» News
Obama Wins the Battle, Roberts Wins the War
The chief justice’s canny move to uphold the Affordable Care Act while gutting the Commerce Clause.
There were two battles being fought in the Supreme Court over the Affordable Care Act. Chief Justice John Roberts—and Justice Anthony Kennedy—delivered victory to the right in the one that mattered.
Yes, Roberts voted to uphold the individual mandate, joining the court’s liberal wing to give President Obama a 5-4 victory on his signature piece of legislation. Right-wing partisans arecrying treason; left-wing partisans saw their predictions of a bitter, party-line defeat undone.
But the health care law was, ultimately, a pretext. This was a test case for the long-standing—but previously fringe—campaign to rewrite Congress’ regulatory powers under theCommerce Clause.
This is why the challenge to the ACA, and its progress through the courts, came as a surprise to Democrats and to mainstream constitutional scholars: Three years ago, there was no serious doubt that Congress had the power to impose the individual mandate.
A Bloomberg story last week nicely captured the stakes: “Obama Health Law Seen Valid, Scholars Expect Rejection”:
The U.S. Supreme Court should uphold a law requiring most Americans to have health insurance if the justices follow legal precedent, according to 19 of 21 constitutional law professors who ventured an opinion on the most-anticipated ruling in years.
Only eight of them predicted the court would do so.
The scholars expected to see the court gut existing Commerce Clause precedent and overturn the individual mandate in a partisan decision: Five Republican-appointed justices voting to rewrite doctrine and reject Obamacare; four Democratic-appointed justices dissenting.
h/t TooMuchTime
grayscape
June 29th, 2012
Bullshit. Roberts could have sided with the 4 dissenters and thrown the whole fucking thing out including all the commerce clause shit.
There is no silver lining. A polished turd is still a turd.
beachmom
June 29th, 2012
He and the court could have gutted the Commerce Clause while killing Obamacare.
bitterclinger
June 29th, 2012
Since when would a conservative marvel at Slate?
scr_north
June 29th, 2012
I read the Slate article and I will admit that when I read anything from Slate it’s with a grain of salt as they are left leaning. Having said that, I don’t see where the author figures that Roberts “gutted” the Commerce Clause with this decision.
I gather that when the oral arguments took place, Obama (the feds) argued on the first day that the mandate was not a tax and was allowed under Commerce Clause and on the second day argued that it was a tax and as such was within the power of congress to pass (nevermind all the dirty tricks, bibery and coercion the Dems used to pass it). So they argued both ways and Roberts picked one.
How is that gutting the Commerce Clause? It just left it alone. Also, listening to Rush today he’s saying that there is a law (damned if I remember it) that says you can’t sue over a tax until it’s actually applied to someone and that won’t happen until 2014. If that’s the case then should the case have been dismissed?
You know, if Alito (I think it was him) hadn’t asked the tax question on the first day, and the court hadn’t solicited the second day presentation defining the mandate as a tax, whether Roberts would have simply ruled on what was in the act (defined as a mandate) and overturned it.
In any event, this still may be a golden opportunity for the GOP to hammer the crap out of the Dems in November.
Mary Jane Anklestraps
June 29th, 2012
“Since when would a conservative marvel at Slate?”
Who marveled at it?
You don’t know what the other side is doing unless you read for yourself, right?
It’s kinda nice to see them shit a few bricks, though.
p-o'd Jane
June 29th, 2012
Grayscape said it first. It was my first thought – bullshit.
BillyShaft
June 29th, 2012
I am not sure that I am seeing Roberts as some masterful three-level chess player here.
Instead I see an unprincipled coward using the bench for activism.
That we MAY have a chance to claw ourselves out of this grave is no consolation to me and no thanks to the SC.
Efficacy
June 29th, 2012
Same war as the day before and the day before:
Remove Obama and his entire cabal starting November 2012. Cleaning house (all czars, EPA, HHS, Homeland Sec., TSA, ETC.) starting Jan 2013.
super toe
June 29th, 2012
With the stroke of a pen , John Roberts forged ahead with the Anti-American plan to destroy the Constitution.
The government can now tax us for doing
nothing.
All these hopey-dopey so-called conservative
repubs who think there is a silver-lining should get in line next to Obama’s kool-aide drinkers.
Carter Nash
June 29th, 2012
Robert’s duty is to uphold the constitution, not play chess. Anyone who sees a silver lining in this decision is delusional.
muddjuice
June 29th, 2012
I have to agree with Carter. You don’t gamble with freedom. You don’t play political games with the Constitution. If that’s what he wanted to do, he should have become a politician…..
suzsanne
June 29th, 2012
Ditto grayscape.
Unneutral
June 29th, 2012
I use to think the SC justices were beyond reproach.
My bad.
