcTEApi in reply to OcTEApi. | July 2, 2012 at 6:21 am

          Gov Rick Snyder of Michigan got rid of state AMT deduction (probably amounts to 3-$400 per year for avg worker) and liberal progressives haven’t stopped screaming that it’s tax cuts on the back of the poor.

          Now that he’s restoring some public funding dollars to Universities, as they’re raising tuition’s…
          I’m sure liberal progressives have no squabble with the poor funding pay increases for elitist tenured professors.

    True words, brother.

The part of this I’ve never seen discussed is that fact that the penalty isn’t imposed for lacking coverage – it’s for lacking “minimum essential coverage” as determined by the Secretary of HHS. You might have the coverage you want, but if the state thinks you should buy more, you’ll end up paying for BOTH. (See Section 5000 of PPACA).

Henry Hawkins | July 1, 2012 at 8:09 pm

There is a concept of ethics in the health professions (and corollaries in other professions) that applies here, and that is when a doctor, nurse, counselor, therapist, etc., identifies a pathology requiring intervention, but provides an intervention based on his/her own needs rather than the patient’s needs. This med is called for, but this other, simiiar med, which won’t do quite as well, is prescribed instead because the doctor or clinic receives incentives to prescribe it. A counselor has a client in his/her practice who happens to be famous (or rich, or whatever) and needs to be therapeutically discharged due to noncompliance and malingering, but the counselor keeps the client because the client is bringing in other clients from his social orbit. The financial manager who recommends stocks or funds based not on returns for his client, but on fees for himself.

In other words, it is unethical to make interventions based on one’s own needs instead of the needs of the patient, client, customer, etc.

It seems that John Roberts’ decision was based on his own needs or the PR needs of the Court, which is largely the same thing since he is Chief Justice, rather than on the basis of impartial, blind justice.

Am I naive to expect the Supreme Court to simply make impartial judgments and let the political and public opinion chips fall where they may? Isn’t that why they are appointed for life?

The crisis in America is not with the Congress, nor with the Presidency, nor with the Supreme Court. All three branches are now deeply problematic, but those are symptoms. The crisis in America is the dirth of moral, selfless leadership.

Raquel Pinkbullet | July 1, 2012 at 8:11 pm

Is bribery a good case for impeachment from the Supreme Court? Yeah, I know. Way over the top, similar to the democrat tactics, but I am looking for the most vile of reasons to hang this crap around The Traitor Roberts neck.

Raquel Pinkbullet | July 1, 2012 at 8:13 pm

The AG of the United States ran a program where he shipped guns to Mexican drug cartels to build a case against the second amendment. The Obama administration committed treason and acts of war against an allied nation to further a secondary objective of the administration.

Why do you think they would not act in at least as ruthless a fashion against a man that had the power to destroy the president’s primary objective of his first term?

There is no evidence that this happened, but their is no particular reason that the administration would not do so if Roberts has any glaring skeletons in his closet.

Washington, DC is home to deadly malady called “Potomac Fever” that eventually seems to infect everyone who comes to “serve the people” there.

It took Roberts a little less time than average to catch a nasty case.

The problem isn’t who is in Washington, DC. The problem is that most of the people in Washington, DC believe their own press releases and have come to believe the Constitution is whatever they say it is, if they bother to think about it at all.

We need the States to rein in the central government. Remember that the states created the central government and gave it a set of enumerated powers. The states will need to rein in the central government to fix this.

Exactly how that takes place is still up in the air but the TEA Party needs to start thinking about this. Just swapping out a few scallywags in DC isn’t going to fix the problem.

    Raquel Pinkbullet in reply to WarEagle82. | July 1, 2012 at 8:22 pm

    And forget punishing Roberts. There’s plenty in congress with R’s after their nameplate secretly going “hell yeah” over this.
    If the Republicans were smart they would go all in on legal ways to make his life hell. As I mentioned above, the Federalist Society should officially strike his name from their records.

    Small potatoes perhaps, but this “civility” game has to end.

