health care US Supreme Court



He should be, What the chief justice did was to invert the intentions of founding fathers in one of the worst convoluted opinions in the history of the bench. I agree with radio host Mark Levin’s opinion, that Roberts completely misunderstood the complicated tax laws, twisting and bending them all out of shape. In his brief he incoherently refers to the legislation as both a ”tax” and then as not a tax.

As Mark states, Roberts’ unilaterally deeming Obamacare as a tax, something that the congress that passed it (in a total partisan way) rejected it being labeled in that way, nor the president who signed it into law, is highly dubious, if not outright ludicrous. Congress is in the business of passing tax laws, IT’S WHAT IT DOES BEST, but yet, they themselves who crafted it, and deemed it to be a penalty, not a tax, are then corrected by Roberts?

The Supreme Court didn’t even allow for the issue of it being a TAX, to be submitted to the court in the briefings that they heard during those three days when Obama’s top lawyer sputtered and choked during his deliveries. This my friends, is an outrage, and there is no silver lining to it.

3 Responses

  1. I enjoy your site but, do you really have to imbed auto start videos.
    They are annoying enough to avoid returning.

    1. I apologize about that…but if I can find embeds without that feature I will do so.

  2. Mark Levin is being naive to suggest that John Roberts doesn’t understand tax law. Roberts is no slouch intellectually. Step back and look at the big picture here:

    1) We know that Obama threatened the Court in no uncertain terms–uphold this or else!

    2) There are some tantalizing indications in the dissent (which is unsigned) that it may actually have been authored by Roberts, who then changed his vote late in the proceedings.

    3) Roberts interpreted the Commerce, Taxing and Spending, and Necessary and Proper Clauses much more conservatively than they’ve been interpreted in, oh, our lifetimes. This is really, in most respects except the bottom line, a very conservative opinion.

    4) His rationale for upholding is absolutely the flimsiest (i.e., most likely to be later overturned) one possible.

    5) He repeatedly states that he’s not ruling on whether it’s a good law, and that the people can throw the bums who wrote this law out if they (the people) don’t like the law. In fact, that’s the note on which he ends the decision!

    What scenario can you come up with that explains all those points?

    What if the Chief Justice, far from going over to the dark side, is trying to protect the Court from being gutted by Obama and at the same time hoping that this decision will light a fire under opponents of the law and encourage them to throw the bums out and repeal the law. (Given the fact that Romney has raised over $4.6 million since the decision was announced Thursday, it’s looking so far as if that gamble might just pay off!)

    Good article with lots more detail on this idea at:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.