June 28, 2012

"It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices."

That's the quote from Roberts' opinion that he extracted up front as he began the announcement of the opinion today.

There's material throughout his opinion — which I've highlighted in my various posts today — that calls attention to the flawed mechanisms of the universal-health-coverage scheme. Most notably, the individual mandate is only constitutional because it's optional, and people can simply pay the "penalty" (now known as the tax) to the federal government as long as they don't want to buy health insurance. If people behave rationally and weigh the costs against the benefits, they won't buy insurance until their expenses (health care costs + the penalty) exceed the premiums, and the insurance companies will not amass premiums from the vast numbers of healthy people who pay in more than they receive. It seems like a design for collapse, but, as Roberts says: That's not his concern.

AND: To say it's a "design for collapse" is to set up the question whether it was a screw-up or whether it was the first move in a scheme to take us to a single-payer, government health care program.

MORE: This calls to mind the old Pelosi quote:



"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."

We found out today, I think. Have you noticed yet?

271 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 271 of 271
Palladian said...

It's fitting that "whoresoftheinternet" used to call itself "Florida"— the cesspit home of face-eating drug addicts right on down...

Anonymous said...

So this is how liberty dies...

not with a bang. With Jone Stewart-level mockery.

Electrocution is too good for you knaves.

Palladian said...

Abject trolling is a little refreshing.

Oh, ok... Althouse! It's totally YOUR fault that my pet hamster Wheat escaped his cage and disappeared back in 1983! And the New Model Army's defeat of Charles I's forces at the Battle of Naseby in 1645? YOUR FAULT, you bitch!

Seven Machos said...

I blame Althouse for every meal that is not properly salted and for every night I did not have sex.

Palladian said...

I'd also like to blame Althouse for the price of flank steak, the time I stabbed myself in the wrist when I was trying to cut chewing gum off of a sandal, and for the early failures of the Large Hadron Collider.

Anonymous said...

Every person who voted/supported Obama in 2008 is responsible for this.

Your politics matter. Your vote matters.

Trying to shirk responsibility because "a lot of other people did it" is the argument of the Nazis at a
Auschwitz. "Everyone else was doing it" is not a defense, dumbasses.

The tree of liberty must be refreshed...

Palladian said...

Althouse also needs to answer for the poor quality of the 1975 vintage in Bordeaux, the Great Fire of London in 1666, and the time in kindergarten when I was discovered under the concrete playground turtle kissing my classmate Lance.

Seven Machos said...

Goodnight, Palladian and all you other great commenters.

And goodnight to you, too, Robespierre.

Anonymous said...

God, I hate lefties.

"No matter what we vote for, we're not responsible for the consequences!"

I should have beaten that faggot lefty at the bar to death tonight. Goddamn it. You all deserve it.

Seven Machos said...

Before I go, I just heard a huge, frightening noise in my home. Scared the bejesus out of me.

Obviously, I blame Althouse. And when I find her and Meade wherever they are in my house, vengeance will be mine.

Palladian said...

And goodnight to you, too, Robespierre.

Thank the gods that 9 Thermidor is less than a month away...

Saint Croix said...

As for "taxing inaction," St. Croix, do you understand that my remark was but one attempt to propose a simple way for Roberts to have laid down a bright line that limited federal power?

Roberts already laid down a couple of big rules.

1) Inaction cannot be regulated under the commerce clause. You have to be engaged in commercial activity. As a matter of law, this is huge.

2) The Court imposed a 10th Amendment limitation on the federal aurhority to coerce state action via the spending power. Not really a bright line test. But overturning that part of Obamacare was a huge win for federalism. And it was 7-2!

A lot of people seem to think Roberts is doing something radical with the Article 1 authority to tax. No, he's not. It's not radical at all. Scalia admits as much in his dissent.

The dispute between Roberts and the Scalia 4 is a dispute over statutory interpretation. (He says "tax," they say "fine"). That dispute has almost no relevance to issues of constitutional law. They are disagreeing about how to read Obamacare, that 1000 page statute that I haven't read. 99.99% of constitutional law does not involve Obamacare. I think Obamacare will be dead this time next year. So how to read the statute will be irrelevant in the very near future.