      WarEagle82 in reply to Raquel Pinkbullet. | July 1, 2012 at 8:26 pm

      Roberts NEVER actually joined the Federalist Society. He only attended meetings.

        Raquel Pinkbullet in reply to WarEagle82. | July 1, 2012 at 8:32 pm

        I know, but the Federalist society pushed him as a standard bearer, and they are still defending his nonsensical decision on Obamacare coupled with SB1070 decision in which he joined the libs as well.

        Enough is enough

        Milwaukee in reply to WarEagle82. | July 2, 2012 at 1:16 am

        He never joined because he feared membership would keep him off the Supreme Court. Craven.

        The time is coming when we will need to be counted. As Niven said, there are conflicts which do not allow for neutrality.

    Browndog in reply to WarEagle82. | July 1, 2012 at 9:49 pm

    States rights was Rick Perry’s path to the nomination-

    Problem was, it was behind door No. 3, and he forget what it was.

    creeper in reply to WarEagle82. | July 2, 2012 at 1:23 am

    The problem is that John Roberts placed his own desires above the interests of the country. It’s that simple.

“So now what? Do we become like the Ross Perot Party? Just sit in our dark little corners bitching about how right we are while offering no solutions?”

Solutions to what? Initially, Obamacare was supposed to reduce the number of uninsured
citizens, reduce costs, and address the issue of coverage for those with pre- existing conditions.
Number one blows up number two and number three is welfare not insurance.

So tell me what the problem is and I’ll give you some possible solutions but they won’t involve the government. I also don’t care for Romney’s “Repeal and Replace”. “Replace” is getting
a lot more air time than “repeal” like comprehensive immigration reform vs. the border fence.
Build the fence, repeal the bill. Then, let’s talk.

BannedbytheGuardian | July 1, 2012 at 8:17 pm

Thanks Prof. “Alone again ,naturally” is amazingly evocative . It is reminiscent of the best ‘eternal sorrow ‘poems of the Victorian era.

Co incidentally I have revisited Gilbert on Ytube recently. He is huge in Japan which does in fact have a idiosyncratic national health system .

BannedbytheGuardian | July 1, 2012 at 8:21 pm

The opposite of ‘Alone Again ,Naturally is “Clare’ . Some posters here really need to think about lifting their grief. It is not healthy.

    Possibly you are spot on, but we are faced with the realization that even if we successfully oust Teh Won this fall his replacement is just another RINO Bush-Bush-McCain. There IS no joy in Mudville. Casey was traded to the Sandtowne Tigers and his replacement can’t hit, pitch or throw – and has broken glasses, too. We are in a heap of hurt. But then because we are racists and hate everybody that’s probably not a bad thing.

      BannedbytheGuardian in reply to 49erDweet. | July 1, 2012 at 9:25 pm

      It is just as much a slippery slope giving SCOTUS the power to interpret & rule as it was having Maryanne Sumisomething rule on the Wisconsin legislative process. Bollocks.

      Neither should have the power & as Andrew Jackson stated -Yeah whatchas gonna do about it Punks?

      Just tell them to FO. What are they going to do ?

      I am still split whether this is 1773 or 1859.

        “Andrew Jackson stated -Yeah whatchas gonna do about it Punks?”

        Thanks for that Banned.

        I’ve been following the comments here for about an hour and just as my head felt like it was going to explode your comment zinged me with a bolt of much-needed laughter. 🙂

The problem with comparing this tax to Social Security is that intitially this insurance was not available to everyone, payouts were in a lump sum, and you were supposed to get back what you paid in. It was also supposed to be seperate from the general fund (which I think it was until about 1968). Social security was supposed to help an aging population ease up on their workload when they lived a longer life. This program (like all others) has been enlarged, abused, and stolen from so much that it is in peril and also placing the country’s finances in peril. Given the current economy, both businesses and individuals will drop insurance. The costs will skyrocket. Government will take their “taxing power” to the extreme to meet the shortage of funds. Healthcare will suffer. People who need care won’t get it, qualified doctors will become scarce, and waiting lists will be long. A black market in healthcare is sure to spring up. What this law has done and will do to us as a society is truly mind-boggling and disturbing.

