Explanation of Obamacare Decision by a Conservative Attorney

[Oldgrunt]

I just received this from a friend. Maybe all is not as lost as we might have thought. Hopefully, this fellow's theories are correct and we may have a brighter future after all.

Explanation of Obamacare Decision by a Conservative attorney


June 28, 2012

To all my friends, particularly those conservatives who are
despondent over the "searing betrayal" by Chief Justice John Roberts
(seeming betrayal"??) and the pending demise of our beloved country, I offer
this perspective to convey some profound hope and evidence of the Almighty’s
hand in the affairs of men in relation to the Supreme Court’s decision on
Obamacare. (my comment above)

I initially thought we had cause for
despondency when I only heard the results of the decision and not the reason
or the make-up of the sides. I have now read a large portion of the
decision and I believe that it was precisely the result that Scalia, Alito,
Thomas, Roberts and even Kennedy wanted and not a defeat for conservatism or
the rule of law. I believe the conservatives on the court have run circles
around the liberals and demonstrated that the libs are patently unqualified
to be on the Supreme Court. Let me explain.

First let me assure you that John Roberts is a
conservative and he is not dumb, mentally unstable, diabolical, a turncoat,
a Souter or even just trying to be too nice. He is a genius along with the
members of the Court in the dissent. The more of the decision I read the
more remarkable it became. It is not obvious and it requires a passable
understanding of Constitutional law but if it is explained anyone can see
the beauty of it.

The decision was going to be a 5-4 decision no
matter what, so the allegation that the decision was a partisan political
decision was going to be made by the losing side and their supporters. If
the bill was struck down completely with Roberts on the other side there
would have been a national and media backlash against conservatives and
probably strong motivation for Obama supporters to come out and vote in
November. With today’s decision that dynamic is reversed and there is a
groundswell of support for Romney and Republicans, even for people who were
formerly lukewarm toward Romney before today, additionally Romney raised
more than 3 million dollars today.

Next, merely striking the law without the
support of Democrats and libs would have left the fight over the commerce
clause and the “necessary and proper “ clause and the federal government’s
role in general festering and heading the wrong way as it has since 1942.
As a result of the decision the libs are saying great things about Roberts;
how wise, fair and reasonable he is. They would never have said that
without this decision even after the Arizona immigration decision on Monday.
In the future when Roberts rules conservatively it will be harder for the
left and the media to complain about the Robert’s Court’s fairness. That’s
why he as Chief Justice went to the other side for this decision not Scalia,
Alito, Thomas or Kennedy, all of whom I believe would have been willing to
do it.

Next let’s look at the decision itself.
Thankfully Roberts got to write it as Chief Justice and it is a masterpiece.
(As I write this the libs don’t even know what has happened they just think
Roberts is great and that they won and we are all going to have free,
unlimited healthcare services and we are all going to live happily ever
after.) He first emphatically states that Obamacare is unconstitutional
under the Commerce Clause saying you cannot make people buy stuff. Then he
emphatically states that it is unconstitutional under the “necessary and
proper” clause which only applies to “enumerated powers” in the US
Constitution. Justices Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan all went
along with these statements. They never would have gone along with that
sentiment if that was the basis for striking the law in total. This is huge
because this means that the Court ruled 9-0 that Obamacare was
unconstitutional under the Commerce clause which was Obama’s whole defense
of the bill. They also ruled 9-0 on the “necessary and proper” clause.
Even better both of these rulings were unnecessary to the decision so it is
gravy that we got the libs to concede this and it will make it easier to
pare away at both theories in the future, which we must do. Well done.

Roberts, through very tortured reasoning, goes
on to find that the taxing law provides the Constitutionality for the law.
Virtually everyone agrees that the Federal government has the power to do
this as it does with the mortgage deduction for federal income taxes. This
too is huge because Obama assiduously avoided using the term “tax” and now
he has to admit this law is a tax and it is on everyone even the poor. That
will hurt him hugely in the polls and will help Romney. More importantly
though is the fact that this makes this a budgetary issue that can be voted
on in the Senate by a mere majority instead of 60 votes needed to stop a
filibuster. That means that if the Republicans can gain a majority in the
Senate, it can vote to repeal Obamacare in total.