Maybe the Supreme Court needs to impose an (unenumerated!) Constitutional limit on the power to tax. (Write a letter to Thomas!)

But understand that none of the right-wingers are saying that. It's 9-0, or maybe 8-1, on the question of whether Congress can impose a tax on people without health insurance. Yes they can.

Roberts did not do or say anything weird about the Constitution at all. He's right on the commerce clause, right on the spending clause, and right on the taxing power. He's 3 for 3. And that's not just me or Machos saying that. Scalia does not argue with Roberts on the tax power. Nobody does. He's right on the Constitution, that's why they're not arguing with him on that.

yashu said...

I love listening in on the smart late night Althousians. Sweet dreams to you all (or almost all).

Obviously Althouse belongs in the 9th circle of hell, with traitors like Cain and Judas and Roberts and George Lucas and of course, all those who voted for Obama. Not to mention backstabbing Marxist, nay Stalinist establishment RINOS like Romney. And of course all of us, lickspittle toadies who abet her blonde perfidy every second we don't excoriate her for her evil, civilization-destroying, freedom-assassinating, Constitution-crucifying 2008 vote.

Frozen in a lake of ice, her face eternally gnawed by Satan himself, on bath salts.

I blame her for the downfall of civilization in Obama's wake-- signs of the apocalypse like the discontinuation of my favorite negative film, the looming foie gras ban, and my commitment issues. Oh wait, I suppose I should blame my parents for that instead. Off with their heads.

To punish the oppressors of humanity is clemency; to forgive them is cruelty.

T. A. Hansen said...

Saint Croix-I am not innocent. I am guilty but my lawyer didn't bring up y.

Carnifex said...

Stupid fucking lawyers defining what "is" is. The law was passed with a penalty, not a tax. Period. Dot. End of sentence.

See how easy that is for any second grader to understand, but apparently too complex for the lawyers here, and the fucking supreme court. Everyone gets it but the lawyers.

Why does the Supreme Court legislate? That isn't in the Constitution. I don't give a rats ass about precident. Precidential Law doesn't, or shouldn't apply to Constitutional Law. A thing is either Constitutional in its own right, or it isn't. Otherwise you get creeping Federalism.

And as I find Roe v Wade to be ridiculous, I think Roberts' ruling surpasses it in dumb, and arrogance.

The problem with the USSC as it stands today is the there are too many lawyers on it, and not enough believers in the Constitution.

Carnifex said...

Ps.

There is no argument about Congress "taxing". It wasn't a tax though. It was a PENALTY. You people are arguing apples and oranges. They are different, and the USSC saying they are the same doesn't change them into one or the other. They still retain their appleness, and orangeness.

The Emporer has no clothes!

Because to suggest otherwise is saying that every written contract is mutable. That words written and agreed to before hand have no meaning, and fuck you very much for playing, but WE have the power, not you, so what we say goes.

Then we have become a nation not of law, but that might makes right.

Pps. no person on earth can read this POS, and figure what it's ramifications are. It's too effing big. That in itself is reason to throw it out. Why havr a USSC at all if it won't do oits job?

Carnifex said...

Just learned a new joke...What do you call a lawyer with an IQ of 50?

Chief Justice Roberts.

MayBee said...

It will be fun watching Obama try to simultaneously run against this court's Citizens United ruling and *on* this court's Obamacare ruling.

The Drill SGT said...

If people behave rationally and weigh the costs against the benefits, they won't buy insurance until their expenses (health care costs + the penalty) exceed the premiums,

the math would be slightly different in the Cost Benefit Analysis:

(health care costs + the penalty)
> ( premiums + Copays )

jvermeer51 said...

oso negro said, "Has there ever been a justice appointed by the Democrats who proved to be a conservative? It appears the Republicans are routinely surprised."
I had a liberal prof in college (are there any other kind) criticize Byron White for not being liberal enough. But I was in college in 1970, so, oso, not since before you were probably born.