My comment…Everyone on Fox news was shocked and looked like the world just fell apart. My thought is they figured their boy Romney would sail through the election because ObamaCare would be repealed SO they figured RomneyCare won’t be an issue. WRONG!! Now what Fox and Romney? You had better pick a different player because Romney will be destroyed with this ruling

    lightning in reply to Mike. | July 1, 2012 at 10:30 pm

    Actually Mike, I think you are right. Why? So many people are out of work, and our “recovery” is slowing down (and according to some has already stalled). With more people out of work (and the workforce itself) how many taxpayers will be left to vote for Romney? Think about those falling off of unemployment, those who have been unemployed for a year or more, those who can’t afford COBRA, and those who have had to take several part-time jobs to make ends meet. When looking at Romney are they going to vote principles or for the free stuff they can’t afford themselves? If Romney were a stronger conservative (like our fellow commentor, Ms. Kathy :)) he might win. However, he’s not and it doesn’t look like a sure thing.

We are deluding ourselves if we believe President Romney plus Speaker Boehner plus Majority Leader McConnell are going to repeal Obamacare. It isn’t going to happen.

These people, along with John Roberts, have sold America down the stream for their own personal gain.

I don’t see a paradigm shift coming in November. I sure hope I am wrong, but I don’t see it.

    Jingo in reply to WarEagle82. | July 2, 2012 at 12:45 am

    What do you base this belief on?

    I have no reason to doubt that a President Romney, a GOP Senate and House would repeal Obamacare. And if they don’t, well, we’re no worse off than today and the GOP will permanently be abandoned by conservatives.

    I can absolutely guarantee, however, that without a President Romney, GOP House and Senate, Obamacare will definitely not be repealed.

      WarEagle82 in reply to Jingo. | July 2, 2012 at 6:49 am

      Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

      Look at the number of times Boehner and McConnell have had the opportunity to do the right thing and refused to do so. Look at the number of times Boehner and McConnell have lied to the American people about cutting spending. These are the people who gave us TARP.

      There is no conservative paradigm shift coming by adding Romney to Boehner and McConnell. Should Romney get elected, The House will get rolled again with McConnell leading the effort. How many times does it have to happen before we recognize the problem…

DINORightMarie | July 1, 2012 at 10:46 pm

Woah – this is a very heavy, even uptight, blog comment bloc. Too much pent-up frustration combined with troll feeding is a bad mix!!

I don’t know or frankly care why Roberts switched; that he did makes him part of the problem, as unfortunately is not surprising to those who have read Men in Black by Mark Levin.

Roberts is alone – no one trusts him on the bench, nor in the public. He has both tarnished “his court” and his legacy. The name of CJ Roberts = dirt. He broke our hearts.

…which leads to a little homage for title of this post:

Alone again, naturally.

Recall the scene in the movie “Young Frankenstien” as Inga, Igor, and Dr. Frankenstein are sitting at table lamenting their apparent failure to bring life to the “monster.” Dr. Frankenstein remarked that maybe it’s just as well . . .

Igor: “You know, I’ll never forget my old dad. When these things would happen to him… the things he’d say to me.”

Dr. Frederick Frankenstein: “What did he say?”

Igor: “What the hell are you doing in the bathroom day and night? Why don’t you get out of there and give someone else a chance?”

Just thought a bit of humor might be appropriate . . . I realize it adds nothing to the discussion and we all might be somewhat dumber because of this.

    Browndog in reply to ALman. | July 1, 2012 at 11:31 pm

    Trust me-

    any and all humor–bad or otherwise–are sorely needed on this site-

    just sayin’

    (probably get down votes for humor–so be it)

      ALman in reply to Browndog. | July 1, 2012 at 11:41 pm

      Uh, oooh. This could be serious, very serious, indeed. Perhaps, a transplant is in order?! (Spoken with one a German-style accent, similar to those used in the movie “Beerfest”.

