» News
The politics of the ObamaCare decision (repeatedly updated with dissents)
It looks to me that there are some sweet lemons for conservatives in the ObamaCare decision. Before we burn the chief justice in effigy, let’s read the decision and think about the implications.
First of all, upholding ObamaCare is going to energize opposition to Obama, and the determination to elect a Congress that can repeal and replace it. Just a day ago, the MSM was telling us it would be a plus for Obama if the act were held unconstitutional because it would take the issue off the table and weaken his opposition.
On the other hand, as Rick Moran points out, “it gives Obama a big boost; everyone likes a winner.
I have no doubt that the same media will now proclaim it is a big victory, a change in momentum, a blow to the right. I also expect Sudden New Respect for Chief Justice Roberts. I am not going to hold that against him.
For one thing, the Court went nowhere near claiming the Commerce Clause means the feds can force us to do anything. The CJ and the majority (remember, by joining the majority he got to write the opinion) relied on the taxation power, by defining the mandate penalty as a tax. In other words, they seem to have in effect said, Yeah, the Democrats lied when they claimed they weren’t raising taxes. Big deal! What do you expect?
Lyle at SCOTUS Blog agrees with me:
The rejection of the Commerce Clause and Nec. and Proper Clause should be understood as a major blow to Congress’s authority to pass social welfare laws. Using the tax code — especially in the current political environment — to promote social welfare is going to be a very chancy proposition.
So in other words, the CJ protected us from the expanding the reach of the Commerce Clause, and let us know that we were lied to by the Democrats. And has handed us a big election issue.
Sometimes we win by losing. Call it the Zen of John Roberts.
Update with other opinions:
Mike Razar (corrected attributuion of this) is outraged by CJ Roberts:
You win some; you lose some. It is doubly painful to lose because of a betrayal by someone you admired and trusted. Caesar’s dying words were “Et tu Brute”. Judas Roberts has broken faith with everyone who cares about Constitutional freedom. Given the opportunity to at least slow two centuries of the assumption of dictatorial power by the federal government, Roberts has chosen to side with the Jacobins. His name henceforth is inexorably linked with Benedict Arnold, the one-time hero of Saratoga who mysteriously changed sides when his loyalty was most needed by General Washington. Nathan Hale must be sobbing in his grave today.
Just as the betrayal by Arnold ultimately did no lasting harm, history will record that this act of cowardice sparked a renewed commitment of our modern Tea Party patriots to the founding principles of liberty. Perhaps our righteous indignation will go beyond defeating the liberty challenged politicians in Washington. They should amend the Constitution, to clearly limit the powers of the federal government to tax and regulate the everyday lives of individual citizens.
For now, every Tea Party patriot should sign a petition calling for the resignation of Mr. Roberts.
Sara Goss disagrees:
The Democrats will be hailing the SCOTUS decision to uphold Obamacare as a referendum on Obama’s 1st term in office. What they won’t be mentioning is that Obamacare was upheld because Congress has the power to TAX. As has been said all along, if it looks like a tax and acts like a tax, then it’s a tax. And, it’s the largest tax ever imposed in a single shot on the American public.
Republicans should be dissecting this ruling and shouting from the roof tops that Obamacare was sold to Congress as relating to health care. When it was defended in court the main defense was that it was a tax. And, of course, Congress has the power to levy taxes. Going forward, we need to change all references from Obamacare to Obamatax. Because, as has been pointed out by SCOTUS, it’s not about health care, it’s about taxes.
h/t Erin Bonsteel
bitterclinger
June 28th, 2012
You guys need to do a post on who pushed Roberts to the Bushies. Things will be a lot clearer then. And as far as this piece goes, I’m with Mr. Razar.
Wonder if Chief Justice Arnold, er, Roberts remembers when the MFM started taking pot shots at his kids when his confirmation was announced. As I recall, conservatives rushed to his defense. The disgusting MFM put some hellacious cutlines under the pix of him, his wife and young children. The MFM felt it was their obligation to point out the kids were adopted, derided them as the All-American family, spit-shined and polished. Guess he’s the forgive and screw us, er, uh, forget type.
Czar of Defenestration
June 28th, 2012
Justice Roberts wrote (paraphrasing) that the penalty incurred for not purchasing health insurance “can reasonably be seen as a tax.”
I haven’t seen any justification/articulation on this…just HOW a “penalty” is a “tax” (intended to generateincome for the government).
Anyone?
Czar of Defenestration
June 28th, 2012
The POLITICS of this?
Well, let’s just say that “tax” angle cuts both ways.
Over at Ace of Spades:
http://minx.cc/?post=330548
Ace writes: “And so if I have this right: The Federal Government may now levy a special tax on me if I do not comply with their specific directives about what I should buy, or do?
Can they tax abortions at a high rate?”
Post #95 :
“Oh, and ace’s comment about abortion made me think of this…
Remember thay in China it isnt illegal to have a second child, you just have to pay a $6000 fine to do it. It’s when you can’t pay the tax that they kidnap you, abort your 7 month old baby, and rip out your uterus.