MayBee said...

the math would be slightly different in the Cost Benefit Analysis:

(health care costs + the penalty)
> ( premiums + Copays )


That's only true for people who are planning on incurring health care costs.
Because of the pre-existing conditions protections in Obamacare, it will cost the same to buy insurance after you realize your toe is gangrenous as it would have to buy it before you became diabetic.

If you aren't the kind of person who regularly visits a doctor (and that's a lot of people), waiting can make a lot of financial sense.

edutcher said...

Zachary Paul Sire said...

It's a great day for America, the rule of law, fairness, and compassion. I hope Althouse, Meade, and all of their followers can one day find peace with the decision from the Supreme Court, and I look forward to millions of healthy and happy Americans with affordable access to health care, finally

Translation:

See y'all at Dachau-on-the-Brazos.

Seven Machos said...

Ed -- You are wrong about grammar as well.

No, right on both counts. Seven went to school for sophistry, not grammar, it seems.

On the other topic, maybe it's just that Seven simply blocks memories of dissing another troll.

Have you recovered from losing Herman Cain as a candidate, though? That's what I want to know.

Here I stand.

Palladian -- I'm not sure why everyone including you was expecting something awesome from the gang who gave us Dred Scott and Roe and all the rest.

More like the gang who gave us Lawrence and Kelo, but I've long said for every Brown v Board of Education, I can find you a hundred Plessy v Fergusons and a thousand Dred Scotts.

Joe Schmoe said...

@St. Croix, your legal analysis seems logical enough, and detailed. So my nit to pick with you is that on the legal side, you've tried to make your point very thoroughly. On the other hand, you then breezily intone that you think the bill will be dead by next year. Please, explain to me the road map for how the bill, in its entirety, is stricken in the next few months.

The way I see it, the first linchpin to that plan is to defeat Obama. A 50-50 proposition right now. Then, the GOP has to win a majority in the Senate while hold its majority in the house. Those odds are slightly better. THEN, the whole lot of them have to draft and pass a repeal. If just one of these things doesn't happen, the law stands. Tons of moving parts. No private company would stake so much capital on such a risky venture. Well, maybe a company with ties and a hefty donor program to the Obama campaign, but no sane company would.

THEN, the repeal will have to withstand at least one or two legal challenges of its own, which will likely delay the complete repeal by at least a year.

PLUS, how much of the law falls under Congress' capacity to tax, which can be voted upon by a simple majority, and how much of it is severable from its taxing authority, thus falling under a different standard for voting and open to filibuster.

All of which I hope happens, but it's not a lock at all, and repeal will be a tougher slog than many think, if it even comes to that.

Mick said...

St. Croix said,
"Tax incentives already promote, for example, purchasing homes and professional educations. See 26 U. S. C. §§163(h), 25A. Sustaining the mandate as a tax depends only on whether Congress has properly exercised its taxing power to encourage purchasing health insurance, not whether it can. Upholding the individual mandate under the Taxing Clause thus does not recognize any new federal power. It determines that Congress has used an existing one.

Roberts is making explicit what is implicit from Scalia's opinion. This is not an expansion of the tax power. The people jumping up and down about this are not reading the Constitution, or the cases, or the tax code."


First moron, Tax incentives for professors, or homes, or sports teams or WHATEVER INVOLVE PAYING LESS TAX--- REDUCING the tax paid on goods and services bought or on income. This has nothing to do with that. The mental gymnastics that Roberts went through to protect the Usurper from embarrassment show that the gun was to his head. They made him complicit all the way in the beginning by the fake swearing in of the Criminal Usurper. The fact that Kagen was allowed to sit in on this is a just another Constitutional disaster, perpetrated by the Marxists, who hate the Constitution. I will take Obama down, and with him the Dyke Marxists he appointed to the bench, and Obamacare if it still exists. Kagen will not be allowed to sit on the bench by the time I get there. And where is the illustrious "law prof"? Why isn't she trumpeting about the violation og Kagen's non recusal? ALL FRAUDS, every one of these "law profs". When did you ever pay a tax on something you didn't buy? Second American Revolution.

