The Gift from the Supreme Court

 

The Supreme Court just handed the Republican party the greatest political gift for the upcoming election on two fronts.

The first is a revived awareness among the electorate of the urgency that they choose Senators and Representatives who are committed to the full repeal of ObamaCare, and who, once it is repealed, will get down to the hard work of genuine reform of our health care. ObamaCare is a legislative monstrosity that will raise costs, diminish choice and control, and impair quality — and is loved only by those who don’t understand its effects, or authoritarian elitists who think it won’t affect them. Electing candidates who have signed the Repeal Pledge will become even more important to the American people than it already is.

The second issue is a commitment to picking a President who will choose Justices who believe that part of the purpose of the Constitution is to impose limits on the role of the government, and who will respect the Constitution’s limitations. That is how the Supreme Court will earn back the genuine respect of the citizens, who are the ultimate judges of what the Constitution means. 

In that context, watching the limitations of the Commerce Clause win the argument but lose the case because of the majority’s decision that, despite all legislative intent to the contrary, this really is a tax, special thanks are due to Justice Kennedy for his joint dissent with the three conservative Justices, and for leading the charge for limited government by reading his dissent from the bench. These are serious jurists more concerned with upholding the Constitution than with the opinion of politicized Washington elites.

President Obama has been two-faced throughout the health care debate. He attacked Hillary Clinton for her support of an individual mandate, then imposed a mandate. He said the whole process would be conducted on C-SPAN and then he flagrantly broke that promise by conducting backroom deals. He argued that the penalty for not purchasing insurance was NOT a tax and then had his lawyers argue in court that it WAS a tax. 

The American people, not the President, not the Court, will have the final word come November. Those at the DNC who are classlessly spiking the football now ought to enjoy their brief moment.

There are 20 comments.

  1. Mel Foil Inactive

    Like they say, Republicans don’t riot in the streets; they riot in the voting booth.

    • #1
    • June 28, 2012, at 10:33 AM PDT
    • Like
  2. Gleeful Warrior Member

    polyanna twaddle

    • #2
    • June 28, 2012, at 10:35 AM PDT
    • Like
  3. 1967mustangman Inactive

    I don’t care if it is Polyannaish….thanks for a ray of sunshine in my black black mood.

    • #3
    • June 28, 2012, at 10:39 AM PDT
    • Like
  4. DrewInWisconsin, Influencer Member

    You know what this means? We have to count on REPUBLICANS to save us. Ergo, I’m still depressed.

    • #4
    • June 28, 2012, at 10:42 AM PDT
    • Like
  5. Frozen Chosen Inactive

    I wish I could share your optimism, Heather. I don’t see how the GOP gets a 60 vote majority in the senate come November and without that I don’t see how we possibly overturn Obamacare.

    Romney can issue waivers all day long, the House can try to defund it all they want but none of that will matter if the Dems in the senate still have the filibuster.

    Just to be even more of an Eeyore, Roberts betrayal is a perfect example of why conservatives and this country are doomed; we often have defectors from our side but the Left never has defectors from their’s. That’s why this country has moved so far left over the past 80 years.

    • #5
    • June 28, 2012, at 10:50 AM PDT
    • Like
  6. BrentB67 Inactive
    Frozen Chosen: I wish I could share your optimism, Heather. I don’t see how the GOP gets a 60 vote majority in the senate come November and without that I don’t see how we possibly overturn Obamacare.

    Romney can issue waivers all day long, the House can try to defund it all they want but none of that will matter if the Dems in the senate still have the filibuster.

    Just to be even more of an Eeyore, Roberts betrayal is a perfect example of why conservatives and this country are doomed; we often have defectors from our side but the Left never has defectors from their’s. That’s why this country has moved so far left over the past 80 years. · 1 minute ago

    Edited 0 minutes ago

    Frozen, I am not going to pretend to be an expert on this, but there are some good comments from smart folks here discussing how the tax on not having insurance is legal that changes its status to tax/budgetary item and only needs 51 in the Senate, no cloture. Please check with others smarter than me, there are plenty I assure you.

    Agree on the betrayal issue.

    • #6
    • June 28, 2012, at 10:55 AM PDT
    • Like
  7. Profile Photo Member

    Totally agree!!

    Anyone who follows politics knows this is a godsend. This helps in fund raising and will motivate the base. Romney’s negatives will be forgotten to get him into office. Also, this shows the Obama Administration as transparent that is transparently dishonest.

    • #7
    • June 28, 2012, at 11:02 AM PDT
    • Like
  8. Miffed White Male Member

    This reminds of the old joke about the little boy on Christmas morning – There must be a pony under there somewhere!

    • #8
    • June 28, 2012, at 11:04 AM PDT
    • Like
  9. Leigh Member

    The House is voting to repeal again in July. That is a good move too — it forces the Democrats to go on record, again, as voting for it — and as an undeniable tax increase.

