Quantcast

Robert’s ruling on Obamacare – Leftist or genius?

photo Will O'Neill via Flickr

photo Will O’Neill via Flickr

Four years ago today, June 28, 2012, the Obamacare ruling sent shockwaves across the political landscape, surprising everyone as Justice John Roberts sided with liberal U.S. Supreme Court justices to keep President Obama’s signature health care reform. Contributor Judy Aron analyzed the decision below, angering supporters by calling out links to socialisms and that it was unconstitutional.

Fast forward to 2016, just a few months ahead of the 2016 election and Obamacare is still not fully implemented. Delayed mandates and fees prevent full analysis and understanding of the ruling and Obamacare’s true impact on the America’s health care system and economy.


What a day Thursday was….the commentary about the Obamacare ruling was completely explosive and all over the map. I admit I thought there would be some surprises… but not one with Roberts siding with the usual big government Lefties of SCOTUS! (Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg, and Breyer)

So was Roberts in agreement that this type of Socialist healthcare scheme is actually in accordance with the Constitution or was he using this as a vehicle for other more important statements from the court?
There are many opinions floating around about this.

Peter Schiff had this to say:

On the other hand, some seem to think that this ruling by Roberts actually could be of some benefit, even though the onerous and Socialist legislation was left to stand.

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.

That being said; What is to prevent a future Congress from mandating the purchase of anything – like an American (union made) automobile and then monetarily punishing any citizen who doesn’t comply with that mandate via a “tax”? Certainly, it is understood that with his ruling, Roberts thinks that such a law is constitutional.
That isn’t cool at all.

Kill the Bill (on FaceBook) had this to say:

Obama and the Democrat’s health care law was declared ‘constitutional’ by the Supreme Court today. This decision was based on the argument that the constitution grants Congress the right to levy taxes. Unless the law is repealed, in 2014 every American will be required to purchase health insurance- or pay a tax for not doing so. What this essentially means is that the federal government now has absolute authority to require Americans to do anything they want them to do. Don’t join the military? Pay a tax. Watch too much tv? Pay a tax. Use birth control? Pay a tax. Gay? Pay a tax. Use your freedom to assemble in a public square? Pay a tax. Don’t submit all of your personal information, including detailed financial records, health records etc? That’s right- it is all possible now- there is no longer a limitation on the power of the federal government. The congress’ authority to levy taxes now supersedes all individual rights ‘guaranteed’ by the bill of rights. Am I surprised? No, absolutely not. This is always the inevitable result of giving someone the legal authority to levy taxes. It is just one more sign that we do not live in the America we thought we did.

Critics may cry "They told us so" as the cost increases from Obamacare become more clear Photo/Florida Tenth Amendment Center

Critics may cry “They told us so” as the cost increases from Obamacare become more clear
Photo/Florida Tenth Amendment Center

My thoughts on this:
I thought it was a horrible ruling and Roberts should have sided with the other 4 Justices (Alito, Kennedy, Thomas and Scalia). He should have called it a mandate (because it is) and struck it down as being unconstitutional .. period.

But bottomline – this is a “tax” that can be repealed.

Anyone running in November with the message of repealing this onerous “tax”, the biggest “tax” in US history, is most likely going to win their race given the anti-Obamacare sentiment nationwide. Chief Justice Roberts may have given Mitt Romney a campaign issue juggernaut (as if the economy wasn’t already a campaign issue) on the basis that taxes are already too high and out of control. etc. etc.

also … States can nullify this legislation… and we may very well see states do this. I will bet that money is flooding into theTenth Amendment Center as you read this.

Lastly, it is of utmost importance that this ruling states that government mandates through the Commerce Clause, versus some sort of  “tax” levied by Congress to make you do or not do something,  are completely unconstitutional. That’s actually a very good thing.
I can at least find solace in that. 

I am hearing that 120 House members are already working to Repeal Obamacare and 26 states have started to work on Nullification of Obamacare.  

On the DISPATCH: Headlines  Local  Opinion

Subscribe to Weekly Newsletter

* indicates required
/ ( mm / dd ) [ALL INFO CONFIDENTIAL]

About the Author

- Judy Aron is the author of the Libertarian Blog "Consent of the Governed" Judy has been involved in politics for over 15 years. Judy has written many articles on various aspects of education at home and in public and private schools. She has been published in magazines and online, and has been interviewed on radio and in print.

Tags

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these html tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Sign up for our Weekly Newsletter



Categories

Archives

At the Movies



Pin It