Skyler said...

I see that seven is up to his usual lack of standards in logic and debating skills.

It's called Marbury v. Madison, and if you'd ever had any kind of civics class you'd know that we have observed that the three branches of are designed to thwart each others' excesses.

Roberts was afraid to use the court's power to stop a new and very oppressive intrusion of our freedoms.

Sue D'Nhym said...

"It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices."

Why, it is almost as if he penned that phrase as a comment to your "How McCain Lost My Vote" post.

traditionalguy said...

Circa 1938 the Fuhrer decided to make a $350 car so all German workers could have a volks wagen like Americans had Fords.

He set up a factory complex larger than anything ever seen before. To pay for the factory, he "taxed" the workers a payroll deduction until they paid the money for which they were then issued a Certificate to recieve their VW when production models began.

It seems the factory complex only made military vehicles for the next 7 years. And no one ever got a VW or a refund.

But we have John Roberts to save us from any chance to save us from "bad laws."

iowan2 said...

can the govt levy a tax for not voting? Maybe the govt can levy a tax for not buy a gun? What other activities can a simple majority tax to increase revenues. Does this open the door for cities to raise revenues. A tax for not buying a $100 library card? Good way to support a much needed institution. Same goes for the city pool. Much easier to fund if you can get 100% participation of season passes.

Rusty said...

whoresoftheinternet said...
Fuck you, Althouse, you Obama troll.

Here's wishing you a happy murder in a back alley by a vibrant, diverse Obama voter, you trollish piece of shit.

The Constitution is dead, and YOU killed it, bitch.



Whoa! Where's Farmer? That's over the top, hysterical.
Funny as hell when you imagine it in the "Honey Badger Don't Give a Shit" voice.

AlphaLiberal said...

And at no point does Ann Althouse or the slavering conservative mob reveal the slightest concern for the health and well-being of the American people.

People are dying younger than they need to due or living in misery due to a very flawed health care system. The health care system is the number one cause of bankruptcy among the American people. But the con's are blind to the shortcomings of this predatory health care system.

Does Ann care? Hell, no. She has her own government health care so, she says, let them eat cake.

Cold, callous and cruel.

AlphaLiberal said...

Here is the broken health care system so beloved by conservatives. We're Number 37!! USA! USA!

"The World Health Organization gives the U.S. health system an overall ranking of 37th in the world, far below other Western democracies. The CIA World Factbook — hardly the work of a bunch of left-leaning one-worlders — reports that life expectancy in the United States is not just lower than in other industrialized countries but also lower than in Jordan and Bosnia.Infant mortality in this country, according to the CIA, exceeds that of Slovenia and Cuba. It is possible to quibble with these figures but not to ignore them. We should be ashamed of ourselves."

Matthew Sablan said...

"And at no point does Ann Althouse or the slavering conservative mob reveal the slightest concern for the health and well-being of the American people."

-- Hm... A+ for effort; I do like the term slavering. It's very... evocative. It's even better that you avoided the facts so skillfully. Truly, this a master-class post of political hackery. Go now, you have no more you can learn here. Impart your wisdom on young trolls everywhere.

Skyler said...

I think today that someone in the Comgress should propose a law requiring all Americans to buy broccoli or pay a tax.

tim in vermont said...

"The World Health Organization gives the U.S. health system an overall ranking of 37th in the world"

My daughter was born with a severe congenital heart defect, diagnosed in the womb by the lousy health care system here. Since we knew about it, she was transported at birth to a first rate US children's hospital. Who was there? Germans, South Americans of almost every nationality, British...

Incidentally, after 16 years my daughter is doing fine, though she is still due for a surgery at another world leading children's hospital.

Oh, and the surgeons who are doing this wonderful work, they fly to third world countries and perform operations for free. Children like my daughter would not be able to benefit, because without our health care system, they would be dead within days of birth, but still, they can fix a lot of problems for children.

But we suck.

Pogo said...

""It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices."

So all SCOTUS does is interpret stupid laws.

Worth fuck-all.

I preach revolution.

Henry said...

