By joining the left of the Supreme Court, Chief Justice John Roberts has upheld the Affordable Care Act. This is a clear victory for President Obama, and he can now go to the people in November with his signature legislative achievement intact and say he has fulfilled his promise to pass a comprehensive health care plan. But in doing so not on the grounds that it is valid under the Commerce Clause but as a tax, the court handed the Republicans a strong issue to run on this fall.
President Obama and the Democrats claimed throughout the debate over the legislation that it was not a tax. But the GOP can go to the voters with a rallying cry to stop the tax as it pledges to repeal ObamaCare next January. The issue now is no longer just the defense of the principle of individual liberty — endangered by this expansion of federal power — but whether to entrust the government to a party that is dedicated to taxing and spending without limit.
—-"But in doing so not on the grounds that it is valid under the Commerce Clause but as a tax, he has handed the Republicans a strong issue to run on this fall."— n nya might want to change the "he" at the beginning of of final clause to "the Court" n n nand if the GOP wants to take a run at the tax, let 'em. the GOPpers will have their own problem trying to defend the continuation of the Bush cut for the wealthy.
For your information, the Bush tax cuts were skewed to allow a greater percentage tax cut for the lower income people. That is the main reason why, now, the majority of Americans pay no income tax. You are wrong in your premise, but I agree with you that the Bush tax cuts were ill advised, I would reinstate the pre Bush tax code for everyone, not just for the "rich". If the masses want a European style welfare state they must understand that will no longer be allowed to consume like Americans.
Raph, I was in possession of the info about the cuts at the bottom as well as the top. n nAnd I certainly don't agree with your nonsense about welfare states and repealing the cut for the bottom along with the top. They're quite separable and it's far less objectionable that people with little or no disposable income pay no income tax than people with vast amounts pay little of it into the federal coffers.
—–
Jeepers, give a little constructive criticism, which he followed but failed to acknowledge,,,,,,and even that gets seven people to "thumbs down" my comment. n n nchurlish bunch.
Mr. Tobin, n nThat is a very, very weak argument. No one will even know that is what the Court said. And even if they did, they will correctly perceive it to be a legal technicality. n n
Romney was covering his bases when he said that a defeat of Obamacare would mean his term in office was wasted. That, however, is not as powerful as their new position. n nOne question though. Government lawyers argued that the mandate was not intended to be a tax, how can the SC redefine it as a tax? I suppose, they'd have to assume that the government position on this was simply subterfuge. n nThis is going to be one costly monstrosity.
@BDZ, I think you don't give the American people enough credit. I think Roberts in a backhanded way really stuck it to the president.
Who will even know? 90% of the electorate does not pay attention to this kind of stuff. The NYT screams that this is a huge victory for the President. Every single local news outlet will follow suit. Only eggheads who read decisions or conservative blogs will have any clue what the decision says.
My thoughts too. Kind of a passive aggressive ruling. I'm a bit of a legal junkie and pretty Libertarian. Libertarians have always seen the mandate as a tax of sorts in addition to being an infringement upon liberty. While upholding the mandate technically, the decision does create some problems for President Obama (what about the promise of no new taxes on people making less than 250k?)and some opportunities for the Republicans. I'm up in the air as to how most Americans will see it though. One thing for sure, MSM is doing their part to spin it as a clear cut win for the president. It's early though. We'll see.
"The most straightforward reading of the individual mandate is thatit commands individuals to purchase insurance. But, for the reasons explained, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power.It is therefore necessary to turn to the Government’s alternative argument: that the mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s power to 'lay and collect Taxes.' Art. I, §8, cl. 1. In pressing its taxingpower argument, the Government asks the Court to view the mandate as imposing a tax on those who do not buy that product. Because 'every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order tosave a statute from unconstitutionality,' Hooper v. California, 155 nU. S. 648, 657, the question is whether it is 'fairly possible' to interpret the mandate as imposing such a tax, Crowell v. Benson, 285 nU. S. 22, 62. Pp. 31–32."
So, is the Supreme Court writing legislation, emending the same, or guiding Pelosi & Co. as to how fix their pile of — rhymes with pap – so that it is sufficiently palatable to the Nine? n nWhatever is going on here, they get an ‘F’ for clarity. It is as if they are embarrassed about what they are doing, and they should be.