I am what you might call angry, and so are many others. and here are some of their reactions.
Zion’s Trumpet links Ed’s post, and offers his own take
Also keep in mind that all this happened back when the GOP still had a shot at getting Obama’s health care monstrosity overruled by our nation’s highest court. Since that option is no longer on the table, we the people have no alternative but to rid our federal government of every parasitic leftist we possibly can, even if that means replacing some of them with – shall we say – less than hard-right Republicans. To do otherwise is to commit national suicide, and even some Ron Paul supporters are now beginning to recognize that fact.
Mitt – if I may be so bold as to address you by your nickname – all you have to do to win the White House at this point is refrain from saying anything truly stupid or offensive to conservatives, stick to the topics of the economy and ObamaCare, and try to pick a running mate who isn’t as big a RINO as you are. Might I suggest Marco Rubio… or Allen West?
As for you, Barack, you’re political death warrant has just been signed, sealed and delivered by five smarmy, activist lawyers in black robes, and the genuinely comical thing is that you’re too dumb to realize it. While I’m sure the Jurassic press will join you in declaring victory today, I’m equally as certain that the real victors in all this will be the people of this country once they throw your sorry butt out of office and begin the process of retaking their liberties from a degenerate and dictatorial federal government.
Chris at Wyblog warns that we better start saving up for that
mandate, oh, sorry Mr. Roberts TAX that makes us buy a Volt!
The government is our master. We The People are powerless before it.
The Constitution means nothing. Limited government? Fuggedaboudit.
Someone needs to dig up Thomas Jefferson and have him beat Chief Justice Roberts over the head with the Declaration of Independence. Repeatedly.
Not that it would do any good. The damage is done.
The Obamacare abomination survives. Every American is compelled by the force of law to purchase health insurance. Because the individual mandate is in actuality a tax.
Welcome to the United States of Greece. Where our Socialist Overlords have big plans for us serfs. It’s been said that the power to tax is the power to destroy.
Liberty was destroyed today. We’ll probably never get it back.
UPDATE 28 Jun 2012 11:39:
The more I think about it, the madder I get.
Even if Obamacare gets repealed a terrible precedent has been set. Congress can tax our behavior. Get too fat? Pay the Obesity Tax. Don’t buy that Chevy Volt? Pay the Fossil Fuel Waster Tax. Homeschool your kids? Pay the Support Your Local Teachers Union Tax.
Nanny-state busybodies like Mike Bloomberg are having an orgasm right now.
Milton Wolf warned us yesterday that, in the end, we would have to kill this beast legislatively, he was right
Weasel Zippers reminds us that Romney lists job one as “Repeal Obamacare”
Charles Krauthammer offers his view on why Roberts did it
It’s the judiciary’s Nixon-to-China: Chief Justice John Roberts joins the liberal wing of the Supreme Court and upholds the constitutionality of Obamacare. How? By pulling off one of the great constitutional finesses of all time. He managed to uphold the central conservative argument against Obamacare, while at the same time finding a narrow definitional dodge to uphold the law — and thus prevented the court from being seen as having overturned, presumably on political grounds, the signature legislation of this administration.
Why did he do it? Because he carries two identities. Jurisprudentially, he is a constitutional conservative. Institutionally, he is chief justice and sees himself as uniquely entrusted with the custodianship of the court’s legitimacy, reputation and stature.
Go read it all, I think Krauthammer is exactly right, but I disagree on one point. Roberts has, in my view, discredited ANY standing he had as a constitutional conservative. He placed his principles and his duty on the back burner to help the “image” of the Court? If so, then he has forgotten what duty is, and is a disgrace!
The Right Scoop has Rush’s take
The Other McCain has Michelle Bachman’s response
Jill has a great post up including this
The bottom line from the dissent:
Scalia/Kennedy/Thomas/Alito dissent calls decision “a vast judicial overreaching.”
John Hayward comments via Twitter (older tweets at bottom):
You are now the property of the State, which can levy a special tax against you, if you don’t spend your money as ordered.
Remember, Obama didn’t just lie about ObamaCare being a tax. He LAUGHED at the idea, on national TV.
Prognostication winners: those who said the ruling would be both a win and loss for Obama. His tax hike on the poor survived the Court.
Shouldn’t a law be judged on what it actually says – i.e. “mandate” – rather than being rewritten by justices to keep it alive?
So the Court just changed a law nobody read to tell the authors what they really meant.
Hey, Obama voters! Your boy just hit poor and middle class Americans with the biggest TAX in history!
So statists can claim anything isn’t a tax, to get it past voters, then the Court will change it to a tax later.
So basically, the Court rewrote a clearly unconstitutional law, in direct opposition to the statements of its authors, to keep it alive.