I see it exactly the same way Professor.

Henry Hawkins | July 1, 2012 at 11:31 pm

Well, since Chief Justice Roberts apparently makes decisions based on public opinion, political pressures, and historical legacy fears instead of on the merits of a case, at least his next decision will go our way, out of fairness, right? It might be the totally wrong decision, but it’ll make up for this one, so it’s all good.

It is absolutely frightening that the above may not be sarcasm and may actually be true.

Quite the thread. Is this truly representative of opinion on the right side of the argument? Let’s hope not.

The ruling is the ruling. Now, can we have a show of hands for those who are willing to fight for repeal in a constructive manner and those who merely want to complain about Roberts, Bush, the House leadership, “silver linings”, and “trolls”?

Two hands for those who want to do both.

    OcTEApi in reply to Owen J. | July 2, 2012 at 5:28 am

    Already receiving mails for bumper stickers:

    Coalesce resolve against ObamaTax?

    naw, Shiny Things…

    CalMark in reply to Owen J. | July 2, 2012 at 10:35 am

    Excuse me…why are you trying to shut us up?

    This is an important discussion, asking questions that have neeeded asking for a long time:

    Why do we always lose?
    Why do we always snatch defeat from the jaws of victory? Why can liberals count on absolute loyalty from their representatives, while conservatives have to endure treachery as a condition of existence?

    Something needs to be done, pronto. And being nice and civil isn’t going to do it. We don’t have to be violent thugs like the Democrats, but all this “we have to be polite ’cause we’re better than them is NONSENSE.”

    Time to take the gloves off. We don’t even need to fight dirty–the libs/Dems have enough exposed vulnerabilities that we just need to hit them HARD where it hurts.

    The problem is, “our” side is full of cowards and turncoats. They need to be gotten rid of.

I believe it is well past time to realize that lifetime tenure is too great a trust to invest in anyone.

Personally, I favor elections, which work well enough here in Texas (I bet we’d get more Scalias than Ginsburgs), but would settle for a limited tenure. If it were 10 years, for example, we’d only have 3 more years of Roberts to endure.

    creeper in reply to Jingo. | July 2, 2012 at 1:41 am

    People seem to be inherently leery of electing judges. They expect those elected judges to be baldly political animals.

    The truth is, they’re not. And they’re not commonly tossed out, either. Usually they spend years on the bench, being re-elected year after year because few people actually pay attention to the judges on the ballot.

    Once in a while, though, the voters rise up and express their displeasure. Iowans ejected our entire state Supreme Court last year in the wake of their decision that legalized gay marriage.

    The funny thing is, the Court’s decision still stands and there has been little effort to write an amendment to the state constitution that reverses it.

    High court decisions are almost never overturned.

    punfundit in reply to Jingo. | July 2, 2012 at 10:56 am

    Electing Supreme Court justices is folly. They would them become subject to the same transient populist winds that drive other elected offices.

    Term limits would be arbitrary, and if they existed already most likely we would have already lost Thomas and Scalia.

Hilarious wrt commentary @RvW…

This is not about Obamacare its about eventual fallout from Roberts ruling.
-mandate mill’s, Planned mandate, right to choose mandate

jimzinsocal | July 2, 2012 at 10:03 am

I refuse to feel defeated by the SCOTUS ruling. It happened and we need to accept it no matter what may have motivated Roberts. Congress/Senate Republicans have their mission.
We have an election to win and we need to supply Romney with some acceptable alternative to Obamacare and Repeal isnt going to be a box office hit in November. Its not enough. We need a clear alternative to the individual mandate/penalty/tax.
Why not work with the notion of expanding insurance companies ability to extend coverage to age 26?
Why not explore some plan where insured folks can add non family members to their existing plans? Surely there is some way of working with the existing system to get the uninsured insured that doesnt necessitate an intrusive individual mandate.
What my fear is republicans will be perceived as having no plan beyond repeal. Some plan that gives voters an acceptable alternative. Assuming an object is getting the uninsured enrolled on some policy.