I wonder how 19 justices would have decided this case.

Lem said...

The World Health Organization gives the U.S. health system an overall ranking of 37th in the world..

Does that mean other countries, ahead of us, have a Centers for Disease Control ahead of ours also?

Or does this bogus ranking leave out the world foremost authority on decease control and prevention?

You are so full of bullshit.

Joe Schmoe said...

And to conservatives taking a measure of delight in some sort of convoluted language that is supposed to 'check' congressional power, I say you are deluded beyond belief. You know what the Democrat side of congress is saying today? Ooooh, Constitution, schmonstitution. We won. End of story. Next we'll get what we want, too. Because now not only will we probe the defenses to find the weak spot, we'll ask Roberts to open the gate for us! And goddamn if he won't do it!

As of today there is still no limit to what Congress can do. They'll continue to push the boundary. The only way to check congressional power is to actually check it, not allow it and then say 'well, you better not do it again!'

X said...

Robert Payne said...

I understand your giddiness for Obamacare. I'd be giddy if the government mandated people buy my product too.

I see your point about young people potentially not buying coverage but I do recommend that you read the NAIC piece on adverse selection a limited enrollment window will help offset this tendency

I love the suggestion the the way to solve the adverse selection problem caused by banning the denial of coverage of pre-existing conditions is to allow the denial of coverage of pre-existing conditions. Good luck with that.

AlphaLiberal said...

Jesus Christ: "Heal the sick"

Jesus Christ: "Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me."

Once again, the American right wing acts completely contrary to the Word of Jesus Christ.

Henry said...

Roberts should have cited Jesus. That would have been awesome.

Joe Schmoe said...

Alphalib, this law does nothing to provide decent health care to people. It only addresses how to provide a monetary entitlement in the current environment. It does not address the structural problems of the whole runaway notion of health insurance. It definitely does not do anything to improve actual health care; in fact, it will do much to harm it. More people will now get worse service and fewer services, and will wait longer to get them.

Nathan Alexander said...

Conservatives have already developed a huge numerical advantage in state governors, and large numerical advantages in state legislatures.

Conservatives are supposed to be the ideology that favors decentralized control, so why is everyone focusing only on federal solutions?!?

We need to use the Obamacare ruling to push for Constitutional Amendments.

Two good ones are here:
http://pjmedia.com/blog/a-modest-proposal/

Others could be overturning the 17th Amendment, or a balanced budget, or limiting czars/executive orders, eliminating the TSA, resolving immigration, eliminating public-sector unions, eliminating taxpayer support to the Progressive Political Machine, and adding voter ID or other anti-fraud measures...

Almost Ali said...

Is that little weasel still alive?

Crimso said...

Hey Althouse! AL is wailing that you just don't CARE! You, a law professor!

So when Roberts reached his conclusion that the mandate was in fact a tax, why did that not immediately make the challenge (and the resulting opinion) moot under the Anti-Injunction Act?

Howard Roark said...

I'm sick of Republicans and GOP-leaning folks trying to be the smartest guy in the room and smugly finding a way to basically agree with the NY Times and those who have zero interest in a limited government.

If the Supreme Court cannot be limited by the Constitutional Enumerated Powers clause why will it be limited by this brand new created and novel limit on Commerce clause precedent?

Roberts had a slam dunk in front of him and got it wrong. Even Kennedy was furiously in dissent on this thinking. Thank about that, Anthony Kennedy furious about breaching an obvious limit on the government.

edutcher said...

AlphaLiberal said...

Here is the broken health care system so beloved by conservatives. We're Number 37!! USA! USA!

"The World Health Organization gives the U.S. health system an overall ranking of 37th in the world, far below other Western democracies.


Yeah, let's take the word of the UN agency.

Last I looked the other 36 rationed care and were letting people die in their hospital beds.

Jesus Christ: "Heal the sick"

Jesus Christ: "Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me."

Once again, the American right wing acts completely contrary to the Word of Jesus Christ.


And the Left hasn't learned the Wages of Sin is Death and lying and blasphemy are mortal sins.

