Image 01 Image 03

Still swallowing Chief Justice Roberts’ bitter Obamacare pill

Still swallowing Chief Justice Roberts’ bitter Obamacare pill

Playing along is not a victory, any more so than it was in June 2012.

Seeing the protracted battle to hold back the unfolding destructive power of Obamacare, let’s remember that we did not need to be here.

Chief Justice John Roberts, targeted by a deliberate campaign of intimidation launched by Democrats from the President on down, joined with the four liberal Justices to uphold Obamacare.

Justice Roberts engaged in mental contortions to hold that the individual mandate exceeded Congress’ Commerce Clause power (agreeing with the dissent), but was constitutional under Congress’ taxing authority (joining with the four liberal Justices).  His was the swing vote.  While there were reports he originally intended to vote otherwise, and was swayed by the pressures, those reports never have been verified and probably never will be given the secrecy that attaches to Supreme Court deliberations.

The dissent called it:

For all these reasons, to say that the Individual Mandate merely imposes a tax is not to interpret the statute but to rewrite it…

Imposing a tax through judicial legislation inverts the constitutional scheme, and places the power to tax in the branch of government least accountable to the citizenry….

What the Government would have us believe in  these cases is that the very same textual indications that show this is not a tax under the Anti-Injunction Act show that it is a tax under the Constitution.  That carries verbal wizardry too far, deep into the forbidden land of the sophists….

The Court today decides to save a statute Congress did not write.  It rules that what the statute declares to be a requirement with a penalty is instead an option subject to a tax….

The Court regards its strained statutory interpretation as judicial modesty.  It is not.  It amounts instead to a vast judicial overreaching.  It creates a debilitated, inoperable version of health-care regulation that Congress did not enact and the public does not expect.  It makes enactment of sensible health-care regulation more difficult, since Congress cannot start afresh but must take as its point of departure a jumble of now senseless provisions,

The values that should have determined our course today are caution, minimalism, and the understanding that the Federal Government is one of limited powers.  But the Court’s ruling undermines those values at every turn.  In the name of restraint, it overreaches.  In the name of constitutional avoidance, it creates new constitutional questions.  In the name of cooperative federalism, it undermines state sovereignty…

The fragmentation of power produced by the structure of our Government is central to liberty, and when we destroy it, we place liberty at peril.  Today’s decision should have vindicated, should have taught, this truth; instead, our judgment today has disregarded it.

We didn’t need to be here.  Obamacare should have been over in late June 2012.

Do not be a party in any sense to the continuation of this law.  Playing along is not a victory, any more so than it was in June 2012.

My post at the time, June 28, 2012:

Stop the self-delusion

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

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


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

I might be inclined to agree with you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Playing along is not a victory, any more so than it was in June 2012.

Could someone tell the GOP that?

Related, this is good, by Michael Walsh at The Corner (link stolen from Ace of Spades):

Conservatives have finally realized that, as it’s currently constituted, they have no home in the Republican party, which is the Washington Generals to the Democrats’ Harlem Globetrotters, the designated losers who nevertheless are rewarded handsomely for their sham opposition.


One thing I take some perverse encouragement from…the excellence of the dissent in a lot of these cases.

One day, the pendulum will swing through these questions again, and the clear thinking of these conservatives in this court will come to be guidance, instead of a historical bookmark.

As for this decision, this was one of the darkest hours in the history of the Supreme Court, and Roberts…who could have been remembered as a great Chief…will live in infamy as the man who authored this literal abomination to the Constitution.

    NC Mountain Girl in reply to Ragspierre. | September 26, 2013 at 2:49 pm

    It took eleven years for a majority of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to wryly note in Neiderman v Brodsky “Today the cows came home” following Justice Musmanno’s withering dissent in 1958’s Bosley v. Andrew.

    In recapitulation I wish to go on record that the policy of non-liability announced by the Majority in this type of case is insupportable in law, logic, and elementary justice — and I shall continue to dissent from it until the cows come home.