Anonymous
June 29th, 2012
Man! Hysteria runs amuck!
First by strengthening the Commerce Clause he allowed the states to totally reject ObamaCare.
By allowing the govorment to tax unrestricted he doomed the Kommiecrat party. Tax increases have ALWAYS been a vote killer
Recall how Fatso tried to get taxation in for Kommiecrats? Well that didn’t work out to well.
My fear is the GOP Establishment will do nothing even after the landslide election
michellesbigbeaver
June 29th, 2012
If you believe that the passage of Obamacare was anything other than a great loss to the conservative movement and the American people, then you’ll believe that the “check is in the mail” and that “I won’t cum in your mouth”……
Cruisin' Cat
June 29th, 2012
Still buying another case of .308.
Billy Fuster
June 29th, 2012
They get away with it because you keep obeying their shit laws. How many of you are still paying income tax?
MADJACK
June 29th, 2012
I say bullshit to what Roberts has done. He is in fact in my opinion a traitor to conservative values and the United States. His gamble that conservatives will win big in November is totally irresponsible and deplorable. First off you have to get more than 1 in 4 conservatives to the damn polls.
Secondly you have to have some republicans in congress that have some cajones and won’t continue to stand idly by while Obama finishes dismantling the Constitution.. As far as I am concerned what the SCOTUS did yesterday was to say they are Above The Law. 
The Supreme Court is a fucking joke! 
BigSlurpy
June 29th, 2012
The shame of all of this is that no matter how we elect official in our favor, overturning this albatross will most likely be a long and tedious process. It would have been better had Roberts sided with the conservatives as it would have discouraged any future implementation of such lunacy. I guess what we really need is a constitutional amendment outlawing socialism..
Steve in LA
June 29th, 2012
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyLU9-VqVxY&feature=g-all-u
The Supreme Court agreed that Obamacare is not constitutional under the commerce clause as liberals originally argued, but instead allowed it as a tax. If Obamacare is a tax then, it is AUTOMATICALLY NULLIFIED because all bills raising taxes must originate in the House of Representatives as per the U.S. Constitution… the version of Obamacare that finally passed originated in the Senate!!!
U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 7: “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.”
Stranded in Sonoma
June 29th, 2012
@Steve in LA — As I said yesterday, someone will find a piece of paper with Nancy Pelosi’s signature on it that mentions the Affordable Care Act and some federal court will consider that enough.
I do recall reading that there was a similar argument against the 16th amendment when it was first passed. The bill for the amendment did start in the Senate. However, the court ruled that something (I don’t remember what, I’m still looking) originated in the House and that was good enough for the court.
A1-S7 says that the bill has to originate in the House, not pass the House.
I agree with you. Obamatax originated in the Senate. But I’ll bet you’ll never get a court to agree to that.
Czar of Defenestration
June 29th, 2012
Not only LEGAL INSURRECTION
http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/06/stop-the-self-delusion/
but also Mark Levin
http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/06/mark-levin-on-obamacare-ruling/
beg to differ.
I beg to shout BULLSHIT!!!
Joe Btfsplk
June 29th, 2012
The rallying cry must now be “REPEAL the OBAMA-TAX!” It’s in the hands of the voters…..
AvgDude
June 29th, 2012
This is all a Potomic two-step where everybody screws you and it’s nobody’s fault.
If it’s a tax, then it’s an invalid law and should be overturned immediately because it did not originate in the House.
If it isn’t a tax, then it should be nullified by the commerce clause.
The scumbag democrats will, of course, call it a penalty everywhere except in court. And the fucktard republicans will act outraged but won’t do a fucking thing about it.
And Roberts could’ve killed the entire goddamn thing and didn’t either because he’s a ringer or being blackmailed. And I’d wager good money that Romney will either screw us when elected or will pull a McCain and tank the election to the neocommunists democrats.
They’re all in it to fuck us, period. It’s us against the democrats and the republicans, period. They really don’t give a shit because the high level operatives in the major parties will insulate themselves from the massive dog blow that is Obamacare.
Dr. Tar
June 29th, 2012
The nation can’t take any more victories like this one.
Stirrin the B.S.
June 29th, 2012
@Stranded that was me you made the point to, and I am struggling with the term, or defination of, “originate”.
Does that just mean that a Congressman sends an e-mail to a Senator suggesting that the Senate should draft a bill for ObummerCare? Or does originate mean that an actual bill is drafted (in the House), thus starting legislating process?
I found somewhat of an explanation on this site:
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/lawsmade.bysec/formsofaction.html
Reagarding the origination question:
“…..Bills may originate in either the House of Representatives or the Senate with one notable exception. Article I, Section 7, of the Constitution provides that all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives but that the Senate may propose, or concur with, amendments.
