We think the following article might be at least partially right. What do you think?
Conservative Tom
Chief Justice Roberts Is A Genius
Posted by I. M. Citizen on June 28, 2012 Healthcare.
June 28, 2012
Before you look to do harm to Chief Justice Roberts or his family, it's important that you think carefully about the meaning - the true nature - of his ruling on Obama-care. The Left will shout that they won, that Obama-care was upheld and all the rest. Let them.
It will be a short-lived celebration.
Here's what really occurred - payback. Yes, payback for Obama's numerous, ill-advised and childish insults directed toward SCOTUS.
Chief Justice Roberts actually ruled the mandate, relative to the commerce clause, was unconstitutional. That's how the Democrats got Obama-care going in the first place. This is critical. His ruling means Congress can't compel American citizens to purchase anything. Ever. The notion is now officially and forever, unconstitutional. As it should be.
Next, he stated that, because Congress doesn't have the ability to mandate, it must, to fund Obama-care, rely on its power to tax. Therefore, the mechanism that funds Obama-care is a tax. This is also critical. Recall back during the initial Obama-care battles, the Democrats called it a penalty, Republicans called it a tax. Democrats consistently soft sold it as a penalty. It went to vote as a penalty. Obama declared endlessly, that it was not a tax, it was a penalty. But when the Democrats argued in front of the Supreme Court, they said 'hey, a penalty or a tax, either way'. So, Roberts gave them a tax. It is now the official law of the land - beyond word-play and silly shenanigans. Obama-care is funded by tax dollars. Democrats now must defend a tax increase to justify the Obama-care law.
Finally, he struck down as unconstitutional, the Obama-care idea that the federal government can bully states into complying by yanking their existing medicaid funding. Liberals, through Obama-care, basically said to the states - 'comply with Obama-care or we will stop existing funding.' Roberts ruled that is a no-no. If a state takes the money, fine, the Feds can tell the state how to run a program, but if the state refuses money, the federal government can't penalize the state by yanking other funding. Therefore, a state can decline to participate in Obama-care without penalty. This is obviously a serious problem. Are we going to have 10, 12, 25 states not participating in "national" health-care? Suddenly, it's not national, is it?
Ultimately, Roberts supported states rights by limiting the federal government's coercive abilities. He ruled that the government can not force the people to purchase products or services under the commerce clause and he forced liberals to have to come clean and admit that Obama-care is funded by tax increases.
Although he didn't guarantee Romney a win, he certainly did more than his part and should be applauded.
And he did this without creating a civil war or having bricks thrown threw his windshield. Oh, and he'll be home in time for dinner.
Brilliant.
I agree that he is right on some points. I always thought the 5 would take this position on the commerce clause issue. That will have long-term significance well beyond Obama's term, so it is more important than most realize. The Medicaid opt out will depend on how many states actually turn down the money, which is 100% federally funded for the first 3 years and 90% through the first 10. Some of the states like Texas and Louisiana will probably reject it but their citizens' health will suffer from their ideological stubbornness. Remember, many of the governors accepted stimulus money for infrastructures in their states after giving lip-service opposition. On the other side, this guy is crazy if he thinks the law will be funded by the 2% of those who are subject to the penalty tax and choose not to purchase insurance. Most people in this country who can afford insurance buy it, but those who don't (or can't) impose high costs on the rest of us.
ReplyDeleteThe reason most conservatives are so upset with Roberts and, like you, call him "traitor" or worse is that you are focused 100% on the 2012 election. If Roberts wanted to do maximum damage to Obama in the election, he would have sided with Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Kennedy and declared the entire law unconstitutional. That part of the decision is a RADICALLY EXTREME example of judicial activism and I am disappointed that you have not condemned it on this blog. There are many provisions of the law that are undisputedly constitutional, and yet the 4 were eager to repeal the entire law from the bench. In fact, I suspect that may be the reason Roberts split from them. He is thinking about the reputation of his court and his own legacy as Chief Justice 100 years from now. By the time he dies, the U.S. will need -- and will have -- some version of universal healthcare and his decision will be positively regarded as a positive step. I know you strongly disagree, but that's okay.
--David
"New York, NY, June 23, 2010—Despite having the most expensive health care system, the United States ranks last overall compared to six other industrialized countries—Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom—on measures of health system performance in five areas: quality, efficiency, access to care, equity and the ability to lead long, healthy, productive lives, according to a new Commonwealth Fund report. While there is room for improvement in every country, the U.S. stands out for not getting good value for its health care dollars, ranking last despite spending $7,290 per capita on health care in 2007 compared to the $3,837 spent per capita in the Netherlands, which ranked first overall."
ReplyDeletehttp://www.commonwealthfund.org/News/News-Releases/2010/Jun/US-Ranks-Last-Among-Seven-Countries.aspx
These poor statistics are the direct result of a system that has produced 50 million uninsured people. We are the only rich country in the world that doesn't provide basic healthcare to its population, and they are beating us on all these statistical indicators.
--David