They also haven't learned Christ's word was an exhortation to individuals to help their neighbor, not to consign them to government death panels.

Jane said...

For the curious, we're ranked #37 in healthcare because one of the factors the WHO uses in its rankings is whether healthcare is state-paid or not.

As for Roberts' opinion, I have to admit to being a bit spooked by the stories that he changed his mind at the last minute, which says he was worried about the political consequences of ruling against O'Care -- afraid that the Dems would follow through on court-packing or other threats.

But in the bigger picture, I agree with his distinction between tax and penalty. The very items that make people worry about massive anti-selection -- the penalty/tax being significantly less than the cost of healthcare, especially after the predicted rise in HC costs for young people, and the opportunity to buy into HC after becoming sick -- are what makes Roberts' reasoning, well, reasonable. If the consequence of not buying healthcare were that the government garnished from one's wages a sufficient amount to buy the lowest cost plan on the exchange, purchased that plan in the name of the taxpaer, and required an additional payment in addition, then it would be a penalty. But what Roberts is saying, so far as I understand, is that what this money is -- tax or penalty -- is not dependent on what Congress has called it, but on well-established definitions. (Just like FICA is a tax that goes to fund Social Security and Medicare, even though politicians what you to believe these are contributions that earn you the right to benefits at retirement.)

Now, is it a constitutional tax? I'm not an expert here. I simply don't know how wide the government's taxing power is. But in practice, it's no different than the government levying an additional X% tax, and then allowing a tax credit for the purchase of health insurance (just like we have lots of nonsense tax credits for all kinds of government-approved behavior); they're just expressing it differently in their quest to say that taxes have not increased.

I guess I'd really like to know -- but we never will, will we? -- whether this is Roberts' honest belief or a last-minute change out of fear of what the Democrats would do in response to an unfavorable ruling.

I do agree 100% that the Court is not responsible for fixing really awful but constitutional laws. So far as I know, it's acknolwedged that a single-payer system --let's call it "Medicaid for all" -- would be constitutional in the same was as Medicare is.

edutcher said...

Jane, a point to conjure with.

Suppose Roberts was angered by Little Zero's attempts at intimidation and, knowing the Short Shortstop and the Wise Latina and the rest of the gargoyles on the Left of the court were going to try to justify this as a tax, said to himself, "All right, you little punk. You want a tax, I'll give you a tax".

So he changed his vote.

Whether he knows about Senate rules, I can't say, but he must know this is hideously unpopular and 21 Demos are running for re-election, as opposed to 12 Republicans, and that a fair number of states that were blue last time are looking red this time.

And the Demos have to run on this mess - and their votes for it.

EMD said...

Infant mortality in this country, according to the CIA, exceeds that of Slovenia and Cuba.

I can't remember if those countries kill medically-compromised babies in utero, or try to heal them once they're born.

Jane said...

I also don't buy the philosophical distinction between "compelling behavior" and "collecting revenue." There are a lot of taxes which have as an element "changing behavior" -- cigarette taxes are meant to discourage smoking. Tariffs are intended to compel consumers to purchase American-made products. Luxury taxes are intended to dissuade the wealthy from spending their money in that manner. Estate taxes are intended to encourage the wealthy to donate their estate to charity, etc. Fundamentally, though, the "shared responsibility payment" is money in the government's coffers, and my understanding is that the assumption that a certain number of people would pay the tax rather than purchase health insurance was factored into the total cost estimate.

Joe Schmoe said...

Yes, we can rely on Cuba for accurate data.

Jane said...

Is Roberts playing a long game, and making repeal easier? That's a pretty risky move, relying on electoral success in November. Realclearpolitics says Obama's still up, not that I understand why anyone would vote for economic stagnation and continued unemployment.

edutcher said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
edutcher said...

As for Roberts, we can only guess until his memoirs come out, but things don't look good for the Demos these days.

PS Don't go by RCP, they factor in some of the most skewed polls this side of Baghdad Bob.

Rasmussen has the Romster up by 5, last I heard.

Nathan Alexander said...

@Alpha Liberal,
Jesus Christ: "Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me."