Yeah, pretty much what I thought. Goodbye, Constitution, it was nice knowing you.
So Obama lied, said O-care’s not a tax, but SCOTUS says it is. Thanks for voting for this guy, chumps.
Jeff Goldstein at Protein Wisdom has this nugget
The Federal Government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance. Section 5000A would therefore be unconstitutional if read as a command. The Federal Government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance. Section 5000A is therefore constitutional, because it can reasonably be read as a tax.
I won’t have to unpack that for longtime readers of this site, but do allow me to unpack it — as I’ve done with similar linguistically incoherent statements in the past — for those who will spend today bemoaning a ruling that, when viewed from their own intepretative perspective (rather than their policy desires), they can’t honestly fault.
To wit: “Section 5000A is therefore constitutional, because it can reasonably be read as a tax.”
Fine. How is this the case? Because, per Roberts, the mandate looks something like a tax might look and could look — much in the way a cloud formation may look like a randy sheep three way, if you’re inclined to see it that way. But unless you believe God or Nature intended to paint a sheep orgy in the gas and water vapor floating above Peoria, the clouds aren’t actually a sheep orgy save your intent to see it as such.
Intentionalism just is.
But, you argue, it clearly wasn’t intended as a tax (or if it was, there’s no way of ever knowing that, given that it was presented as a penalty and not a tax) — because the President publicly denied that it was a tax, and it was passed expressly as a penalty. Therefore, it was signified into being — at the point of passage — as a penalty. And a penalty is not a tax.
Or is it?
Intentionalism just is.
According to the CJ, a penalty is indeed a tax when it can be viewed as a tax for purposes of a ruling. Meaning, a penalty is a tax when a Justice decides to rewrite the law to turn a penalty into a tax. Which he justifies because the way the penalty looks to him suggests that “reasonable” people (or philosopher kings) can, if they squint — and if they ignore the intent that turned the law into law in the first place, and turned a set of marks into a set of signs, into language — see a tax. How that is “reasonable” is anyone’s guess: we know in no uncertain terms that Obama and the Dems who passed the law didn’t devise the mandate as a tax (despite what they later argued); for one to conclude that it is reasonably possible to “read” a penalty as a tax, therefore, what c0mes to count as “reasonable” must be redefined as “ignoring what we know to be true”. And that seems antithetical to “reason.”
Erick Erickson throws his back out, trying to defend Roberts.
Having gone through the opinion, I am not going to beat up on John Roberts. I am disappointed, but I want to make a few points.
First, I get the strong sense from a few anecdotal stories about Roberts over the past few months and the way he has written this opinion that he very, very much was concerned about keeping the Supreme Court above the partisan fray and damaging the reputation of the Court long term. It seems to me the left was smart to make a full frontal assault on the Court as it persuaded Roberts.
Good Freaking Grief! Tell me Erickson is not this stupid. If Roberts was swayed by public opinion, or by what he perceived MIGHT be a negative spin the certain people, then he is unfit for the highest court! He is there to rule on the CONSTITUTIONALITY of laws, not make his decisions to impress anyone!
Second, in writing his case, Roberts forces everyone to deal with the issue as a political, not a legal issue.
Oh, so the constitutionality of a law is “political” now, and not legal? Good Lord who is this buffoon posing as Erickson? I am with BC on this
What is sad is that a
conservativerepublican blogger is dumb enough put this stupidity out for review — and think he making an intelligent point.
The reality is that John Roberts have just given his stamp of approval on the biggest governmental encroachment on American liberty in our country’s history. This is not just about the individual mandate.
The supreme court has just set a legal precedent saying that it is okay for the federal government to force you to buy a service and penalize you if you don’t.
Now, thanks to John Roberts, if they decide it is in your best interest to buy a workout machine, a house alarm system, a book, a Communist government indoctrination video — or anything else for that matter — they can do it and it will be simple labeled as a tax.
Someone needs to tell this fat bastard to think, or to shut up!
Dear Erick, your head called, it is stuck in your ass, sorry, but I am done having patience for these “thoughtful” Republicans who excuse cowards like Roberts!
Nancy Pelosi credits a former fat, drunk disgrace for this, and Doug Powers skewers her!
Mary Jo Kopechne unavailable for comment.
“Ted can now rest. He’s finally f*#%ed everybody in the country.”
Actually, stamping Ted Kennedy’s name on what will eventually amount to a massive tax increase for increasing numbers of Americans as companies dump out of insuring their employees privately isn’t entirely inappropriate.
Maybe Ted’s been reincarnated. If John Roberts is spotted drinking Chivas tonight and chasing tail at Au Bar it’ll be confirmed.
I might be updating later, so please check back. I do hope this fires everyone up, and keeps them that way. REMEMBER in NOVEMBER!