Friday, June 29, 2012

Obamacare: Up to the People to Save America from the New Dred Scott Decision

I am wandering well out of my playpen but here goes.

I am not a Constitutional expert, so I am having a bit of difficulty wading through the arguments about whether Roberts' reasoning was or was not flawed.  All I can see is that the Obamistas argued that their health care monstrosity did not involve taxing us, and Roberts has said it does, but Congress has the authority to do it under a clause of the Constitution which the Obamistas were not using to support their argument, so Obama can go ahead and ruin us. Apparently it is not unconstitutional to be a disaster of a president and for Nancy Pelosi to be in Congress.

I guess that's the argument. People a lot smarter than I am will tell me if I am wrong.

I love the line being put forward by some of my liberal friends, to wit, the Court has spoken, time to move on to another issue. I guess abolitionists should have left the slavery issue where it was after the Court's Dred Scott decision . . . .

Anyhow, for me the point is the whole matter is now in the hands of the people. Yet another reason to get Obama out. The list is long and getting longer.

Donate to the Romney campaign. Get your friends to vote Obama out.


  1. I am not a scholar of the Constitution either, but it seems rather odd to me that Roberts could make the assumption that if the penalty was called a tax in the original bill, that the majority of members, even the Dem members, would have voted to pass this bill. That is one hell of an assumption, expecially when the President and several sponsors of this catastrophic piece of legislation, specifically stated that the penalty was NOT a tax. I wonder, if the SCOTUS had sent this back to Congress, with penalty vs. tax revision, how many Dem members would have the balls to still vote yes? This is why the Roberts decision was so wrong.

  2. That's how it strikes me. Roberts, in my uneducated view, should have taken the Obama argument at face value and ruled on that instead of giving the misadministration an out. Strikes me that if the "penalty" is actually a tax, then the Obamacare bill is invalid. Roberts rewrote the bill for Congress and passed it for them.

  3. While I do not like what Roberts has done... I like what he did. Fact is, the court is not there to protect us from those we elect. It is time everyone realize how serious a problem has been created by continuing to re-elect the same politicians-for-life crowd.
    In spite of continued reference in the ACA bill to the mandate 'penalty', Roberts re-writes the law by redefining the penalty as a tax. In doing so he has hung a yoke around Obama's neck and painted it bright red. The election is getting closer and while Obama might gloat over this seeming victory it will make his chances grow smaller still.
    As for Roberts - he has become a true activist judge and that is not good.

  4. From the aggregate total of its proponents denials before, during and after the bill crept through Congress only a blithering idiot or doper could assume congress-critters reasonably "thought" it a tax. What was Roberts smoking? In my view, for legal reasons of course.

  5. I'm not a lawyer either. I have no idea whether Roberts is crazy or crazy like a fox. I've seen one thing pointed out in a number of places. The version of the PPACA that was eventually passed is the version that originated in the Senate. According to the Constitution (or what's left of it)all bills that impose taxes or raise revenues must originate in the House. So, perhaps Roberts is handing PPACA opponents grounds to come back and challenge the law on those grounds with the ruling on this go-around having taken all the other issues (Commerce Clause, etc.) off the table as arguments to be used by the administration on a do-over.

    Does anybody else see this as plausible, or is it just wishful thinking?

  6. Ginsberg and other extreme-left ideologues are purple-faced over the declaration of SCOTUS that the commerce clause is unconstitutional, so I'll simply acquiesce for the time being on Conservative principles rather than GOP political gain.

    But I'm now looking to support Romney whereas before I was a bit loath to make a commitment.

  7. If I'm not mistaken the gov't lawyers did argue that it was a tax.

    2010 artticle

    1. You're right. It was buried in their argument and comprised 21 lines in the giant defense of the bill they provided. It was a very weak argument and one that they did not want made public; Obama, himself, kept insisting it was not a tax