Skip to content

Obamacare Ruling: Wisdom From The Ether

30 June 2012 @ 18:02

NOTE: It was my intention with my post of yesterday to create a self-contained post of my analysis and commentary on the ruling by SCOTUS on Obama, which is why I linked only those people who bolstered my opinions.  Herewith, is what has been written by some of those people I respect [in no particular order]…

Smitty on the Majority Opinion:

Having SCOTUS decisions turn into convoluted crayon duels (like ObamaCare itself) is no help. The SCOTUS works for the We the People. There is no excuse for complicating the situation unnecessarily. If the legal stylings have become so Byzantine that the typical college student cannot follow them, then perhaps the fault is with the legal stylings, and not the audience.

Spot-on, and I would add that, if the average involved American citizen cannot understand a decision that deals with non-obscure matters [unlike, say, bankruptcy laws] then something is very wrong.  This is why it is always a pleasure to read Justices Scalia and Thomas on such matters because they keep it fairly understandable.

Smitty’s remark reminds me of what the great Moral historian Tacticus wrote: Corruptissima republica, plurimae leges [When the state was at its most corrupt, laws were most numerous].  I’m speaking here not so much about your ordinary, everyday, run-of-the-mill kind of corruption, but, rather, of a corruption of the Soul — a condition that allows one to easily engage in cognitive dissonance, to effortlessly engage in whim-reasoning and think oneself the epitome of Right Reason and Prudence.

Finally, one is forced to ask, in lieu of Smitty’s invoking of The Byzantine Empire, whether Chief Justice Roberts has ever read-up on what happened to The Empire

Chris Wysocki:

…Seeing as how SCOTUS no longer believes it is their job to “protect the people from the consequence of their political choices” I guess the people should always get what they want.

Even if they want Barabbas.

Ahh…Democracy!  Quoteth I Mencken: ‘Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.’

A hard rain is gonna fall.

-Some folks, including the intrepid Roxeanne de Luca, believe:

For the next four months, Democrats will campaign on, “Vote for Obama so that the Republicans don’t repeal his tax!” Romney can go to every speech, event, and debate saying that his first day in office, he’s going to sign in the repeal of Obama’s tax on the struggling middle class.

Arguably, as only 51% of Senators are needed to change a tax, the mandate could be reduced to zero cost without being subject to a filibuster.

My response:

This diabolical plan of CJ Roberts only works if (1) you can be sure that 51% of Republicans in the House and 51% of the Senate will vote to repeal THE WHOLE THING and (2) you can be sure that a President Romney will support a FULL REPEAL.

Good luck.

I Remain…
Your Cynical SOB,
Bob Belvedere

Bruce McQuain:

Sorry … but this ruling all but guarantees the twilight of a great experiment. It lasted over 200 years, but it is definitely in its nadir now. This only accelerates the decline. We’ve just put ourselves in the same place as Europe, and we see [how] gloriously that’s going, don’t we?

Wow, just wow.


…Roberts voted with the leftists on this. That is a huge disappointment, but not entirely surprising given his reputation for the fine splitting of hairs on the narrowest possible legal grounds – legal folly, in this case, as the decision represents the upholding of an abominable law on the basis of a very dubious technicality. So, I suppose if the government can link any new encroachment on individual liberty with a tax, then the underlying legislation (or executive order) is constitutional. Funny, but I have a vague recollection of the origins of the United States of America having something to do with a little disagreement about the government’s power to tax.

The political upshot is that the decision may truly ignite the conservative base (and many independents) and boost turn out in November, so that we have a chance to heave the Choom Master out of the White House (and a substantial number of his Democrat confederates out of the Senate and House of Representatives). Otherwise, we will be well on our way to smiley-faced fascism (the smile ultimately to be dropped, no doubt, in the face of resistance). In fact, we have advanced pretty far down that road, already. I mean, consider this: if the economy were performing marginally better than it is right now, Obama would probably be coasting to a second term. In spite of the astonishing radicalization and lawlessness of his Department of Justice, the Fast and Furious outrage, the assault on states’ rights, the utter imbecility of the president’s budget proposals, the dictatorial wielding of executive orders and regulations, the divisive class warfare rhetoric, the overwhelming arrogance and ideological extremism of practically everyone in his administration, the modus operandi of Chicago gangsterism and crony capitalism – in spite of all this, Obama would very possibly be home free, save for the continuing bad economic news.

A people who have forgotten how to value freedom, and who have lost their commitment to staying alert to assaults upon it, do not deserve to, and will not, remain free. What a pity if those of us who love liberty find ourselves in some nightmarish, Orwellian world through the apathy, ignorance and dependency of 51% of our “fellow” citizens.