I think the real problem is that conservatives are basically decent human beings and liberals are hateful, spiteful, emotionally crippled people who are not bound by the rules of a polite, civil society. That’s how they win. By attacking the civil society from every direction while admonishing the targets of their attacks to be polite, courteous, and civil in response. In other words, we can’t win because we’re not willing to fight back with the same weapons we’re fighting against.

The key to solving the problem of media bias is to confront the “journalists” who propagate it and make them defend their stances. There should be citizen journalists waiting outside the MSNBC and CNN buildings every single day and night, with cameras, confronting the likes of Chris Matthews and Soledad O’Brien and Anderson Cooper. Norah O’Donnell is in the press gaggle everyday as CBS’ White House correspondent. She should have to answer questions herself every day she leaves that building. The same for Mara Liasson of NPR.

Where is Chief Justice Roberts right now? He gave a speech over the weekend. Why wasn’t any press there hounding him about ignoring the Constitution? Oh, it would have been there is he had ruled the other way. They’d be camped out in front of his house if he had ruled the other way.

But we don’t do that sort of thing. We’re better than them. We believe in civil discourse. We believe in being polite and courteous. We’re so much better than them.

That’s why we’ll lose. And we deserve to. We’re not up to the fight.

To Darkstar and all you other trolls:

Don’t you have jobs? You seem to be stalking the site, and every time someone makes a point you don’t like, you’re jumping on them with recrimination.

Your sarcasm and condescension is offensive. Your constant condemnations because we won’t just shut up and think your way is dictatorial.

Bottom line: we have a right to our opinion. Trying to shut us up is Stalinist. This is a conservative site. We are entitled to our opinions and to voice them. Don’t like it? Leave.

You leftist trolls have a big advantage: you can spam conservative sites (like you’re spamming this post) because your posts aren’t auto-deleted. Unlike your leftist brethren’s sites that delete conservative posts as “offensive” just because they disagree with them.

    Jaynie59 in reply to CalMark. | July 2, 2012 at 10:41 am

    I’ve been banned by more conservative blogs than liberal blogs. Why? Because I’m rude to liberals and we can’t have that can we? I don’t treat liberals with respect and I get nasty with them. Conservatives are so afraid of their own shadows they can’t stand their own commenters. It’d be funny if it weren’t so pathetic.

      CalMark in reply to Jaynie59. | July 2, 2012 at 11:24 am

      I couldn’t agree with you more.

      Conservatives are soooo afraid that someone might say we’re “uncivil.” A personal story about taking off the gloves.

      During the California Proposition 8 fight, I was demonstrating in favor outside a shopping center. Liberals shouted vile, evil things liberals at us; the organizers told us to be nice, shut up, be civil, engage in discourse, to PERSUADE. I was the only one who fought back. (Lib: “Hey, didn’t I see you in a dress last night, you f****** Nazi?” Me: “I wasn’t wearing any dress–but so what? I thought you liberals liked that! And if I’m a Nazi, you’re a Communist!”) Ya know what…they shut up, and went away, speechless and stunned. My reward? The organizers kept telling me to go home (“You’ve done your part and it’s raining so, why don’t you call it a day?) until I got sick of it and left. (Lesson learned: if you’re going to be a firebrand, bring a posse to fight off not just the other side, but the wusses on “our” side.)

      We don’t have to be mean and vicious; we can just be harsh and truthful. People have forgotten what a political brawler Reagan could be. Some of his campaign speeches from the early 80s are masterpieces of partisan hardball.

      We are saddled with “civility” because traitors like Boehner and McConnell in D.C. don’t want us rocking the boat. They have a sweet deal pretending to represent conservatives while they’re really behind-the-scenes junior partners to corruption.

      Case study: Newt Gingrich, run off in ’99 with easily-refuted lies. And again in ’12 by the same lies, spread by Romney and…well, everyone! Nobody in power EVER defended Gingrich, who personally changed the D.C. dynamic in favor of the GOP more than anyone since the New Deal. Case in point, negative ads. Nobody even commented, less condemned, when Romney ran attack ads full of lies. Rush Limbaugh himself chortled nastily about negative ads “defining Newt,” but accused Gingrich of “working for Obama” when Gingrich started to run his own attack ads.

