ObamaCare SCOTUS ruling round-up (UPDATED)

.

(please scroll to bottom of post for update)



Well, despite having some queasy feelings about it as recently as yesterday (when we put a hundy down at The Double Standard getting 5/2 odds that the mandate would be upheld) we certainly did not see this coming...


Via Sir Charles at Doo Doo Economics:

From the National Journal:

The Supreme Court upheld the health care reform law on Thursday in a ruling in which conservative Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the liberal wing and spelled out ways to keep the highly controversial law within the bounds of the Constitution. The ruling vindicates President Obama’s signature domestic policy initiative, even if it doesn’t stop the political debate over the sweeping Affordable Care Act.

The 5-4 ruling lets stand the mandate – the requirement that just about everyone carry health insurance or pay a fine. But the ruling calls the fine a tax, allowing the law to escape arguments that it violates the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

And here we thought it was Justice Kennedy, who voted with the dissenters that would be the swing vote.


Some thoughts:

The short take-away: The Supreme Court has granted the federal government the power to do whatever the hell it wants as long as it can be called a tax. But, remember, the President, in selling the legislation insisted the penalty for not complying with the mandate was not a tax.

Remember, this guy?:



We actually thought it a penalty instead of a tax as well.


The irony, as we see it, is that ObamaCare was saved by what many on the right insisted it was all along (a tax) and which the President and the rest of the Democrats insisted that it wasn't in order to grease the legislative skids. Let's face it: Roberts bailed them out.

And now that the honor and integrity of the Supreme Court has been restored, we're curious as to what the left is going to whine about now? Oh, that's right: all that money in politics.



Our favorite moral scold, KT, responded to the ruling in precisely the manner we expected (there is much to be said for consistency):

So What's The Big Deal?

If you're hoping that 9 guys in robes are going to save you from your own feckless greed and laziness, you've got some serious problems. With the Supreme Court decision upholding ObamaCare, the culture of demanding what you have not earned rolls on.

And "lee" in the comments:

I was really hoping just five guys in robes were gonna save me from some other clowns' feckless greed and laziness. And I know in November, I will vote, and I will vote for people who CLAIM they will undo this evil, but it's Washington, and it's a monster that makes the creature in "Aliens" seem as cute as a beagle puppy eating a cupcake.

I got twenty more years before they hand me the pamphlet, "So You Want to Die and Leave More Room and All Your Limited Access to Healthcare to Someone Younger Who Deserves It More Than You, You Old Goat," before I shove off down the Soylent Green Highway....

Both valid points.



Here's Leslie at Temple of Mut:

Basically, the US Supreme Court has said: “If you like your death panel, you can keep your death panel”. I cannot understate how disappointing it is to see that Chief Justice John Roberts decided to side with the big-government oriented justices, and merely amend the poorly written law developed by both houses of Congress. However, Roberts did leave us one clue on how we citizens can still fight back, as controlling healthcare is merely a front for controlling every other aspect of our lives. His decision includes this passage:

The Framers created a Federal Government of limited powers, and assigned to this Court the duty of enforcing those limits. The Court does so today. But the Court does not express any opinion on the wisdom of the Affordable Care Act. Under the Constitution, that judgment is reserved to the people.

drozz over at The Double Standard had these thoughts:

Double Standard Industries pays Dean over at Beers With Demo 375 (100 investment + 275 payout) internet dollars. Congratulations.

Hey I correctly interpreted Kennedy's vote (who cares).

Ginsberg, like all liberal judges argues that the mandate is necessary so it's proper in her separate concurring opinion. Her opinion is garbage based on the line that the mandate "solves an economic and social problem" (see Ginsber's opinion at p.12). Bullshit, it solves an economic problem.

Another promise made by Napoleon regarding of Obamatax has been broken.
Know who loves having their taxes raised? Young adults, small businesses, the middle class. And I hope they reward Napoleon by voting in November.

Ann Althouse's opinion of the verdict "President Romney".

Snark aside, this is a huge loss. The opportunity to reign in federal power was there, and now it's gone.

Roberts drew a clear line for Congressional power under the Commerce Clause. Then gave them a loophole to get around it.

Where do we go from here? Well, I'd say the Tea Party hornet nest was just stirred. My hope is that others wake up and realize what exactly just happened.

If you've been following this blog for any length of time, you know just how we feel about this ruling. We've been covering all manner of things related to ObamaCare and this ruling is indeed hugely disappointing as we're not sure what limiting powers the federal government via Congress now has. Again, the majority logic appears to be, if you can attach a tax to it, then Congress can mandate it.
Will this now extend to GM cars and Solyndra solar panels?

And as Captain Ed over at Hot Air pointed out: Hey, Lefties, you realize that this tax, though imposed by the feds, will be going directly to the private insurance companies. Let's alter that slightly for full effect: that tax money will be lining the pockets of for-profit private health insurers. Your welcome.


Silver lining?: We didn't have the courts do our heavy lifting in the fight for freedom and liberty. No? Well, then, we suppose we've got some work to do ahead of November 6.