THIS is how stupid Robert’s reasoning is.
Stirrin the B.S.
June 28th, 2012
@Czar – if you take an early withdrawal on your 401K, there is a 10% “penalty”, which IS a tax. Written into tax code and enforced by the IRS.
Czar of Defenestration
June 28th, 2012
@StBS
Yeah….and IF you buy a car, you usually have to buy insurance.
BUT YOU DON’T HAVE TO BUY ONE.
Nor do you HAVE to buy a 401k.
Much less HAVE to take early withdrawls.
Cruisin' Cat
June 28th, 2012
Buy insurance or pay a fine, tax, Gefilte fish, whatever you want to call it, it’s still pay up under threat.
I call that extortion.
Chuck U Farley
June 28th, 2012
I’m revising my earlier assertion…
“Breathe Deep! You can practically taste the Communism”
Chuck U Farley
June 28th, 2012
If it is defined as a ‘tax’, can I deduct it?
If it is defined as a ‘tax’, can it be easier to repeal than a regular law?
Chuck U Farley
June 28th, 2012
@Cruisin’ – all taxes are extortion
The federal gov’t is worse than the Mafia.
At least the Mafia will protect you from others that want to take from you.
Stirrin the B.S.
June 28th, 2012
That wasn’t my point Czar, you asked how a “penalty” could be considered a tax.
“….I haven’t seen any justification/articulation on this…just HOW a “penalty” is a “tax” (intended to generateincome for the government…..”
I cited the early withdrawal on a 401K 10% “penalty” as a tax. Call it what you want, but it goes to the US Treasury and it IS a tax.
Techie
June 28th, 2012
The ruling that Obamacare is a tax is huge. If my understanding of Senate rules is correct it now only requires 50 votes (with a VP that agrees with the repeal) since this now can be dealt with as a budget issue and a filibuster (60 votes) can not be used to stop the repeal. Thoughts?
Czar of Defenestration
June 28th, 2012
@StBS
And so, you make NO distinction between a penalty for DOING something and NOT DOING something?!
Then, you must therefore agree that ALL TAXATION IS (or, at least equivalent to) CHARITY.
Dat ain’t right!
Weldor
June 28th, 2012
Or Romney can just instruct the IRS not to enforce collection of the tax.
I mean, the precedent for selective enforcement has been set by Zero…
venturaguy
June 28th, 2012
@Techie – the only good thing to come out of this. I sure hope that is the case.
Stirrin the B.S.
June 28th, 2012
@Czar – I re-read your post and now see what point you were trying to make (i.e., taxing an action vs. taxing an inaction).
I was focusing on the definition of “penalty” – is it a tax or is it something else. A penalty is a tax. What your question is, is the underlying justification, well, justified?
My interpretation of Roberts’ reasoning is that he was trying to remove the argument that a penalty is the same as a tax, and therefore Congress you can’t hide behind semantics.
Now with regard to whether I make no distinction between taxing something that I do or taxing something that I don’t do, I say that we already do that in a roundabout way – through deductions (or outright credits) for certain desired behaviors (charitable contributions, home ownership – interest deductions, etc.).
If you participate in those behaviors, you receive a tax benefit. If you don’t you pay a higher tax. Roberts’ opinion was designed to say that “Congress, you just imposed a new tax on the citizens”.
It’s up to us to respond accordingly.
Stirrin the B.S.
June 28th, 2012
correction: “that a penalty is NOT the same as a tax….”
Czar of Defenestration
June 28th, 2012
@StBS
“My interpretation of Roberts’ reasoning is that he was trying to remove the argument that a penalty is the same as a tax, and therefore Congress you can’t hide behind semantics.”
Well, pray tell:
how does one REMOVE the argument that “a penalty is the same as a tax” by saying “a penalty can reasonably be seen as a tax”?!?
WARNING BILL ROBINSON: DOES NOT COMPUTE!!!
Czar of Defenestration
June 28th, 2012
oops…caught your correction afterwards….
There’s *still* enough Yuengling for Menderman, if he’d get his N.C. butt down to FL. soon enough….
Stirrin the B.S.
June 28th, 2012
Well geez, what about me? I have family in FL, and will gladly tip a brewskie with you next time I’m in the state.
Redgrandma
June 28th, 2012
I have been considering the possibility that some prog has embarrassing pics of Roberts/Arnold with farm animals.
Jayne
June 29th, 2012
“The rejection of the Commerce Clause and Nec. and Proper Clause should be understood as a major blow to Congress’s authority to pass social welfare laws. Using the tax code — especially in the current political environment — to promote social welfare is going to be a very chancy proposition.” Bull crap! No more social welfare laws are needed to be enacted. They are all already longtime enacted, they will be tweaked. No new additions necessary. We are not the country some of us hoped we still were. It’s been over a long time. Human Nature, and as Rabbi Lapin says the more things change the more we need to rely on the things that never change: faith in God, our redemption and the hereafter, after we try to work good in this overwhelmingly decrepit world.
accounting services
June 30th, 2012
Interesting post. I have to agree with the other comments here.