Finally the Court voted 7-2 to strike down the
punitive rules that take away money from states that do not expand Medicare
as required in Obamacare. This too is huge because we got Kagan and Breyer
to join this decision and it can easily be applied to many other cases of
extortion the Federal government uses to force states to do things they don’t
want to. This is also amazing because Obamacare has no severability clause
so by striking the Medicaid mandate portion as unconstitutional the whole
bill should have been struck. If that happened none of these other benefits
would have been accomplished. I haven’t read far enough to know how he did
it but I am sure it is brilliant.

So to recap the Roberts court through a
brilliant tactical maneuver has: strengthened the limitations of the
commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause by a unanimous decision,
made Obama raise taxes on the poor and middle classes, converted Obamacare
into a tax program repealable with 51 votes in the Senate, enhanced Romney’s
and Republican’s fundraising and likelihood of being elected in November,
weakened federal extortion and got the left to love Roberts and sing his
praises all without anyone even noticing. Even Obama is now espousing the
rule of law just 2 weeks after violating it with his deportation executive
order.

That is why I have decided this was a genius decision and that
I did in fact get a great birthday present today not to mention U. S.
Attorney General Eric Holder being held in contempt. What a day!

[BluesStringer]

This is not directed at Oldgrunt, but at whoever wrote that piece of garbage.

Total and complete sophistry. As I have documented elsewhere, the *Court* did nothing to "...strengthen the limitations of the commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause by a unanimous decision..." They left it entirely alone to maintain the status quo it has enjoyed for many decades as the most-abused and bastardized clause in the whole Constitution. ONLY Roberts wrote an opinion on the limitations he supposedly sees concerning the Commerce Clause. A singular opinion carries no weight whatsoever as precedent, and that's exactly what that section of Roberts' opinion is; singular to him.

Beyond that though, whoever wrote this piece of crap completely overlooks the precedent that the Court set for literally unlimited taxation for literally any punitive measure government may wish to impose on the citizenry. Don't like broccoli? Eat it or pay a tax. Prefer your cars to be relatively inexpensive and run forever under normal usage? Tough. Buy Government Motors products or pay a tax. Want to practice your religious beliefs as regards doctrinal restrictions on birth control, thereby having larger than "average" families? Fine. Have as many kids as you want, but after the first one, pay a tax on each subsequent child. Or better yet, avoid the tax and get an abortion.

The idiot who wrote that rubbish says that part of what makes Roberts' opinion such a "masterpiece" of legal reasoning is that it, "...will help Romney." Since when is it SCOTUS's job to pick sides in political contests, or to favor one candidate over another? How dense does someone have to be to even assert such a "benefit" to this ruling in light of the fact that its basis as a tax is found nowhere within its own text? I mean, this blithering blatherer is finding multiple instances of blatant constitutional usurpations, and holding them up as an "Atta Boy!" for John Roberts!

Anyone who buys this tripe is in a deeper sleep than before the ruling came out, which I would've never predicted was even possible.

Doesn't surprise me that this so-called "conservative lawyer" didn't sign his/her name to this idiocy. If there were any legal standards being applied in this country these days, s/he would likely be disbarred!

Blues

[gunnerbob]

Perhaps Roberts is trying to bring our collapse sooner, that's one theory.... maybe he thinks if he pisses off enough of us, we'll revolt. He may want that...? IDK...

[eagleeyes]

heheh nuff said

[fuhr52]

Well Blues, according to you I'm an idiot. This article makes sense to me. It's a brilliant move. As stated Obama Care is unconstitutional If you use the commerce law as a defense. But as a tax the government has the power to do that. Time will tell how brilliant he is.

[BluesStringer]

Well Blues, according to you I'm an idiot. This article makes sense to me. It's a brilliant move. As stated Obama Care is unconstitutional If you use the commerce law as a defense. But as a tax the government has the power to do that. Time will tell how brilliant he is.

Well fuhr, if you have no problem with the precedent that will hold for as long as the rotting shell of this country survives, that being the power of government to not only tax the behaviors you engage in, but the behaviors that you don't engage in, yeah, I have to question what amount of intelligence must be missing from someone whom that makes "sense" to. If you have no problem with SCOTUS rewriting a law because the Chief Justice saw it as his "duty" to "make it constitutional," the same applies.