    • #9
    • June 28, 2012, at 11:04 AM PDT
    • Like
  10. Southern Pessimist Member

    I seem to remember that the law stipulates that the IPPB can only be repealed in the year 2017 and requires a 60 vote or possibly higher majority. One congress is not supposed to be able to bind a future congress so perhaps this is why many pundits thought that the IPPB should have been the focus of the lawsuits. I look forward (with much trepidation) to the analysis which is sure to come on the process of repeal.

    • #10
    • June 28, 2012, at 11:06 AM PDT
    • Like
  11. Conservative Episcopalian Inactive

    I agree with you completely.

    We as conservatives/libertarians were hoping to accomplish things by how the Left does it: by relying on the Supreme Court to do our bidding for us.

    We once applauded John Roberts during his confirmation when he indicated that he stood for judicial restraint and by letting the people, through their representatives, decide the big questions for themselves. Now, because he didn’t vote to overturn and invalidate the eventual result of bad decision-making by the people (i.e., the 2008 election) we shake our heads in dismay.

    The best thing though is now those same voters who thought they were helping make history by electing Obama, are going to see that history making in a whole new light.

    Chief Roberts maybe, potentially, saw it this way as well in his own convuluted way. Maybe he actually stands for what he said he stands for: letting the people decide.

    How will Obama reconcile the Supreme Court’s contention that he signed a bill to raise taxes on the middle class? Obama can’t say his perfect law must be fixed. Romney now has a good hand to play he just needs to play it.

    • #11
    • June 28, 2012, at 11:06 AM PDT
    • Like
  12. JoePrunior Member

    I’m willing to bet (I’ll double my contribution to Ricochet if I’m wrong) that if the polling for Obama continues to go south prior to the election, Ginsburg will take an early exit so as to give a lame-duck-Obama a chance at a “parting shot” appointment.

    • #12
    • June 29, 2012, at 1:15 AM PDT
    • Like
  13. BrentB67 Inactive

    Did this ‘gift’ come with a receipt? I’d like to return mine.

    • #13
    • June 29, 2012, at 1:16 AM PDT
    • Like
  14. Jager Member
    Frozen Chosen: 

    Romney can issue waivers all day long, the House can try to defund it all they want but none of that will matter if the Dems in the senate still have the filibuster.

    President Romney plus 50 R Senators can defund and gut this bill. Every penny of spending and every tax, including the mandate, can be removed. 

    Any provision that has a cost savings or cost increase to the government can be removed in the budget process without filibuster.

    • #14
    • June 29, 2012, at 1:17 AM PDT
    • Like
  15. tabula rasa Member
    BrentB67
    Frozen Chosen: I wish I could share your optimism, Heather. I don’t see how the GOP gets a 60 vote majority in the senate come November and without that I don’t see how we possibly overturn Obamacare.

    Edited 0 minutes ago

    Frozen, I am not going to pretend to be an expert on this, but there are some good comments from smart folks here discussing how the tax on not having insurance is legal that changes its status to tax/budgetary item and only needs 51 in the Senate, no cloture. Please check with others smarter than me, there are plenty I assure you.

    Agree on the betrayal issue.

    And remember, they didn’t pass it with 60 votes. I’m not an expert, but it only seems logical that a bill that didn’t require 60 votes to pass can be repealed under the same rules.

    • #15
    • June 29, 2012, at 2:45 AM PDT
    • Like
  16. tabula rasa Member
    Allan: I’m willing to bet (I’ll double my contribution to Ricochet if I’m wrong) that if the polling for Obama continues to go south prior to the election, Ginsburg will take an early exit so as to give a lame-duck-Obama a chance at a “parting shot” appointment. · 2 hours ago

    He may try, but I think he can be blocked. The Republicans have enough votes to filibuster–and they can do all sorts of other things to delay a vote.

    • #16
    • June 29, 2012, at 2:46 AM PDT
    • Like
  17. Douglas Inactive
    Mel Foil: Like they say, Republicans don’t riot in the streets; they riot in the voting booth. · 5 hours ago

    And maybe that’s why we always lose in the long run.

    • #17
    • June 29, 2012, at 3:48 AM PDT
    • Like
  18. Douglas Inactive
    Gleeful Warrior: polyanna twaddle · 5 hours ago

    As I said elsewhere, these “it’s no so bad” justifications are nothing but trying to find a silver lining in the mushroom cloud.

    • #18
    • June 29, 2012, at 3:50 AM PDT
    • Like
  19. ConservativeWanderer Inactive

    If the Obamacrats thought the Tea Party was a pain in their posterior before, they ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

    • #19
    • June 29, 2012, at 12:05 PM PDT
    • Like
  20. tabula rasa Member

    Ditto on the agreement.

    You make a great point that I hadn’t thought of. For those of us, and I think there are a lot of us, who want to see the Constitution interpreted instead of re-written, this will mobilize those who want a president who will appoint Constitutional conservative. I’m not certain Romney will. I’m certain Obama won’t.

    • #20
    • June 29, 2012, at 12:36 PM PDT
    • Like