    How much bull do you think we will all have to endure before National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius is reversed?

Someone on another comment line said the Chief Justice was intimidated, threatened or somehow coerced while deliberating and sadly submitted. Could that be true? I find that so troubling.

Is there something in the Chief Justices history which could have given people a hint he might decide the way he did? What do people who really know him say?

Is he a Fear Corroded Ape too?

Not in the sense of the job being bigger then his mind could handle but in the sense that if he accepted his high position while hiding his vulnerabilities – he cheated his way into it.

    walls in reply to betty. | September 26, 2013 at 10:24 am

    It would not surprise me if Obama had the NSA-provided data on Roberts, and Dear Leader used it to his advantage.

    TryingToBeHopeful in reply to betty. | September 26, 2013 at 1:55 pm

    I remember reading, somewhere, that Chief Justice Roberts and his wife adopted their two children from Ireland, and that it was illegal for anyone but an Irish citizen to adopt Irish children. Supposedly, he was threatened with losing his children if this was revealed, which would have been the consequence if he overturned 0care.

    It certainly sounds plausible, given the thuggish tactics by these cretins that we see all too often; however, it also sounds a bit simplistic in this age of data accessible by almost anyone. Really, this huge liability wasn’t known during his confirmation hearings?? Or maybe, being as evil as they are, they held this card for when they most needed it :/

    The same item reported that he was seen with bloodshot eyes the day of the announcement, which was interpreted as being the result of crying (or going without sleep?).

    It has become increasingly difficult to be optimistic for my childrens’ sake… I don’t think this is going to end well. At all.

The answer to the question regarding the question of intimidation of the Chief Justice is in the hands of NSA.

He is mentally defective, and as such, we must not mock him.

I wish I could believe that John Roberts voted as he did in a good faith belief that his position was correct, but I can’t.

John Roberts is far too intelligent not to have recognized the contradictions and logical inconsistencies in the position he took.

    Subotai Bahadur in reply to Observer. | September 26, 2013 at 10:22 am

    No good faith was involved.

    1) What became the dissent opinion of the losing side, word for word, was written by Chief Justice Roberts.
    2) Up until 48 hours before the decision was announced, what became the dissenting opinion was the majority opinion, with Roberts voting to kill Obamacare.
    3) Something happened 48 hours before the decision was announced, and Roberts reversed himself completely and wrote the constitutional dog’s breakfast that became the majority opinion justifying Obamacare. His dissenting colleagues used his own original opinion, word for word, as a rebuke.
    4)That sudden reversal does not argue that the decision was the result of judicial probity and honest consideration.
    5)It does argue for the death of the rule of law and the end of the consent of the governed.

    Subotai Bahadur

      Interesting comment based on ???))

        That theory was put out there quite a bit, even by Salon:

        A Court source tells Salon the chief justice wrote the majority opinion and much of the dissent in the ACA case

        This weekend CBS News’ Jan Crawford reported that Chief Justice John Roberts switched his vote in regard to upholding the bulk of the Affordable Care Act. Crawford reports that Roberts voted with the rest of the court’s conservatives to strike down the individual mandate, but in the course of drafting his opinion changed his mind, and ended up siding with the court’s four liberals to uphold almost all of the law.


        Yet that, I am told by a source within the court with direct knowledge of the drafting process, is exactly what happened. My source insists that “most of the material in the first three quarters of the joint dissent was drafted in Chief Justice Roberts’ chambers in April and May.” Only the last portion of what eventually became the joint dissent was drafted without any participation by the chief justice.

I submit, Professor, that your argument misses the bigger picture.

Yes, the Roberts court could have nuked Obamacare, but .. ask the next couple questions, huh?

You think this administration would have been okay with that? I doubt it .. and I suspect – given his evident willingness to play by Suharto’s rules rather than George Washington’s – that the Roberts court would have found itself increasingly marginalized.