Through Obamacare, Liberals effectively consigned the poor and politically-unconnected to be sentenced to die via death panels.

Interestingly, Jesus was sentenced to die via a death panel, too.

I didn't realize liberals took Jesus so literally!

Almost Ali said...

Yes, many are seeking comfort in the so-called long game while totaling ignoring the new reality: the game is over.

Apparently lots of people don't understand what just happened.

Steve said...

It seems to me that it is very possible that Roberts has made a stand here against Obama and put all of this on the American people.

I think the rumored vote right after arguments did take place and was ruled 5-4 in overturning the whole thing. But I think two events (in combination) led to Roberts changing his decision. And I don't know how the other Justices/clerks communicate what is to be written in the decision, but given some of the evidence and length of all the opinions leads me to believe that the opinions had to be rewritten to accommodate Roberts reversal.

Those two events that led to Roberts reversal on Obamacare; 1) Obama's criticism of the Citizens United ruling in the 2010 State of the Union address & 2) Obama's statement, "Ultimately, I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."

I believe Roberts took those two statements together and decided he needed to put the Executive in its place and to show that the Judicial Branch is still ONE of the three branches of government.

Methadras said...

The answer is now, if I choose not to pay the tax, will government compel me to buy the insurance and if I choose to not buy the insurance will they compel me to pay the tax? Also, if I choose not to pay the tax, then I am subject to IRS sanction. This is what I've always claimed and Roberts basically reaffirmed what we all already knew, that this is a tax and the way he defined it, is that congress can now compel you to do anything if the choices are to purchase or the penalty for not is a tax.

This case was won, Urkelcare was supposed to die and yet Roberts breathed poisonous life back into it. He gave us something that I believe is even worse now. The dust isn't even settled yet and the spire of this monstrosity is being seen everywhere already.

Methadras said...

AlphaLiberal said...

Jesus Christ: "Heal the sick"

Jesus Christ: "Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me."

Once again, the American right wing acts completely contrary to the Word of Jesus Christ.


You quoting Christ is quite comical. I'm sure even he laughs at you. Clearly not with you. Christ is serious business.

Methadras said...

Oh, if we are blaming Althouse for stuff. I blame her for that one time when my dog lied next to his bed instead of in it. The one time when I bit into what I thought was a very juicy looking red strawberry, but turned out to be one of the tartest I ever had. Also, when I open the door going into my garage and it came back and hit my in the heel. Also for when my A19 light bulbs burn out and for that bee that flew by my face. Thank you.

traditionalguy said...

The Austrians taught Germany a lesson too. They surrendered to them.

We just watched Anschluss Two.

Roberts must have a warm feeling for the Little Destroyer. Pope Pius XII also had good feelings about Germany's leader in the 1930s.


But dupe Roberts' days are numbered. once the Little Destroyer appoints the next three Justices. After that the SCOTUS will rubber stamp the dictatorship's ideology ever time.

Court packing need not be feared. Court Ideology under the control of by party loyalty is the real reason to fear.

Roberts just rolled the dice and gave away Romney's momentum...for no good reason at all.

Chip S. said...

Roberts just rolled the dice and gave away Romney's momentum...for no good reason at all.

Hey, he made Larry Tribe happy.

"Strange new respect"...works like a charm.

Saint Croix said...

you think the bill will be dead by next year. Please, explain to me the road map for how the bill, in its entirety, is stricken in the next few months.

Sure!

If Obama defeats Romney, we're all screwed. Great Depression, disaster, forget the next decade of your life.

There is no cheering ("we defeated Obamacare!") if we re-elect Obama. 4 more years of Obama is a disaster, regardless of what the Supreme Court says or does.

Supreme Court cannot keep us from economic disaster. Never has, never will.

I have a confidence that most Americans will calmly decide that Obama has not done a good job and will fire him in the hopes that Romney will do a better one. I think it's highly likely that it will be a one-sided defeat, similar to the Carter shellacking.

If that happens, Romney will overturn Obamacare. He said he would, and he will. I have no doubts on that score.