A bill originating in the House of Representatives is designated by ”H.R.” followed by a number that it retains throughout all its parliamentary stages. The letters signify ”House of Representatives” and not, as is sometimes incorrectly assumed, ”House resolution.”……”
Note that a bill originating in the House of Representatives must have the “H.R.” designation throughout all of its parlimentary stages.
I read that to mean, that if the ACA did not have that H.R. designation throughout, then it originated in Senate and is not a valid tax bill.
Stranded in Sonoma
June 29th, 2012
@grayscape — Yes, it would have been nice to have Roberts do the right thing and find it all unconstitutional. And yes, he could done limited gov’t while doing that.
But I have to disagree with you. There is a silver lining. It’s a TAX! There is no way for the demmorhoids, who are now spiking the football, to claim this isn’t a tax. They “won” and are giddy about it. Which means they have to accept Roberts’ decision that this is a tax on the very people that Obama claimed he would not tax. No matter how his spin-merchants in the Enemedia™ try, they will not be able to hide that fact.
And since it’s a tax, I believe that it will not need a supermajority in the Senate to repeal it. It will only need 51 votes (or 50 and Romney’s VP) to flush it down the toilet.
berlet98
June 29th, 2012
Considering Islam, Obamacare Ruling Is the Least of Our Problems
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts’ defection to the dark side on the issue of Obamacare was startling and incredibly disappointing.
Nevertheless, there are noteworthy positives associated with his decision to join the ranks of extreme Leftists on SCOTUS, one of whom should have recused herself had she possessed a shred of integrity, and opt to support a law that was foisted on the American people by the Democrat Party.
For one, Roberts’ vote demonstrated that an ardent conservative can sometimes stray from the consevative path, unlike liberals on the Court and elsewhere who would rather swallow their shoes than voice disagreements with leftist ideology.
For another, declaring Obamacare constitutional offered Mitt Romney the opportunity to gain millions of votes from the majority of Americans who believe the concept of British-style socialized medicine stinks.
For yet another, mandating Obamacare once again outed President Barack Hussein Obama as a liar since the 5-4 split decesion essentially imposes a huge tax increase, a tax the president has repeatedly and emphatically vowed would never happen.
In any event, when Obama is thrown out of office in November and Republicans sweep House and Senate races, Obamacare will be methodically dismantled. Only the good features of the Unaffordable Care Act, such as elimination of lifetime dollar limits on policies and elimination of co-pays for preventive care, will be retained.
More importantly, the entire brouhaha over Obamacare and unduly stressing over a SCOTUS ruling may be moot and a foolish disregard for geopolitical realities–the dire threat to the nation posed by Islam and Muslim extremists intent not on merely destroying America’s health care system but on destroying America itself.
Among the president’s many other flaws is his ignorant obliviousness of the fundamental evil that is Islam. And that evil is not confined to Muslim countries. It is speading rapidly to the West, to America’s shores, and even to our military.
Read the story of British journalist Natasha Smith who, last year, was ecstatic over the glorious, popular upheaval of the Arab Spring. This spring Ms. Smith came face to face with the true nature of Islam in Cairo’s Tahir Square.
She described her not unprecedented experience (remember CBS New’s Lara Logan?) after the Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohammed Corsi’s visit to Obama’s White House and his victory in Egypt’s presidential election.
Smith graphically wrote on her blog: “Men began to rip off my clothes. I was stripped naked. Their insatiable appetite to hurt me heightened. These men, hundreds of them, had turned from humans to animals.
“Hundreds of men pulled my limbs apart and threw me around. They were scratching and clenching my breasts and forcing their fingers inside me in every possible way. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=26055.)
exceller
June 29th, 2012
the first comment says it all. It’s BS that this was some “canny move”. it was nothing of the sort. IT was a cave in to the Washington elites. No chief justice should use such contorted logic to save a bill which he has determnied was unconstitutional.
He may now become the darling of the NYT’s and Chris Matthews, but what he did disgraced the court imo.
Stranded in Sonoma
June 29th, 2012
@Stirrin — I agree with you, but I need to find that court decision where it mentions this very sujbect. They didn’t spend much time on the wording and dismissed it quickly. I just can’t remember. It will eventually come to me. It may have been an official bill and probably was.
But remember the tortuous path that Obamatax took to get done. Pelosi started it in the House and passed something onto the Senate. The Senate then gutted it completely and wrote an entirely new bill, passed it, then gave back to the House who then passed it. As long as Pelosi lies and says that yes, what the Senate passed was “HR666,” the House version of Obamatax, there isn’t much of a legal leg to stand on.
Czar of Defenestration
June 29th, 2012
On the matter of a tax originating in the House:
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/28/say-doesnt-the-constitution-require-tax-bills-to-originate-in-the-house/
Stirrin the B.S.
June 29th, 2012
@Czar – good spot. Puts that argument to rest.