      Why do you think Talk Radio gives us gloom and doom, but no strategy? Why do you think they sit in their ivory towers but don’t really organize anything? If they believe it’s about to be all over, they’d be all in. They like the way things are–it makes them money. It’s a big cabal.

      Bottom line: we are at a watershed moment. Morally, the Ruling Class is on the ropes. They keep winning legislative and judicial victories that contribute to 4/5 of the country saying government is not governing with the consent of the people.

      This can go one of two ways:
      1) We do what it takes, and find a way to knock them out and start over, Tea Party style;
      2) We surrender (John Roberts, call your office) and resign ourselves to a Venezuelan-style Stalinist dictatorship.

      There are no other options left.

        jimzinsocal in reply to CalMark. | July 2, 2012 at 12:12 pm

        Some good and fair points I believe.
        What this climate/election reminfs me of is the 1964 election. But rather than Goldwater, we settled for basically. a Rockefeller.
        In that campaign Goldwater ran against Johnson and his Great Society vision (and its parts) and was painted as racist and near Nazi.
        I see some similarities with this election but substitute Goldwater for Rockefeller. Conservatism didnt even survive the primaries…and were now settling for a guy who’s only similarity with real conservatism are the Brooks Bros suits and his familiarity with perhaps JPress.
        And here we are asking Romney to provide an answer to Obamacare.
        And yes..agree with last comments. Option 1.

        CalMark in reply to CalMark. | July 2, 2012 at 12:18 pm

        Wow. Long freaking post. Like I was a liberal spouting my talking points. For those who didn’t have the patience to read it (wouldn’t blame ya):

        1. Too many conservatives are too timid, more concerned with being nice to enemies than winning.
        2. “Civility” is a weapon for the corrupt GOP Establishment to shut up and keep down conservatism.
        2a. When it’s all on the line, “Conservative” talk radio sides with the Establishment.
        2b. The Establishment drops civility and gins up lies to nuke Conservatives (Newt Gingrich 1999 and 2012).
        2c. Ronald Reagan was a partisan firebrand when he needed to be. No phony, help-the-Dem “niceness” there!
        4. The ruling class is on the ropes. Their victories are illegitimate. Drop the phony civility and fight to win–or accept dictatorship.

          Jaynie59 in reply to CalMark. | July 2, 2012 at 12:34 pm

          I disagree with you when it comes to talk radio, at least when it comes to Mark Levin and Rush. Mark goes out on a limb to endorse and promote conservative candidates. He’s my hero and the reason I’m no longer a liberal.

          Rush is a special case. He’s been so thoroughly Alinksy’d that he knows he has to be careful in every word he utters. Not because of what liberals will say about him, but because he knows he can’t count on conservative support. That was proved again with the Sandra Fluke fiasco. So-called conservative bloggers, including this one, threw him under the bus so fast it was pathetic. Rush knows he can’t really endorse candidates because it may do more harm than good. He also must know that he cannot tie his credibility to any candidate who might crash and burn.

          CalMark in reply to CalMark. | July 2, 2012 at 12:56 pm


          Rush Limbaugh is like a kid in a candy store when talking about his relationship with the Establishment: George W. Bush giving him cigars and a personal briefing; “secret meetings” with Mitt Romney and Boehner & Co; “[his] good friend, Paul Ryan.” When Boehner sold out on the debt ceiling, Limbaugh In short, he is either a fool being played, or an egomaniac playing a double game.

          He stopped calling Congressional Republicans “spineless” or cowardly since he made all these nice new “friends.” His criticism of the Establishment is very muted.