You think the average no-concept-of-economics Dem would have been okay with a decision by the Roberts court to boot Obamacare? I really don’t see it .. as with many liberals, they won’t see the light until they’re on the receiving end of a mugging.

I agree, we don’t have to be here, but .. blaming Roberts for asking the “what happens next” questions you ignore, and evidently finding that the answer was “rule of law erodes even faster” is silly. The turning point was 2007, not 2012.


    moonstone716 in reply to acat. | September 26, 2013 at 10:00 am

    You are proving the Professor’s point. He is saying Roberts may have made his decision based on something other than a true interpretation of the Constitution, as well as the rule of law — in your examples he did the same. Only the fear of repercussions is different.

    That’s certainly not a defense of Roberts; it’s just as damning as any of the speculation presented here.

      So .. your argument is that the court is a purely legal organ?

      I .. find that silly. How, if it is *purely legal*, did the court reverse itself down through history? The laws didn’t change, neither did the words in the constitution ..


Roberts wrote:

that the mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s power to “lay and collect Taxes”

Before Roberts, Congress’s taxation power was not unlimited and Congress could lay excise taxes, income taxes and direct taxes.

Prior to Robert’s legerdemain “[t]he term direct tax generally mean[t] a tax paid directly to the government by the persons on whom it is imposed” or a property tax. Under the Constitution, direct taxes had to be apportioned by population.

But Roberts ruled the penalty was not a direct tax because it did not meet the constitutional requirements of a direct tax. So it was constitutional because it was unconstitutional. He thus created a whole new class of taxes directly payable by individuals that did not have to be apportioned by population.

A tax on going without health insurance is not like a capitation or other direct tax under this Court’s precedents. It therefore need not be apportioned so that each State pays in proportion to its population

    MaggotAtBroadAndWall in reply to sequester. | September 26, 2013 at 10:09 am

    Exactly. That’s why Judge Napolitano ranks it as one of the worst decisions in Supreme Court history. FYI, here are the others with his one sentence explanation why:

    Marbury v. Madison, which establishes the federal government as the final judge of its own power;

    McCullough v. Maryland, which establishes the primacy of the federal government over the states and establishes the concept of implied federal power;

    Dred Scott v. Sanford, which establishes the principle that a class of human beings can be defined as non-persons because of an immutable characteristic of birth;

    Wickard v. Filburn, which permits the Congress to regulate personal, private, and even trivial behavior;

    Korematsu v. United States, which permits the attribution of guilt and the infliction of punishment based on an immutable characteristic of birth;

    Roe v. Wade, which permits murder based on the age of the victim; and,

    National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, which permits the Congress to tax any event or non-event it wishes.

      Ummm.. you need to read beyond the constitution and get into the amendments .. the idea of taxes being “apportioned” was amended out in order for the federal income tax to begin.

      No such restriction applied, well before Roberts.


        sequester in reply to acat. | September 26, 2013 at 12:04 pm

        This one almost does not deserve a reply. The shared responsibility payment is not an income tax.

          Umm, seriously, sequester?

          Look, the same amendment that permits non-apportioned taxes, and therefore the income tax, permits the Obamacare shared responsibility ‘tax’.

          Arguments to the contrary would apply to the income tax as well, and there’s a boatload of stare decisis saying that the income tax is legal, eh?

          You may not like it, but being dismissive doesn’t actually dismiss it, eh?


          SmokeVanThorn in reply to sequester. | September 26, 2013 at 11:24 pm

          Except it’s not a tax.

      And also in the set of worst decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States we have:

      Dred Scott vs. Sandford
      Kelo Vs. New London
      Roe vs. Wade

      As to the decision in Marbury Vs. Madison, it is quite plainly obvious to any study of contract law, that entities created by the contract cannot interpret the contract. Only the parties to which the contract is an agreement can alter the terms of the contract between those parties with mutual consent.