If you'd like to explain it to me, that's fine, I won't get pissed off or snippy with you, because I generally like what you post, and believe that your heart is in the right place, and also believe you love this country. But if you can overlook the extreme harm to this country that this 100% activist and lacking-all-constitutional-authority ruling by SCOTUS represents, then you are being shortsighted at the very least. The temporary positive effect it might have on the ACA doesn't make up for the centuries-long tyrannical effects it will pave the way for beyond this one issue. Of course, that last statement presumes we have centuries to fart around with this dead Constitution anyway, which I also don't believe to be the case, but I presume that most who scrutinize current rulings by the Court, do so from the perspective that their rulings always hold up for at least decades. No matter what happens with the ACA, I'd really be interested to know how any thinking person could see this decision as a net positive for individual liberty in America further on up the road.

Blues

[fuhr52]

You mentioned directing activities through taxes. That's been going on for years. Liquor tax, cigarette tax and now a health tax. The SCOTUS has upheld all kinds of unconstitutional laws through the years. Hasn't been much objection till now. Congress doesn't have the stomach for some law, they let the court do it to take the heat off them. Got to win elections you know. In my opinion the SCOTUS should not have even accepted this case because it is so blatantly unconstitutional. Congress and the president should be voted out of office for pushing blatantly unconstitutional legislation. In stead the main stream media will not report the truth and the voters will re-elect them. You can interpret what Justice Roberts wrote from different angles. I'm by no means any kind of a legal scholar.

[BluesStringer]

You mentioned directing activities through taxes. That's been going on for years. Liquor tax, cigarette tax and now a health tax.

You start by answering a question I didn't ask. Yes, taxes have been used to either coerce or punish behaviors the government wishes to influence. But you have to go out and buy tobacco or alcohol before that coercion is imposed. Would you think it was the same thing if the government wanted you to smoke or drink more, and taxed you when you didn't engage in those behaviors? That's what's happening here fuhr. You do see the distinction, don't you?

In my opinion the SCOTUS should not have even accepted this case because it is so blatantly unconstitutional. Congress and the president should be voted out of office for pushing blatantly unconstitutional legislation.

Ya lost me there. When they accepted the case, the bill was already the law. Voting Congress-critters or Obama out of office wouldn't do a thing to right the wrong that passing it represents. You seem to be saying that the more unconstitutional a law is, the less attention SCOTUS should give to it? Who, but SCOTUS, should be counted upon to protect We, The People, from overreaching, usurping politicians in Congress and the Executive? I have no idea what possible legal reasoning you are employing in coming to this conclusion. It's truly baffling.

In stead the main stream media will not report the truth and the voters will re-elect them. You can interpret what Justice Roberts wrote from different angles. I'm by no means any kind of a legal scholar.

I am not scrutinizing what Roberts "wrote." I'm condemning as usurpative and illegal what his writings did to our country. The ACA was bad enough law. His ruling, even if intended as a poison-pill "solution" to it, will stand forever as the worst extra-constitutional appropriation of power by any branch of government in our nation's history, and will be the basis for more theft of individual liberty by government as well. I suppose time will tell how history will unfold before us, but I honestly believe that what this ruling portends will show itself to be much closer to what I describe here before any but the most infirm and decrepit among us meets our Maker, and that showing will likely have nothing whatsoever to do with the ACA.

Blues

[fuhr52]

In my opinion the representatives we elect to act in our best interest should have enough knowledge of the document they take and oath to protect and uphold to know when it is violated. If they don't understand the document how in the world can they uphold it. You don't rob a bank and then go to court to find out if it's legal. I know the law was already passed and it can be rescinded. Anyone that has read the US Constitution would know the Federal government has no Constitutional power to force it's citizens to buy a product. They do get away with coercing us to not buy products by taxing them. I don't always do a very good job of getting my point across. Not interested in getting in a pissing match as we are usually on the same page as I believe we are here.

[dcselby1]

This is the article from Godfather Politics by Richard Bolen. Did Justice Roberts Pull One Over on the Liberals? - Godfather Politics