If Obama wins, we're fucked anyway. I have no doubts on that score, either.

So now the question is whether we will take the Senate. Yes. Of course we will. The Democrats have a slim majority (3 seats). And it's mostly Democrats who are facing the voters. Here's a list of "red" states that might give us the Senate. We only need to win 3.

Florida
Montana
Nebraska
Missouri
North Dakota
Virginia
West Virginia
Wyoming

We have good shots in Wisconsin, Ohio, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania, too.

I don't think socialism vs. capitalism is a squeaker. I think it's a disaster for the Democrat party.

November is going to be awesome for us. What a fun night that will be!

And finally, the Democrats can't filibuster and protect Obamacare that way. Roberts took that option off the table. We don't have to convince the Senate to use the "nuclear option." We don't need 60 Senators. Winning 60 seats in the Senate would be hard (but possible). 50? 50 is a lock.

Obamacare is a deeply unpopular legislation. I am quite happy to have this election turn on Obamacare. That would be 2010 all over again.

Saint Croix said...

The mental gymnastics that Roberts went through to protect the Usurper from embarrassment show that the gun was to his head. They made him complicit all the way in the beginning by the fake swearing in of the Criminal Usurper.

Well, thanks for clearing that up, Mick.

tim in vermont said...

I am sure Jesus would have been all for forcing His believers to pay for abortions.

Alpha, you should just drop lines of argument you are incapable of understanding. But, as a practical matter, I am not worried about telling you this, because I know you can't hear me, and I want you to keep it up to help us in the coming election.

SH said...

""design for collapse" is to set up the question whether it was a screw-up or whether it was the first move in a scheme to take us to a single-payer, government health care program."

I think there is another view no one is mentioning. Via the new Federal regulation of insurance coverage combined with the mandate (and new regulations on hospitals and doctors no one talks about); it is the functional equivalent of single payer. Now. Think Henry Ford and the choice of colors you had for the model T. You can ‘buy’ ‘private’ insurance from whomever you want. But we will pick what it covers so we can enforce equality.

It is also why I have problems with the Roberts quote above. You don’t have a duty to protect the public from its folly; you do to protect the minority who didn’t support it if their fundamental rights are being violated (by the majority). Like my right to privacy and freedom of association in my healthcare choices that the [so called in this case] wants to violate. The government does not exist to ration healthcare and force healthcare equality. It is not a legitimate function for it.

furious_a said...

"It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices." -- John Roberts.

"The people have spoken, and now they must be punished." -- Ed Koch

DislikesYourCommentingSystem said...

I earn so little that I am below the "poverty line". I work for an employer which very much appears as though it will be exempt from the 'employer mandate.' The mandate falls to me, personally. It's a "choice" that I do not buy health insurance? Ah, that must be like my "choice" not to live on Maui on the beach. Or my "choice" to have at most a few hundred dollars to my name and no assets. But at least I'm neither eligible for medicaid nor presumably eligible for whatever fresh bureaucratic hell awaits me if I attempt to get an "undue hardship" waiver from the non-penalty tax levied against me for being poor that will presumably be used to fund the healthcare of those above and below me on the socioeconomic scale. Remind me again why we working poor shouldn't start a proper revolution in this country?

SH said...

Chip S. said...

"Or, you know, maybe a fine."

Everyone is still missing the point. The government will be calling the shots at several levels of the healthcare 'system' that are new to them. The mandate is a sideshow. The point is you won't be able to make your own decisions about your healthcare even if you have insurance.

The real acts of defiance would be selling insurance and refusing to comply with the government's dictates... or running a hospital and accepting it... or being a doctor and telling the efficiency board to go to hell.

Its not pie in the sky either. A lot of conservatives joke about zero-peons doing whatever the state says but people in the UK did some of the above and it helped bring back some free choice in their system.

batavia said...

I disagree with those who want to rip up the decision of an independent court and start over. It is indeed a platform for additional improvements and modifications toward a national goal of improving quality while reducing health care costs.read more in www.onpersonalhealthcare.com

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 271 of 271   Newer› Newest»