      The Supreme Court cannot, therefore, be the “Final” arbiter of the constitution, since it is an entity created by that compact between the respective States and the People. It is only tacitly assumed that the people will abide by a Supreme Court decision, only insofar as it’s decisions are based upon Constitutional principles to which the respective States and People agree. The final determination of what is constitutional MUST, both logically and legally, reside in the parties to the compact, being the ratified Constitution. I.e. The respective States and We the People.

        acat in reply to Paul. | September 26, 2013 at 12:37 pm

        Paul – cant’t that be reduced to “Never issue an opinion that you know won’t be enforceable” ?


          Paul in reply to acat. | September 26, 2013 at 12:57 pm

          On the contrary, cat.

          Use this as an example: 2 people decide, due to their positions regarding a matter, to abide by the decision of a mediator. This works well in some instances. But when the mediator begins to make decisions that neither of the two people agree with, are they then bound to follow his advice?

          The mediator is not in a position to “Make a ruling that will always be upheld.”

          acat in reply to acat. | September 26, 2013 at 1:04 pm

          Ummm.. are you sure you’re tracking what I’m saying, Paul?

          Part of the role of the court is to mediate, yes, but part is also to ensure they remain in a position to do so .. i.e. they really shouldn’t (they can, but..) make decisions that will undermine their own authority.

          If Joe and Jane Sixpack agree to binding arbitration to end their marriage, they are legally stuck with it, even if the arbitrator has a mini-stroke and decides that all their common property is going to his favourite llama rescue.. unless they agree to resort to another avenue of appeal.

          Likewise, in the case of the Roberts decision, we move to another avenue of appeal .. Congress.


          Paul in reply to acat. | September 26, 2013 at 2:29 pm

          “If Joe and Jane Sixpack agree to binding arbitration to end their marriage, they are legally stuck with it, even if the arbitrator has a mini-stroke and decides that all their common property is going to his favourite llama rescue.. unless they agree to resort to another avenue of appeal.”

          Two points:

          #1) The arbitration is not legally binding if it affects the foundation of the law. I.e. In this case, the foundation of the Supreme Court is the Constitution. It cannot, therefore, be legally “Binding” in the sense you are giving. Only the parties pertinent to the contract may alter an agreement, not the entities created by the contract.

          #2)”Likewise, in the case of the Roberts decision, we move to another avenue of appeal .. Congress.”

          Are you saying the Supreme Court has never over-turned itself. That only congress may overturn such a decision? History tells us otherwise.

          Further, Did our nation’s founding “Binding” ties to England not ever get severed? The Declaration of Independence was a “Revolutionary” statement of fact. Sovereignty lies with “We the People.”

          Not in a Supreme Court, Not in a King, Not in a transitory government.

          acat in reply to acat. | September 26, 2013 at 4:45 pm

          I am confused, Paul, as to where you think we disagree.


        sequester in reply to Paul. | September 26, 2013 at 5:26 pm


        You are insightful. States do pick and choose their Supreme Court decisions as sovereigns can. For example, McDonald vs Chicago (gun rights) is all but ignored.

        California is about to shield illegal immigrants from deportation.. Yet a close reading of Arizona vs United States 11-182, shows that California is not conforming to the dictum of Kennedy’s decision. Immigration policy is the exclusive province of the Federal Government Kennedy “reasoned” and a State cannot implement policies that interfere with that province.

        One comes to the conclusion that the Supreme Court is more of a political than a “legal” body. The Courts decisions have force so long as the Court performs the sovereigns dirty work.

        I believe Roberts, just like you recognizes this simple truth about the Court. That is why he wrote the ridiculous abomination that is National Federation of Independent Businesses v Sebelius.

        Court power now depends on a large extent on President and Congress rather than the People and the States.

          Rather ironic I would say, since the power of the Court, and the respect that it would command, would be much greater simply by sticking to Constitutional principles.

          Of course .. and once a new case alleging violations gets back to the court, the Illinois/Chicago bureaucrats will find a different way to thwart the court.