          No problem with him not supporting a candidate. However, he (and the other hosts) spoke very warmly first of Perry, then Santorum. Arguably, by saying things like, “I really like Santorum,” split the conservative vote and got us Romney. Inarguable: Limbaugh NEVER ONCE criticized Romney for untruthful attack ads; Newt got grief just for running attack ads. Limbaugh did what he claims to despise the MSM for doing: phony objectivity while being rabidly partisan, from the most-vicious-ever Limbaugh website caricature, of Newt as a goggle-eyed demon (“Angry Newt”), to failure even to mention Newt’s name when talking about the conservative achievements of the 1990s GOP House majority.

          Sorry. I think the “conservative” movement is the Tea Party. Talk radio has its uses, but those guys are on their own little gravy train.

          CalMark in reply to CalMark. | July 2, 2012 at 1:06 pm

          Sentence fragment: “When Boehner sold out on the debt ceiling, Limbaugh”

          …gave Boehner the last five minutes of the show to spin lies that “there is no deal,” when Boehner was secretly arranging to give Obama everything Obama wanted. Limbaugh knew it was lies: about a month ago, he bragged about being in the “secret meeting” where the GOP leadership made that decision.

          Complicit? GUILTY.

          Jaynie59 in reply to CalMark. | July 2, 2012 at 1:22 pm

          Sorry, but I listen to Rush every day and I’ve never heard him say the things you described when it comes to the Establishment. He just doesn’t say things like that. Yeah, he was too nice with all the candidates, but I tried to explain that in a previous comment.

          Rush has no use for the Establishment.

          CalMark in reply to CalMark. | July 2, 2012 at 1:45 pm

          @Jaynie 59.

          Correction. Limbaugh wasn’t in a secret meeting of the GOP leadership. The secret meeting was with Romney. Mea Culpa. However, Limbaugh did meet with Boehner, and the substance of my criticism stands.

          “Obama Lied During Debt Ceiling Debate”

          Limbaugh met with Boehner a few months before the debt ceiling deal, and Limbaugh seems almost sympathetic about Boehner being good at working with Harry Reid to make deals. Limbaugh seems to be carrying the GOP’s water: they offered to raise taxes, Obama said no, then lied about that to the country–yikes! Wicked Obama. (How about wicked Boehner, for even offering?)

          “Newt Sounds Just Like Obama”

          “I guess it’s time for some full disclosure here. Bain Capital is one of… how do I phrase this? My former syndication partner was Clear Channel Communications. Clear Channel Communications was taken over, bought out by Bain Capital and another private equity firm.”

          Gingrich questioned Bain’s business practices. The downside to capitalism is predatory big companies. There’s been so much smoke blown on both sides, despite some research, I have no idea what to think about Bain.

          Check out the caricature of “Angry Newt.” That’s not taking sides? Against, anyway? It appeared throughout election season.

          The pro-Newt Super PAC ran an anti-Bain ad. Limbaugh said:
          You know, the Newt PAC, I got an idea for you guys. Re-cut your ads on Romney and your tagline is, “I am Barack Obama, and I approve of this message.” Put that at the end of your ad. I’m considering what to do about this, folks. I know it’s serious.

          CalMark in reply to CalMark. | July 2, 2012 at 2:01 pm

          @Jaynie 58: and one more.

          Speaker Boehner Calls the Show, Says There is No Deal on Budget
          July 21, 2011

          The transcripts for July 25 gloss over the fact that Boehner lied on the previous Friday: while “Cut, Cap, and Balance” was in the works and being voted on (July 21), Boehner was apparently already working on a fresh deal. And see the previous post, where Limbaugh reports that Boehner’s deal, the one Obama rejected and lied about to the American people, was being proposed while CC&B hadn’t even been fully voted on.

jimzinsocal | July 2, 2012 at 12:26 pm

I mentioned Romney’s response to Obamacare. Oh great…this will sure sell:

Romney team agrees with Obama, individual mandate not a tax

CalMark is hilarious, apparently brings his deep seeded hatred for lawyers to a law blog entitled Legal Insurrection to pass off his radical mental meanderings of a scenario where there’s a real life re-playing the Revolutionary War. He keeps obsessing with this wild dooms day scenario as a Tea Party first principle and We YOU are entitled to our his opinions and his right to voice them.
While trying to move his rants toward mainstream by defining any push back as Stalinist, no, ura leftist Democrat firshur if you disagree.

