What's new

Sometimes things aren't what they seem to be

pitzerwm

Active member
Joined
Aug 28, 2007
Messages
3,693
Reaction score
10
Points
36
Location
Tri-Cities, WA
Before you look to do harm to Chief Justice Roberts or his family, it’s important that you think carefully about the meaning – the true nature — of his ruling on Obama-care. The Left will shout that they won, that Obama-care was upheld and all the rest. Let them.
It will be a short-lived celebration.
Here’s what really occurred — payback. Yes, payback for Obama’s numerous, ill-advised and childish insults directed toward SCOTUS.
Chief Justice Roberts actually ruled the mandate, relative to the commerce clause, was unconstitutional. That’s how the Democrats got Obama-care going in the first place. This is critical. His ruling means Congress can’t compel American citizens to purchase anything. Ever. The notion is now officially and forever, unconstitutional. As it should be.
Next, he stated that, because Congress doesn’t have the ability to mandate, it must, to fund Obama-care, rely on its power to tax. Therefore, the mechanism that funds Obama-care is a tax. This is also critical. Recall back during the initial Obama-care battles, the Democrats called it a penalty, Republicans called it a tax. Democrats consistently soft sold it as a penalty. It went to vote as a penalty. Obama declared endlessly, that it was not a tax, it was a penalty. But when the Democrats argued in front of the Supreme Court, they said ‘hey, a penalty or a tax, either way’. So, Roberts gave them a tax. It is now the official law of the land — beyond word-play and silly shenanigans. Obama-care is funded by tax dollars. Democrats now must defend a tax increase to justify the Obama-care law.
 

pitzerwm

Active member
Joined
Aug 28, 2007
Messages
3,693
Reaction score
10
Points
36
Location
Tri-Cities, WA
Finally, he struck down as unconstitutional, the Obama-care idea that the federal government can bully states into complying by yanking their existing medicaid funding. Liberals, through Obama-care, basically said to the states — ‘comply with Obama-care or we will stop existing funding.’ Roberts ruled that is a no-no. If a state takes the money, fine, the Feds can tell the state how to run a program, but if the state refuses money, the federal government can’t penalize the state by yanking other funding. Therefore, a state can decline to participate in Obama-care without penalty. This is obviously a serious problem. Are we going to have 10, 12, 25 states not participating in “national” health-care? Suddenly, it’s not national, is it?
Ultimately, Roberts supported states rights by limiting the federal government’s coercive abilities. He ruled that the government can not force the people to purchase products or services under the commerce clause and he forced liberals to have to come clean and admit that Obama-care is funded by tax increases.
Although he didn’t guarantee Romney a win, he certainly did more than his part and should be applauded.
And he did this without creating a civil war or having bricks thrown threw his windshield. Oh, and he’ll be home in time for dinner.
Brilliant.
 

rph9168

Carwashguy
Joined
Aug 31, 2007
Messages
2,663
Reaction score
11
Points
38
Location
Atlanta
This was far from an Obama victory. Calling it a tax was key. It forces Obama to defend it along with his sorry record. It is another weapon for Romney and the Republicans to use against Obama and the Democrats in the Fall campaign. If Roberts had struck it down Obama and his buddies could have said it was another example of the right interfering with health care. Now that it has bee declared a tax and there is a loophole for states it creates a real problem for the Democrats. To close the deal the Republicans need to lay down a specific health care plan instead of the sweeping generalities they have put forth this far.
 

mac

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
3,558
Reaction score
791
Points
113
Bill, thanks for a reasoned explanation of what happened. Before the ruling. I kept remembering back to Obama's first state of the union speech, where he publicly scvolded the court sitting right in front of him. I remember Roberts mouthing the words "not true" back at him. That had to sting. Let's hope his reasoning helps get rid of this crap called Obamacare.
 

pitzerwm

Active member
Joined
Aug 28, 2007
Messages
3,693
Reaction score
10
Points
36
Location
Tri-Cities, WA
Not only did he scold them publicly, he didn't vote for Roberts during confirmation, one of his few actual votes while Senator. You bet Roberts knew what he was doing, just gave him more rope.
 
Top