The IRS Can NOW Enter Through The Rear
What do you know it’s a TAX!
2009: “That may be, but it’s still a tax increase,” said Stephanopoulos.
“No,” said the president. “That’s not true, George. The — for us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase.
Stephanopoulos cited Merriam Webster’s Dictionary definition. “Tax — ‘a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.'”
“George, the fact that you looked up Merriam’s Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now,” said the president. “Otherwise, you wouldn’t have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition….I absolutely reject that notion” that it’s a tax increase. (ABC News)
Yeah, But Chief Justice Roberts just ruled that it was a TAX. That’s why Obamacare is “Constitutional”, because it’s TAX in the view of the “majority” opinion.
Like he did when Obamacare was being debated, Obama will try to hide from Americans the fact that Obamacare is a tax increase when he is on the stump. But in 2012, he won’t be able to take credit for Obamacare without admitting that it is a tax increase because the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, in upholding his law, called him out on it. (Breitbart)
But at least 1700+ companies, mostly unions are exempt because of the waivers passed out like candy to his apparatchiks. Oh happy Days.
Why Roberts did it
By Charles Krauthammer, Thursday, June 28, 1:11 PM
As a conservative, he is as appalled as his conservative colleagues by the administration’s central argument that Obamacare’s individual mandate is a proper exercise of its authority to regulate commerce.
That makes congressional power effectively unlimited. Mr. Jones is not a purchaser of health insurance. Mr. Jones has therefore manifestly not entered into any commerce. Yet Congress tells him he must buy health insurance — on the grounds that it is regulating commerce. If government can do that under the commerce clause, what can it not do?
“The Framers . . . gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it,” writes Roberts. Otherwise you “undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers.”
That’s Roberts, philosophical conservative. But he lives in uneasy coexistence with Roberts, custodian of the court, acutely aware that the judiciary’s arrogation of power has eroded the esteem in which it was once held. Most of this arrogation occurred under the liberal Warren and Burger courts, most egregiously with Roe v. Wade, which willfully struck down the duly passed abortion laws of 46 states. The result has been four decades of popular protest and resistance to an act of judicial arrogance that, as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg once said, “deferred stable settlement of the issue” by the normal electoral/legislative process.
More recently, however, few decisions have occasioned more bitterness and rancor than Bush v. Gore, a 5 to 4 decision split along ideological lines. It was seen by many (principally, of course, on the left) as a political act disguised as jurisprudence and designed to alter the course of the single most consequential political act of a democracy — the election of a president.
Whatever one thinks of the substance of Bush v. Gore, it did affect the reputation of the court. Roberts seems determined that there be no recurrence with Obamacare. Hence his straining in his Obamacare ruling to avoid a similar result — a 5 to 4 decision split along ideological lines that might be perceived as partisan and political.
National health care has been a liberal dream for a hundred years. It is clearly the most significant piece of social legislation in decades. Roberts’s concern was that the court do everything it could to avoid being seen, rightly or wrongly, as high-handedly overturning sweeping legislation passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the president.
How to reconcile the two imperatives — one philosophical and the other institutional? Assign yourself the task of writing the majority opinion. Find the ultimate finesse that manages to uphold the law, but only on the most narrow of grounds — interpreting the individual mandate as merely a tax, something generally within the power of Congress.
Result? The law stands, thus obviating any charge that a partisan court overturned duly passed legislation. And yet at the same time the commerce clause is reined in. By denying that it could justify the imposition of an individual mandate, Roberts draws the line against the inexorable decades-old expansion of congressional power under the commerce clause fig leaf.
Law upheld, Supreme Court’s reputation for neutrality maintained. Commerce clause contained, constitutional principle of enumerated powers reaffirmed.
That’s not how I would have ruled. I think the “mandate is merely a tax” argument is a dodge, and a flimsy one at that. (The “tax” is obviously punitive, regulatory and intended to compel.) Perhaps that’s not how Roberts would have ruled had he been just an associate justice and not the chief. But that’s how he did rule.
Obamacare is now essentially upheld. There’s only one way it can be overturned. The same way it was passed — elect a new president and a new Congress. That’s undoubtedly what Roberts is saying: Your job, not mine. I won’t make it easy for you.
So he gave into pressure to be “liked” and to not appear to be a “right wing judicial activist”. Image Politics at it’s finest and darkest.
So like the Republicans in the Debt Ceiling vote they caved into the pressure from the intolerant and partisan media and we all get to be victims of the Bully Pulpit.
Democrats carry out their strategy of trashing the Court as a “corporate dominated arm of the Republican party.” The truth may, in fact be that the Court is dominated easily–not by corporate interests, but by Obama’s imperial presidency and an intolerant mainstream media.
If Chief Justice Roberts thought he was preserving public trust in the Supreme Court today, he will quickly learn he has done the opposite–not least because Democrats define bipartisanship as complete capitulation. Liberals–still smarting over Bush v. Gore–and conservatives now both have reason to distrust the court and its motives. If that “bipartisanship” is the legacy of the Chief Justice’s apparent switch, it is a bitter bequest. (Breitbart)
He was for it After he was against it. The tortured logic of a bully’s victim.
He’s got Stockholm Syndrome.
And we all get hit with the shrapnel. I wonder if Post Traumatic Roberts Syndrome will be covered by ObamaCare?
Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc-ra-cy)- a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing,and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed,are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of
a diminishing number of producers.
One last thing: As soon as the law was ruled Constitutional, some members of the DNC showed their class. A tweet was sent out that read, “It’s Constitutional, bitches!” That’s class for ya. It’s must be that new “civility” they were talking about.