    CalMark in reply to OcTEApi. | July 2, 2012 at 2:17 pm

    Gracious. Hitting home, am I? Forgot our meds, did we?

    Tell your friend and mentor Saul Alinsky I said “Hi.”

    P.S. NOTE TO THE PROFESSOR: I may not like lawyers as a group, but I like your blog and respect your intellect. If you agree with this guy, then please ban me. I’ll go quietly.

      OcTEApi in reply to CalMark. | July 2, 2012 at 5:57 pm

      Your reactions are nothing more than childlike emotionalism applied to adult issues, you could care less if your re-replaying the Revolutionary War scenario actually works because its not based on logic or reasoned arguments based on factual standpoints to deal with the situation at hand (ex: Occupy Wall Street) but simply to meant manipulate those susceptible to emotional arguments.
      IOW -Liberalism is:

      Nice that refer to Alinsky — your strategy in regards to Chief Justice Roberts is to pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

      And lastly you lay yourself on the cross, the heavy burden is YOURS to bear, but you seek the Professor to validate your burden taking.
      While your non-arguments take the role of victim.

      OcTEApi in reply to CalMark. | July 2, 2012 at 6:14 pm

      Sorry, I did not mean to thumbs down your comment.

      I want you to stick around and honestly enjoy reading your rants no matter how misguided and illogical I believe they may be.
      (I actually think the rants self-justify the case for RINO’s as the future of the Republican party, but that is another discussion)

      Pls accept my apology and continue… k?

The Court got it wrong, and now Congress must step in.

The “penalty” was added as a result of the RECONCILIATION BILL that was passed by Democrats.
Repealing these two provisions of Obamacare through the Budget Reconciliation Act…

Section 1002 of the Amendment – Individual responsibility: Starting in 2014 everyone will be required to maintain health insurance. If you go without insurance, you will be subject to a tax of $695 per year.

Section 1003 of the Amendment – Employer responsibility: Large companies will be required to provide health insurance as a benefit to its employees. Companies that do not provide this benefit will be imposed a tax of $2,000 a year per employee.

And anyone who wants to, can refuse to purchase health insurance, and they can’t be penalized AT ALL.

TeaPartyPatriot4ever | July 3, 2012 at 1:19 am

This post on the other segmented LI articles to day, applies here-

“The Supreme Court is not the Supreme Court because it’s right, it’s right because it’s the Supreme Court.”

The meaning of this is that what the US Supreme Court has now become, is just an official judicial sanctioned ideological rubber stamp decree for govt tyranny and oppression of the people, instead of an independent branch of the Federal govt, to oversee and maintain the Rights, Freedoms, and Liberties of the American people, aka the sovereign individual, under the US Constitution, are protected and not usurped by the other branches of the federal govt.

And these political hack’s who are bantering creed words of Obamacare’s forced individual mandate, that was issued by decree as constitutional by Chief Justice John Roberts and the US Supreme Court, that it is a Tax, albeit according Chief Justice Roberts to be an implied tax, and of course not a provision empowered under the Commerce Clause.. and the other side of the political spectrum aisle who claims it to be a fee or penalty, and the switching back and forth on what they claim it to be, or not to be by both sides, is typical of all of these political hacks to divert attention from the fact that it doesn’t matter what you call it, a tax or not a tax, it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, meaning it is a legal way to allow the govt to force and compel the citizens of this Nation to buy something they do not want, or need, just because they put their govt stamp of approval on it, does not make it right and constitutional, regardless of what it is called, and regardless of who says it.

And what this really means is that this is gate the allows the the flood of govt sanctioned oppression and tyranny wide open, as what will be next, and it will ultimately lead to a complete all powerful totalitarian authoritarian State Marxist Regime can run roughshod over the American people with absolute impunity..

This is why they must all be removed from office and power as soon as possible, and replaced with competent constitutional conservative people at every level of govt, and the Judiciary.