More Democratic Dissents
I posted here yesterday about White House Press Secretary Jay Carney's dissent from the Supreme Court's decision upholding ObamaCare's individual mandate. Carney, like many prominent Democrats, continues to insist that the provision is a penalty even though the court ruled that the mandate could only be constitutional if construed as a tax.
On an Obama campaign conference call organized yesterday, Maryland's Democratic Governor, Martin O’Malley, took an even harsher tone in rebuking people who describe the mandate as a tax. “They’re retreating to the last bastion of scoundrels, which is to try to cast this as some sort of tax increase,” O’Malley said, according to an article in The Boston Globe.
One can only assume that O'Malley didn't mean to impugn the man who wrote these words: "And if the mandate is in effect just a tax hike on certain taxpayers who do not have health insurance, it may be within Congress’s constitutional power to tax." That, of course, would be the chief justice of the United States.
- Comment (13)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments:
Aug '10
Re: More Democratic Dissents
This issue is quite simple, really - if the mandate is not a tax the law is not constitutional.
That's what the majority of the court said so If Obama and his minions want to insist it isn't a tax then fine, Obamacare is unconstitutional and should be instantly repealed.
Edited on July 1, 2012 at 1:47amRe: More Democratic Dissents
I neglected to include Governor Deval Patrick's equally classic quotation from the call:“I just want to respond to the frankly bizarre attack, which is the claim this act represents a big tax increase on the middle class" [emphasis added].
Edited on July 1, 2012 at 1:41amJun '10
Re: More Democratic Dissents
Frozen Chosen: This issue is quite simple, really - if the mandate is not a tax the law is not constitutional.
That's what the majority of the court said so If Obama and his minions want to insist it isn't a tax than fine, Obamacare is unconstitutional and should be instantly repealed. · 19 minutes ago
It doesn't work like that. The democrats will insist on having it both ways. And the press will give them cover. It's up to Mitt now to bring clarity to the issue. All together now, "if it quacks, it's a . . . .
Mar '11
Re: More Democratic Dissents
Trying to point out the hypocrisy in supporting the decision while still calling the mandate a penalty is a losing battle.
I have already read several articles by Democrats (including one by Judge Posner) essentially arguing that Roberts reached the correct decision but used flawed jurisprudence to get there. Since they already thought Roberts was a kook, there is no cognitive dissonance for them to embrace his decision while brushing away his explanation.
Mar '11
Re: More Democratic Dissents
~Paules
Frozen Chosen: This issue is quite simple, really - if the mandate is not a tax the law is not constitutional.
That's what the majority of the court said so If Obama and his minions want to insist it isn't a tax than fine, Obamacare is unconstitutional and should be instantly repealed. · 19 minutes ago
It doesn't work like that. The democrats will insist on having it both ways. And the press will give them cover. It's up to Mitt now to bring clarity to the issue. All together now, "if it quacks, it's a . . . .
I think the bigger problem is that almost no one cares about process anymore. The only point that matters is: constitutional or not? We can quote Roberts' decision all we want, but people today just don't care about reasoning.
Edited on July 1, 2012 at 1:56amMay '12
Re: More Democratic Dissents
I confess I didn't think Obama and the progressive gang could get any more arrogant than their selective immigration enforcement, but he/they managed to do it with the ruling on Obamacare.
One would think that having the Chief Justice swing to keep this monstrosity in place would be reason enough for Obama et al to spike the ball, but even that isn't good enough. They have to accept the ruling, celebrate it, and say it is wrong all in one sentence.
The fact that there is just a sliver of the electorate noticing this tells me the republic is past the point of no return.
Apr '11
Re: More Democratic Dissents
Has this country ever been governed by a more mealy-mouthed collection of incompetents than the crew we have now?
Jun '10
Re: More Democratic Dissents
So the Democrats don't want to run on a tax, but they want to run on a penalty? Sounds inspiring.
May '11
Re: More Democratic Dissents
Randy Barnett, interviewed in the Washington Examiner, has a much more positive slant on the consequences of the ruling.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/randy-barnett-says-roberts-tax-power-argument-is-lame-but-easily-fixed/article/2501028
Dec '11
Re: More Democratic Dissents
This is, I think, the huge problem with CJ Roberts' twisting of language in order to make his ruling - i.e. it's a tax because I call it a tax even though it was a penalty when written, voted on, and "sold".
doublethink: "...to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself."
In my humble opinion, Roberts has tried to play the left's game; it will end poorly for his court and us.
Jan '11
Re: More Democratic Dissents
Many of us feel, and I admit I do, that Roberts bent over backward to avoid a 5-4 defeat of ObamaCare because he thought it would be criticized as political. Trying to protect the reputation of the Court, Roberts was going to desperately find some way to uphold the law. He was sensitive to the criticism.
Look what happened. Instead of liberals blasting the Court, now the conservatives are doing it. And what did he get out of the deal? Respect for the Court from liberals? Hardly.
The disrespect isn't so much suggesting that Roberts is a scoundrel; it's that the liberals don't care what he said.
Apr '11
Re: More Democratic Dissents
KC Mulville: Many of us feel, and I admit I do, that Roberts bent over backward to avoid a 5-4 defeat of ObamaCare because he thought it would be criticized as political. Trying to protect the reputation of the Court, Roberts was going to desperately find some way to uphold the law. He was sensitive to the criticism.
Look what happened. Instead of liberals blasting the Court, now the conservatives are doing it. And what did he get out of the deal? Respect for the Court from liberals? Hardly.
The disrespect isn't so much suggesting that Roberts is a scoundrel; it's that the liberals don't care what he said. · 4 hours ago
Exactly. And the next time The Court rules in a way the left doesn't like they'll kick and scream and whine and called Roberts a partisan hack anyway.
Figures that Roberts was appointed by Bush. It's the same damn nonsense over and over and over again. And Romney's no different.
May '12
Re: More Democratic Dissents
KC Mulville: Many of us feel, and I admit I do, that Roberts bent over backward to avoid a 5-4 defeat of ObamaCare because he thought it would be criticized as political. Trying to protect the reputation of the Court, Roberts was going to desperately find some way to uphold the law. He was sensitive to the criticism.
Look what happened. Instead of liberals blasting the Court, now the conservatives are doing it. And what did he get out of the deal? Respect for the Court from liberals? Hardly.
The disrespect isn't so much suggesting that Roberts is a scoundrel; it's that the liberals don't care what he said. · 11 hours ago
This is precisely why all this chatter about 'bi partisan' and reaching across the aisle is junk. Every time there is a compromise that bestows on the progressives 99% of what they want the instant reaction is wailing and gnashing of teeth that they are being oppressed and denied the other 1%.
Progressives are never going to see the light so lets stop trying to play nice and start playing to win.