(UPDATE #1): B-Daddy of Liberator Today fame finds some cheer from his parsing of the decision:

But here are my reasons why this isn't the full-fledged disaster I might have thought.

1.The ruling didn't expand the power of the commerce clause to infinity. From the WSJ: "The Commerce Clause is not a general license to regulate an individual from cradle to grave, simply because he will predictably engage in particular transactions," the chief justice wrote.

2.Most conservatives had always felt that had the mandate been honestly labeled as a tax, it would have never been challenged. Even though J.E. Dyer at HotAir asks what limit there is on the power to tax, the fact is, there has never really been a limit, so the ruling changes nothing.

3.I always thought the mandate's financial penalty was too weak to force compliance.

4.The mandate has no criminal enforcement provision, including asset forfeiture in the portion of the tax code in which it resides.
5.Because the mandate is a tax, it's repeal can't be filibustered in the Senate, where the rules on filibuster do not apply to spending bills.

6.The ruling on the Medicaid portion is likely to be more substantive. From Volokh: the federal government may deny the states additional Medicaid funds if they refuse to comply with the coverage expansion requirement, but may not take away their preexisting Medicaid funds. The states may then opt out of the expanded coverage, without risk to their current Medicaid funding. In the long run, this may kill the whole scheme. I am encouraged that seven justices accepted a states' rights argument.

7.The Chief Justice worked to protect the reputation of the court. I disagree with the way he did it, but understand the concern. The court should give deference to the legislative branch. The court's failure to interfere here may buy it good will in the future with Americans less invested in right vs left politics.

8.This is likely to help Romney, who is making the argument that the only way to get rid of Obamacare is to get rid of Obama. Supposedly, $1 million has rolled in since the decision.

9.The court has ruled officially that Obama has raised taxes on the middle class.

10.Ultimately the public got what it deserves for electing Democrats in such overwhelming numbers, including the 2008 nominee, who lacked the experience to inject any leadership into this miserable bill. We are reminded of why we need a tea party movement to restore government to constitutional limits because we, the people, demand it.

The last point, is something we related in a FaceBook post (yes, we realize that FB and politics don't miss, but...) as an appeal to all our friends be they liberal, middle-of-the-road or conservative. We're all stuck with this miserable thing for the time being and we need to come to grips with the fact that this cozy, corporatist relationship that exists between the government and the health insurance companies will do anything but bend downward the cost of healthcare. If we are going to get this thing repealed, it will take people across the political spectrum to act in good faith with the knowledge that ObamaCare is not reform rather a furthering of an already miserable status quo.



.

Regardless of how things pan out on Thursday...

.

... remember, none of the jack-ass adults in this picture have a clue as to what was in this bill that was being signed into law... and they still don't.

.


Perhaps we can advise them as such come November.

Link of the day

.

We're a little pressed for time this afternoon/evening but as not wanting to shortchange anything or anybody, drozz over at The Double Standard has a great wrap-up and break-down of the SCOTUS ruling on Arizona's SB 1070 immigration law, here.

Something for everybody in the decision.

.

SCOTUS ruling on ObamaCare set for Thursday. Stay tuned.

.

Clarification

We hope we weren’t being too obtuse or coy in our post last week that was meant to juxtapose what is required of a juror vs. some relevant quotes from prospective and former justices on the Supreme Court. So, just to clear up any confusion, Andrew McCarthy wonders, here, if Judge Sotomayor would see the light of the jury box if she dropped the “Latina woman” hammer on a judge or an inquiring lawyer during the jury selection questioning?

At the end of the day, though, we’re probably going with Krauthammer's advise: Criticize, then confirm.

Let’s let Ms. Sotomayor’s judicial philosophy be exposed to the light (like, how much is she and by extension the Democratic party beholden to identity politics) and confirm her as her ascension to the high court does not necessarily alter the balance of the court and because the numbers in the Senate are not there and, hopefully some degree of deference to the Presidents' choices can be returned to a process that has been nuked by Senate Democrats. Or, as can be summed up in this says-it-all headline from Jack Tapper:

“First President in US History to Have Voted to Filibuster a Supreme Court Nominee Now Hopes for Clean Process”

We'll jump right on that, sir.

Help wanted

Man, wasn’t it just a little over a week ago that we were reviewing the President’s qualifications for FEMA grief counselor… excuse us, Supreme Court justice. Let’s roll the tape:

"the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges": "We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled or old."

In searching for David Souter’s replacement, the President further amplified qualifications that we, silly us, had not formerly associated with a Supreme Court justice by pledging to name someone who also possessed “empathy and understanding”.

With an entire political establishment wed to identity politics, excitement spread across the capitol over the weekend with rampant speculation that the President might just choose a woman…. or a minority, yet two more qualifications previously unidentified for sitting on the highest bench in the land. Talk about being out of touch.

But since we’re half-way there, lets just go for the superfecta and make sure that this minority female is wheelchair-bound and developmentally-disabled as well ‘cause we all know how much the Prez loves those 'tards.

god, we love identity politics.

Common sense, we suppose

In what appears to be a victory for common sense, the Supreme Court upheld by a 6-3 margin yesterday an Indiana state law that requires prospective voters produce photo ID. Story here.