          “Laws don’t go around on wheels enforcing themselves” — Eric Flint

          Neither do court findings… and given Obama’s demonstrated willingness to ignore the structure of our government … I really don’t see where we’d be in a better place with Roberts blocking Obamacare .. we’d just be in a different bad place.


        ray in reply to Paul. | September 27, 2013 at 2:37 am

        Thank you, Paul. You raise a fundamental point about the nature of the contract between the states, representing the people, that set up the federal government. I had not seen that so clearly until your comment.

        Marbury v. Madison is wrong, but is so long-established that we will need another Amendment to correct it.

        “If one tenth of the states disagree with the Supreme Court, the Court must frame its decision as a proposed Amendment, and that amendment must be approved as any other amendment if it is to have effect.” Or some such…

Not sure where the problems lies. ObamaCare can be ended at any time by the legislative process.

    Putting the toothpaste back in the tube is not going to be as easy as all that, and I think you know it.

      Only because there are insufficient votes to abolish ObamaCare.

        Which is a very good reason why the Roberts court curb-stomping Obamacare would not have been – long term – as good.

        This is going to hurt more, but a legislative repeal or block on implementation – my bet is that 2014 looks more like 2010 than 2006 – will – long term – be more permanent.


Let’s make sure that no government employee including Justice Roberts is exempt from Obamacare. Bitter pills all around.

    Most people get their insurance through their employers, and that most people will still get their insurance through their employers.

      This depends, quite a lot, on whether employers continue to offer the option.

      Many are finding that they simply can’t eat the cost increases to do so, and are dropping things like “family coverage”.


        The vast majority of employers will continue to provide coverage.

          Henry Hawkins in reply to Zachriel. | September 26, 2013 at 12:48 pm

          Ah, more crystal ball work.

          Cite, please.


          The vast majority of employers will continue to provide coverage.

          “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor! If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan! PERIOD!!”

          Towers Watson, Health Care Reform Heightens Employers’ Strategic Plans for Health Care Benefits, 2013: Employers remain committed to sponsoring health care benefits, and nearly all (98%) plan to retain their active medical plans for 2014 and 2015.

          And who were the respondents? What questions were asked? What time period did the survey run?

          I will point out, Zachriel, that employers who have been adding jobs are adding them in the part-time no-benefit category, while reducing the number of full-time with-benefit positions.

          This appears to indicate your – or rather, the Towers Watson survey – has a significant amount of cow excrement in it.


          You asked for a citation. You might actually read it. The study may not be definitive, but certainly gives us some sense. Other studies give similar results.

          Towers Watson: The survey was completed by 420 employers during July 2013 and reflects respondents’ 2014 – 2016 health care benefit decisions. The responding companies comprise a broad range of industries and business sizes, and collectively employ 8.7 million employees.

          NEW YORK and SAN MATEO, Calif.— May 29, 2012 — Towers Watson (NYSE, NASDAQ: TW), a leading global professional services company, today announced the completion of its acquisition of Extend Health, Inc., which operates the largest private Medicare exchange in the United States.

          We’s just innocent little mice here, lookin’ for a little more a dat gubbamint cheese!

          And you might consider explaining the clear disconnect between your poll and the actual, measurable employment numbers.

          Polls lose to reality.


          As we said, other studies have found similar results. In reply, you have only waved your hands.

          See Midwest Business Group, Health 2013 Employer Benchmarking Survey: “Most employers (about 90%) are not moving any of their covered population over to either Public or Private Exchanges.”

          Association of counties makes deal with Extend Health for Medicare-eligible retirees

          San Mateo-based Extend Health was acquired by professional services company Towers Watson in 2012. The exchange offers plans from more than 85 health insurance carriers. Almost 300 public and private sector employers and trade associations have used the Medicare exchange to provide coverage to more than half a million customers.

          No vested interest in cheerleading for the government to get more deeply invested in healthcare there at all. AT ALL.

          Is there a reason why you didn’t provide a link for your Midwest Business Group source? Is it because this is actually what it says?