Dead solid perfect.

-In another post, Paco links to this image posted on The People’s Cube by Jibaro:


-Speaking of Friedrich Hayek’s book, two quotes seem appropriate:

We shall never prevent the abuse of power if we are not prepared to limit power in a way which occasionally may prevent its use for desirable purposes.


Only where we ourselves are responsible for our own interests and are free to sacrifice them has our decision moral value.

Dame Maggie, in a comment over at American Power:

…To get back to constitutional principles, I heard former Solicitor General Ted Olson say this ruling is in conflict with the “Direct Tax Restrictions of the Constitution.” He did not explain further. The dissenting judges said:

“And the nail in the coffin is that the mandate and penalty are located in Title I of the Act, its operative core, rather than where a tax would be found—in Title IX, .containing the Act’s “Revenue Provisions.” In sum, “the terms of [the] act rende[r] it unavoidable,” Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet. 433, 448 (1830), that Congress imposed a regulatory penalty, not a tax.”

We know that the vote in Congress was not intended to be a vote on a tax. And as the dissenters said, had it been, some of those votes would not have been there (maybe most of them).

Roberts has done this country a terrible injustice. I understand that it is not his place to protect us from the representatives we elect, but it is his job to protect us from those entrusted with their oath of office to protect the Constitution, who blatantly do not. Roberts could have voted against and rendered in his opinion that if the penalty becomes a tax, it will be constitutional.

Pundette quoteth Pundit on Twitter:

Think of all the things you didn’t buy today and everything you didn’t do. And you didn’t pay taxes on any of them, you irresponsible fiend.


Congress must be giddy tonight. Taxing things that never even happened: what kind of sweet revenue stream is that? Possibilities are endless[.]

My God!…I will be bankrupted for not ever having made passionate love to Monica Bellucci! [There are worse ways to go bankrupt, I suppose…]

-Barb, who is so filled with Blogsense that she’s sprung a bunch of leaks, sees a paradox in the Ruling [tip of the fedoraa to Mike G].

Mike Hendrix:

Like I keep saying: government health care is here to stay, folks. But there’ll be plenty more to come after it; the Left is going to be emboldened by their victory today, and you know what happens when they are. Deal with it the best way you can. Me, I gotta get back to moving out to the country. High on the to-do list: building a perimeter fence, with plenty of lighting…that faces outward. I’ll leave you with this, from Bill Wilson via Jeff:

The U.S. Constitution died today. The underlying hope and belief that our nation’s founding document protected individual freedoms from an ever encroaching government is a thing of the past based upon this ruling. It is inconceivable how these nine lifetime appointed jurists could have decided to keep a law that is such a blatant intrusion into each of our lives, but the result of their decision is that individuals can no longer rely on the federal government power being limited by anything other than the political pressure their individual elected representatives feel. Ultimately, the Supreme Court has opted out of the battle to retain our freedoms, and has thrown in entirely with those who advocated for unlimited government authority. It is truly a sad day for our nation.

It is that. Sadder still is how few of us realize it even now, and how many of us are shocked by it–that they just never saw it coming. Saddest of all is that we as a nation could have so debased ourselves over time as to even be seriously discussing such nonsense at all.

-To counter all of my gloom and doom, how about something that gives one hope.

-I wish I had more time to quote and link others, but I must get to Rule 5 Saturday – I need the break.

-Immodesty compels me to urge you to read my take on the Obamacare Ruling.

  1. M. Thompson permalink
    30 June 2012 @ 21:03 21:03

    My hope is every Republican elected this fall will understand their tenure in office will be directly related to how quickly they vote to remove this monstrosity. Put the anger to use, get out the vote and remove this as quickly as possible.

    It is a small hope, but it is the best we’ve got.

    As for the opinion, the Chief Justice said we deserve the government we elect.

  2. theebl permalink
    01 July 2012 @ 12:55 12:55

    “The bottom line is this: I will be voting against John Roberts’ nomination. I do so with considerable reticence. I hope that I am wrong. I hope that this reticence on my part proves unjustified and that Judge Roberts will show himself to not only be an outstanding legal thinker but also someone who upholds the Court’s historic role as a check on the majoritarian impulses of the executive branch and the legislative branch.”

    Senator Barack Obama

  3. 01 July 2012 @ 18:59 18:59

    That photo says it all. I sure hope the (R’s) do their job and get rid of this, and Romney wins in Nov. I think this will be good for him.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: