I haven't seen Beck in a while but he is opening up his TV program for free at 5 ET for SCOTUS reaction

http://www.glennbeck.com/2012/06/28/brea....

I agree that this is like the justly infamous Dred Scott decision. And, it will likely further the ideological split in the populace in a similar manner.

The camel's nose under the tent happened years ago with LBJ and Medicare. If you are 65 you have to sign up for it. No choice in the matter. Here is your mandate to be "insured" with Stalinist Health Care. And, Bush the Junior, inflicted Medicare Part D on the populace, where those older than 65 had no choice, but to sign up for an insurance company offered drug policy. I am surprised that Roberts did not cite these little things in his opinion.

Somewhere, Mussolini is smiling.

Alright funny stuff.

Beck opened holding a sword, wearing a kilt and on a horse asking if we should go Braveheart.

I don't buy the "Roberts is playing chess" argument, meaning he upholds Obamacare on a technicality to insulate himself (and the Court's legacy) from criticism, while starting new jurisprudence to place limits on Commerce Clause expansion, and federal power.

That makes no sense. Obamacare is the biggest expansion of federal power in history. You don't give in on that to win on lesser issues in the future. It would be like throwing the Super Bowl just to win the Division playoff next season.

"Regulating behavior through the tax system is nothing new.

If you have kids, you pay less tax or no tax at all.
If you choose to be a debt slave and "buy" a house, you pay less tax.
If you choose to get married, you pay less tax.

Otherwise you take it up the ass. This has been going on for a long time."

--------------------

Ding, Ding, Ding.

You don't buy a house...you are penalized. You don't have kids...you are penalized.

When Obama was speaking about the Supreme Court decision this afternoon, he made a comment that caught my interest. He said that because of the decision, Americans would no longer be subsidizing the hospitals to cover the care of Americans that go to the hospital who have no insurance.

Here's the problem that I see, and if I am wrong please let me know. Illegal immigrants are not covered, so they will still be going to hospitals and we will be paying for their care. People who get state insurance for free will still be getting free state insurance, which will be subsidized by those of us who are working.

All the while those of us who pay for the insurance are going to be subsidizing those that dont pay.

Do I have it right? And if I do, what's the point?

Beck is calling out Roberts as a coward after his vote on Arizona and Obamacare this week.

How is it a technicality where the feds now can do that which the constitution Forbids because they can tax you instead and force the issue?

Doesn't seem like a technicality to me. It seems to me that it is the whole point. yes yes i know the anti-obama care lawyers won the argument, duh. but it doesn't matter as even though they won on the merits, the rules just changed.

Sorry, Off Topic

Tickerguy wrote..

What little was left of The Constitution died today, June 28th, 2012.

I agree. Formally now, the Constitution is a dead letter. The Supreme Court of the United States has become an illegitimate institution, along with the Congress that passed the bill and the Executive that is going to enforce it.

Pardon my ignorance, but if Roberts agreed with all of the conservative arguments but was still of the majority opinion, essentially on a technicality, why did he write the majority opinion?

Seems to me that one of the liberal justices would have written the opinion for Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor and Roberts would have written his own opinion.

Or is it just dissenting opinions where there may be more than one?

The interpretations of Robert's action are certainly interesting and to me still mysterious (I'm being nice). Stranger to me is how some "conservatives" are reacting to the decision such as this one from Mgpacher's link

Quote:

“For those of us who oppose the Affordable Care Act as a policy matter, this is a bad day,” Barnett said. “For those of us in this fight to preserve the limits of constitutional government, this is not a bad day.”

Quote:

“For those of us who oppose the Affordable Care Act as a policy matter, this is a bad day,” Barnett said. “For those of us in this fight to preserve the limits of constitutional government, this is not a bad day.”

Show me the limit under the taxing power.

Here's my personal evisceration of the majority opinion. The core of the majority opinion rests on considering the Act legal under the Constitution's taxing authority (Section 8, as limited by Section 9) - all other avenues were abandoned by the majority.

Text in italics are from the USSC's PDF on the decision - bold text is my response.

Page 41: "Three considerations allay this concern. First, and most importantly, it is abundantly clear the Constitution does not guarantee that individuals may avoid taxation through inactivity. A capitation, after all, is a tax that every- one must pay simply for existing, and capitations are expressly contemplated by the Constitution."
Yet, "No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

Page 42: "Upholding the individual mandate under the Taxing Clause thus does not recognize any new federal power. It determines that Congress has used an existing one."
Congress has no authority to lay a direct tax unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken. Argument invalidated.

Page 43: "We have already explained that the shared responsibil- ity payment’s practical characteristics pass muster as a tax under our narrowest interpretations of the taxing power. Supra, at 35–36."
Nope, as all examples given are ACTIVITIES - not one example of precident was given for laying a direct tax on inaction. This is an unprecidented - and massive - expansion of federal power.

Page 44: "The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that certain in- dividuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax."
A direct tax on inactivity, without proportion to the Census, without precident.


Other notes:

Arguments in favor of Commerce Clause authority rests on Wickard v Filburn, which in this case might as well be Dred Scott v Sanford. So-arguing justices are wrong, plainly.

Page 41: "we continued to consider taxes on personal property to be direct taxes. See Eisner v. Macom- ber, 252 U. S. 189, 218–219 (1920)"
Who owns my body?

Page 41: "The payment is also plainly not a tax on the ownership of land or personal property."
WHO OWNS MY BODY!?

Debtpie, you are just stupid.
"LOL...you guys are so melodramatic...do I really need to back up to the Bush years?

I'd rather have ObamaCare than the TSA...who gave us the TSA?

Where did "enemy combatants" come from?

What about that "USA Patriot Act"?

$900 Billion Medicare expansion? That's ok with the R's....but $1.72 Trillion...nah, that's too much money.

Why don't we repeal Med D and put that money to ObamaCare...then it would cost $90 billion a year...chump change in our budget."

"We are not as bad as you" NaNANa.

Idiot. It is part of the same team that is against you/us. Idiot. Me, I hate the republicans as much. Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obablahah. What is your point. Did you win this year? Did you choose the **** eating room in hell where you have pizza Tuesday every two months?

Quote:

WHO OWNS MY BODY!?

The State.

Quote:

“For those of us who oppose the Affordable Care Act as a policy matter, this is a bad day,” Barnett said. “For those of us in this fight to preserve the limits of constitutional government, this is not a bad day.”

More proof that R and D are one. If you want to get out the vote against the Ds why are you bull****ting this?

Lowbeyond wrote..

Ignorantsavage wrote..

WHO OWNS MY BODY!?

The State.

That is the fedgov's claim, yes. Looks like the proper answer is, yet again, "molon labe".

You are now chattel. Get used to it.

Xqqme wrote..

It's time the side that holds liberty dear realize what kind of country we live in and what the people who vote for themselves a living can demand of you.

FIFY

****.....

YOU......

ROBERTS !!

Question/my take from point of view as an independent provider of health care services- in theory this means everyone will have health insurance, with everyone "covered" with health insurance I feel like this is the gov't telling me as a healthcare provider and sole proprietor how much $$ I should make and can make. The other take is that I feel it is meant to drive me a sole proprietor out of business.For example- The Tricare/Triwest military service has LOWERED what they pay me for services every year for the past 3 years.So right now it is I think almost $20 less a session than it was in 2009... I can't and won't run a business with increasing costs and decreasing revenue. I stopped taking **new** Tricare clients as of 5/1/12. I do not want to ever think the Govt is in charge of how much $$ I make or how much I work. Can I please get some feedback and thoughts... I am trying to strategically think about my future...

You guys have missed the most evil aspect of this decision. The government can now launder money to favored industries by forcing a "penalty-not-tax" on you if you don't buy their product/service, and give that money to this same industry as a "tax break".

Don't want to buy "green energy" products for your house? Fine, we will "tax" you and give the tax breaks to our favorite solar panel cronies, who of course will kick back some generous "campaign contributions" from the laundered loot.

Quote:

I do not want to ever think the Govt is in charge of how much $$ I make or how much I work. Can I please get some feedback and thoughts... I am trying to strategically think about my future...

If the government continues to inflate then those who benefit from the government largesse will see their standard of living increase while you will see yours decrease. If somehow there is a revolution in the US we'll have deflation and you may or may not see your standard of living change - though you will certainly lose all the government customers.

Either way the I don't want the government in charge of my life boat sailed already when they inflated the **** out of our money supply and then tried to cover it up with deficit spending.

Quote:

Don't want to buy "green energy" products for your house? Fine, we will "tax" you and give the tax breaks to our favorite solar panel cronies, who of course will kick back some generous "campaign contributions" from the laundered loot.

They already do that so this is really nothing important unless it manages to open people's eyes.

--Quote from comments--
This decision is Marbury v. Madison all over again. In that case, C.J. Marshall ruled in favor of the Jefferson administration on the point of Mr. Marbury's commission, but in doing so, enshrined a poltical principle, judicial review, to which the administration was adamantly opposed. Jefferson despised Marshall for the rest of his life.

Liberals are cheering as they wheel this Trojan Horse of a decision inside the gates. C.J. Roberts has reversed an 80 year trend in expanding Commerce Clause jurisprudence -- a huge victory for the libertarian/Republican view on Constitutionalism and limited gov't. The slap down on the spending power is gravy.

In the short run, Roberts' decision has energized the Republican base ($1.5M and counting today!). In the long run, the Commerce Clause has finally stopped expanding. (Hooray!)

See also:
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/arch....