          About 90 percent of self-insured employers say they “don’t plan to move any” of their insured workers to public exchanges, which are making their debut this fall under the Affordable Care Act, a national business coalition said.

          Boldening mine.

          Amy in FL: No vested interest in cheerleading for the government to get more deeply invested in healthcare there at all.

          Multiple studies, including the CBO, have reached the same general conclusion. Most employers will keep their existing insurance, at least in the near term. You haven’t offered any contrary evidence.

          Amy in FL: Boldening mine.

          That quote is not in the study we cited, which includes both self-insured and fully-insured employers. We quoted it accurately. We don’t have a link, but we would be happy to send you the executive summary. Email us at angel at zachriel dot com.

          That quote is not in the study we cited, which includes both self-insured and fully-insured employers. We quoted it accurately. We don’t have a link, but we would be happy to send you the executive summary.

          We, we, we, we, all the way home!

          What’s with the royal “we”?

        The fact that so many Americans expect their employers to provide for their healthcare needs is a stinky leftover of FDR’s dumb wartime wage controls. As John Stossel explained it, “You have to understand something right from the start. We Americans got hooked on health insurance because the government did the insurance companies a favor during World War II. Wartime wage controls prohibited cash raises, so employers started giving noncash benefits like health insurance to attract workers. The tax code helped this along by treating employer-based health insurance more favorably than coverage you buy yourself.” That whole system created much of the mess that left so many people thinking that Obamacare would be A Good Idea.

        Now that Obama’s gone and made it that much more expensive for them to do so, I think more and more employers will be asking their employees to shop for and buy their own health insurance, as they already do for home and auto insurance. And as I’ve opined before, this might be one of the only half-decent things to come out of Obamacare.

          Worth noting someone stuck a position on ending this into McCain’s presidential campaign. Never saw him actually *run* on it, but .. it was out there.

          Brings up one of my biggest complaints .. this problem has been known since before Reagan .. where were the GOP solutions during Bush 2.0’s first term?


          Amy in FL: The fact that so many Americans expect their employers to provide for their healthcare needs is a stinky leftover of FDR’s dumb wartime wage controls.

          The U.S. system is certainly feeling its age. Most other developed economies already have universal health care systems. Some are employer-based, others private insurance, single-payer, some government-run.

          Yes, Zac, because the only two possible ways for free adult citizens to get access to goods or services they need is for either their massa, or the gubbamint, to give it to them.

          I think I see where you’re coming from now.

          Ironically, Zachriel, many of the other single-payer systems are approaching or past the economic tipping point and are being re-thought …

          Why do you so very much want to repeat a failed experiment?

          Is this like how “communism would work if only the right people were in charge of it” ?


          Amy in FL: because the only two possible ways for free adult citizens to get access to goods or services they need is for either their massa, or the gubbamint, to give it to them.

          No, most people over the last generation have paid for their health care through insurance. However, most people don’t want others to be refused medical service just because they can’t afford to pay. During an emergency, it’s not always possible to even verify the ability to pay. For that reason, Reagan signed the Emergency Medical Treatment Act, which requires hospitals to provide emergency care. This resulted in poor people showing up at the emergency room for ordinary care, as well as distorting the payment system even more.

          acat: many of the other single-payer systems are approaching or past the economic tipping point and are being re-thought …

          Most other developed countries pay far less than the U.S. for comparable care. Nevertheless, many are experimenting with market reforms while still maintaining universal coverage.

          gmac124 in reply to Amy in FL. | September 26, 2013 at 4:39 pm

          Zachriel “Most other developed countries pay far less than the U.S. for comparable care.”

          No that would not be comparable care unless you consider waiting months for a pacemaker to be installed comparable care. One question why do so many Canadians come to the US for health care if the rest of world has it right?

          There are a number of measures, but one measure is longevity. Most people in the western world live to comparable lifespans.

          gmac124: One question why do so many Canadians come to the US for health care if the rest of world has it right?