The dissenters Breyer, Ginsberg and Souter claimed the law targets “voters who are poor and old.” No, the law targets those who can’t provide reasonable proof of who they are.

But may we offer some mild dissent? We worked at the polls during the 2006 midterms (…and btw, it was a long, grueling 16-hour day and entirely worth it. Never before did we feel as much as descendants of the Founders as we did that day when we were temporary caretakers of the most fundamental act of democracy) and our instructions were pretty simple: we were there to facilitate the voting process – nothing more, nothing less.

California law does not require any ID, photo or otherwise. If we could not find a particular person’s name on the voter registration list, we were instructed to provide a provisional paper ballot to the individual, extending every courtesy to make sure that person was not disenfranchised.

The issue of legitimacy was left to the registrar’s office and we were totally fine with that. With our lack of experience and training, we would not feel comfortable denying anyone the vote because a) they could not provide ID or b) could not provide what would appear to us to be legitimate ID… a determination better left to bar tenders and bouncers.

A personal discomfort with the practical execution of these types of laws aside, on balance, we're good with the concept of requiring that the name listed on the voter registration list is really you.

Smackdown... Again

B-Daddy here. In an opinion that received only moderate coverage, the Supreme Court has delivered another well deserved smackdown to the Bush administration, this time on an issue of international law. The case itself is fairly straightforward, Jose Ernesto Medellín was sentenced to death in October 1994 after providing a written confession to the rape and murder of two teenage girls in June 1993 as part of a gang initiation. After exhausting most of his appeals, his lawyers brought up the fact that since he was a Mexican national, the Mexican consulate should have been notified, as provided for by the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled against the United States in its Avena decision, stating in part:

“(a) The United States of America shall take all measures necessary to ensure that Mr. César Roberto Fierro Reyna, Mr. Roberto Moreno Ramos and Mr. Osvaldo Torres Aguilera are not executed pending final judgment in these proceedings;
(b) The Government of the United States of America shall inform the Court of all measures taken in implementation of this Order.'

Subsequently, the administration withdrew from that particular protocol of the treaty. But that didn't stop the administration from directing the state of Texas to retry the Medellín case. The Supremes said not so fast, under what legal basis do you the executive branch presume to direct the operations of the state criminal justice system. Further, what constitutional right or federal statutory right was Medellín denied that he should even appear as a petitioner before the Supreme Court? The key issue is that even though the United States may sign a treaty, if specific provisions for its enforcement are not codified into law, then courts are enjoined from inventing judicial remedy. We should be very happy about that outcome, because many international treaties tend to infringe on state sovereignty and individual rights. Preventing the courts from inventing remedies prevents future mischief. What if the Senate ratifies the Cybercrime Treaty and it is interpreted by the ICJ that rules that pointing out the Koran directs its followers to make war on infidels is a hate crime. If U.S. courts could then invent remedies, we might as well take a magic marker to the first amendment of the constitution.

BTW, I oppose the death penalty, but am unwilling to subvert our constitutional form of government just to reduce the number of executions.

This legal matter also exposes the President's flagrant disregard for the rule of law, again, by directing state courts to give regard to a treaty from which the administration itself had withdrawn. I happen to agree with DailyKos that this kind of behavior is the most troubling aspect of the Bush presidency. Think about the precedents Bush has tried to set in the hands of Hillary Clinton. Some more bullet points:

• Bush is no conservative, not respecting the rule of law.
• Bush is no federalist, not respecting state judicial processes.

However, of all the candidates currently still in the race, I think that Clinton has shown herself to be the most capable of continuing these shenanigans.

H/T: National Review

It's Not Just the Issues

B-Daddy here. OK, I hate to admit this, but after taking the Select a Candidate Quiz, I am allegedly a Ronulan, the guy to his left was a very close second by a score of 33 to 32. I took the quiz again, not altering my positions but tweaking their importance to me and the same duo is one, two, albeit reversed. But no way will you find me casting my vote for either of these guys because each has some fatal flaws that I just can't live with. To me, this points up the importance of negatives, and why going negative is an important part of the political process.
First, my negatives. For Mr. Paul, he is advocating immediate withdrawal from Iraq, which would be a disaster that even the mainstream Democrat presidential hopefuls aren't advocating. Also, he makes a big point of some issues that Americans really don't understand, so he looks like a kook, the role of the Federal Reserve for example. It detracts too much from his message, that I don't trust his judgment. For John McCain, I thoroughly and completely loathe the McCain-Feingold bill from every angle, practical, moral and constitutional. Today is not the day to detail its horrors, but I just want to make the point that his bill is the single greatest assault on the First Amendment in my lifetime. This Supreme Court should go down as one of the worst since the court that ruled on Dred Scott, for upholding McCain-Feingold (in McConnell vs FEC) and its ruling in Kelo vs. New London. OK, enough ranting.

But the real bad news for me is that the candidate with the highest score only agrees with me only gets a 33 score. Now I am reduced to finding the candidate who is not a whacko and who only annoys me on half the issues.

Can somebody please help?