Byron York, in a series of tweets, reminds us of a George Will piece from May in which the columnist examined the not-so-subtle, thug-like liberal pressure applied to Chief Justice Roberts. Will ended with a prediction that was 100% wrong:
Such clumsy attempts to bend the chief justice are apt to reveal his spine of steel.But clumsy and thuggish can be very effective and sure did the trick this time, causing Wobbles Roberts to cave weakly, make a terrible decision, and try vainly to cover it with incoherent reasoning. Along those lines, Victor Davis Hanson: Justice Roberts -- Tragic Figure:
Roberts, who wanted to cement his reputation as a sober and judicious jurist, through his Hamlet-like deliberations ended up seeming incoherent, tentative, and unsure of himself. And if it’s true that rumors of Roberts reconsidering his vote swirled in Washington prior to the final outcome, and that such perceptions of hesitation prompted renewed venom and pressure — from not just the media, but from those such as Senator Leahy (who had voted to confirm Roberts) on the floors of Congress, and the president himself (who attacked the Court even earlier in his State of the Union address) — then the Court comes off as far more suspect after the opinion than before. Everything Roberts wished to prevent he ensured.And his personal tragic fall has grave national implications. Note to our minders: Please add uncommon courage to the list of necessary qualities in a Supreme Court nominee. (Read the rest.)
Michael Walsh, in Roberts v. Roberts, goes through the shameful history of Obamacare's passage and takes a look at the tax, penalty, or [ahem] "shared responsibility payment" question:
The “payment” was not designed to generate revenue, but to compel people to comply with the mandate. If the law works as intended, no one will make any “shared responsibility payments” at all, but rather purchase the mandated insurance. The “tax” in that case will raise no revenue, but it will have achieved its goal: enforcement of the mandate. That is the hallmark of a penalty, not a “tax.” In his colloquy with the solicitor general, Chief Justice Roberts skillfully established that point.It's a penalty, folks. It may be politically advantageous for us to call it a tax, but we know it isn't, right?
So the law as it stands now is that Congress cannot make us eat broccoli, but can mandate everyone do so and impose a failure-to-eat-broccoli tax on anyone not complying with the mandate. Congress can apparently mandate anything, as long as it accompanies the mandate with a failure-to-do-it tax that need not be called a tax.
PS: Do not miss this Chip Bok cartoon.
Most recent posts here. Follow us on Twitter here. Amazon store here.
Jill,
ReplyDeleteI'm not going to second guess a decision that is Constitutional on its face- as a law.
What is the difference between Medicare, Social Security and Obamatax?
Try not paying Social Security tax and watch the trouble it causes you to go through- what was once promised as an elderly medical insurance plan that morphed into a nationalized retirement plan.
Medicare? Same deal.
Obamatax is the next logical step in the progressives' attempt to seize control of our lives.
We complain, we bitch. We lament about our woes.
Yet, WE continue to allow a minority to rule our schools, our politics, or universities and our way of life? Why?
We reelect the same people who promise the same lies and run our nation into debt to the point someday we'll crash.
And when one guy, one judge doesn't go our way, doesn't stop us from doing something stupid to ourselves, we blame him for all our ills!
As hard as it is to accept, this is one case in a series of cases before a court that reminds them just how petty, shallow and greedy we are, as well as, willing to be fooled and led by greedy, shallow and corrupt ELECTED leaders.
Why don't we just cut out the middleman here and have the judges manage our silliness from the election booth up? Do you want Roberts or any judge to sit in judgment of your choice of candidates or officials? "Sorry Jill, I see your district voted for liberal moron, we in the courts realize he'll probably design, submit and then get passed a law that will be harmful for you in the future, so we are invalidating his election." Or "I see you elected a real 2nd amendment supporting guy here. We fear he'll design a law that allows for everyone to have the right to keep and bear arms in America, and we don't agree with that so he's out too!"
This is our mess. Obama was elected by a selfish, politically correct,ignorant majority of citizens. We broke it, we have to fix it.
I think Roberts stuck his fingers in the eyes of a bunch of us to make us wake up. BUT he also gave the conservatives a hundred hanging curves in the decision. All we have to do is quit complaining and hit a few.
Have a great fourth, and remember, the Revolution was one by ten percent of the colonists who had enough and made the sacrifice necessary to win. The vast majority were either on the other side or on the sidelines like the sheep they were- and are.
I'm with the ten percent.
Logically, it's a penalty. Legally, it's now a tax, thanks to the feckless Judge Roberts. [begin: snark] Illogical law, never heard of that before. [end: snark] Either way, it's expensive as hell, and the legal interpretation allows us to repeal it with 51 Senators. I say obey the law on this one.
ReplyDelete