          How many?

          Canada is a democratic country. They can go back to pay-as-you-go. How is that effort coming along?

          SmokeVanThorn in reply to Amy in FL. | September 26, 2013 at 11:29 pm

          They go to “pay as you go” every time they come to the US for treatment.

          I keep hearing how longevity is the same, Zachriel, but .. I’m also aware that infant mortality is measured differently, even among “western” nations.

          A baby born with obvious gross defects that dies within a very short period is, in parts of Europe, “stillborn”. In the U.S., it’s a live birth.

          This goes *directly* to the foundation of your argument regarding longevity.. your whole argument appears to have been built on sand.


          acat: I’m also aware that infant mortality is measured differently, even among “western” nations… A baby

          Life expectancy of adults are also comparable. For example, life expectancy of people age 60 is 25 years in France, 23 years in the U.S.

It is for this reason, that I am citing “Civil Disobedience” and NOT complying with this obviously UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

I encourage everyone to do their part as well, to bring this hulking “Nightmare” (Teamsters word, not mine) down.

    acat in reply to Paul. | September 27, 2013 at 3:33 pm

    I keep hearing people calling for this.

    Could you be more specific?

    What steps are you going to take? What law or administrative rule or rules will you be violating?

    Are you talking about falsifying a tax return? Paying a doctor off the books, what?

    It’s a nifty idea, but without some details to back it up, it’s .. not more than an idea, eh?


MouseTheLuckyDog | September 26, 2013 at 12:08 pm

Before we go into Roberts campaign, I think we must first examine the election and the results.

To this day, I am convinced that one thing saved Obama from defeat. Businesses like boats do not change course on a moments notice. It takes hours and sometimes days, and for businesses months sometimes years.

Businesses were convinced that Obama would lose, so they started to change their directions to one that anticipated Obama losing. This eased the economy a bit and people who were not going to vote for Obama looked at the economy easing a bit and changed their minds.

So it wound up that business and many people wound up screwing themselves by cheering too early.

Roberts too probably thought that Obama was going to lose. There were several things I think he believed.

1) Whatever else the idea that Obamacare is not allowed by the Interstate commerce clause, is now precident. This could be an important precident.

2) He would give Romney a boost and at the same time he would force people to accept the idea that “elections have consequences”.

3) He would force Obama to admit Obamacare was a biggest tax.

4) He would enhance the reputation of SCOTUS as an independent arbiter.

So I think that he thought he would play a political game, but it blew up in his face.

Hopefully he learned a lesson, the professional politicians screw up politics bad enough, they don’t need help from amateurs. With this lesson learned, hopefully he will stick to the law.

About the WORST Chief Justice since Tanney! He’s the “go-to”guy that supplies all the rubber stamp judges to the FISA Court!

Yes, some day, ahead … there will have to be a deep cleanup of all the laws that got written since 1980. ALL OF THEM!

Souter was a disgrace.

And, Sandra day O’Connor a MARVEL at politics. (Oh, our Supreme-O bench sitters are supposed to be above politics?) Dream on. Because Sandra Day O’Connor is the “inventor” of FORKS. Legal forks. So you can suck on your Lemon when your Lemon is on a fork. Not a stick.

By the way, Glenn Greenwald does NOT like Kagan! He says she’s gonna be right wing. That’s how she naturally flies. He faulted Obama for selecting her.

Nope. Nothing I can do about it.

But it sure is interesting to read about “backgrounds.”

Oh, you know in KELO, the locals took over the land, hoping for a big drug company to come in and build. They didn’t. But the locals lost their homes just the same. And, now what you have is “beachfront ugly.”

Robert’s vote … “was swayed by the pressures, those reports never have been verified and probably never will be” …
Just look at all, the volume, of stories and pressure heaped on Roberts in late April and May of 2012 and subject matter … get Kagan’s e-mails for the month or so leading-up to the vote … you’ll have your proof.