It’s A Tax!!!!!! (Video Included)

Update: It’s a TAX!!!! Not the Commerce Clause, but tax and spend. Mandate upheld: what now?:

“The opinion actually ruled that the mandate violates the Commerce Clause, but as a tax that no longer matters.

It’s an interesting argument, but one that should have Americans worried.  Basically, this is a tax that you have to pay to private companies.  For all of the screaming the Right did over single-payer — and for good, outcome-based reasons — at least the taxes raised to fund it would go directly to government.  The Supreme Court has signed off on what is, in very practical terms, a tax levied by the insurance industry on Americans simply for existing.  It’s an amazing, and fearsome, decision that really should have both Right and Left horrified. [snip]

By the way, don’t forget when Obama insisted that this wasn’t a tax, via Patterico:



So what now?  Mitt Romney and Republicans can now run on repeal as a big issue in the campaign.  They should emphasize the tax argument when they do, because this tax hits em>everyone.  The ruling may alleviate some of the bad polling the ACA has received, but probably not by much.  It’s going to remain deeply unpopular for the next few months.  On top of that, the decision to uphold the law also means that the fight is still on over the HHS contraception mandate.  We can expect the Catholic bishops to keep up the pressure on the Obama administration’s attempt to define religious expression for the purpose of controlling and limiting it — and we can probably expect the challenge to it to reach the Supreme Court, too.

This started off as a political fight, though, and it’s now clear that it has to get resolved as a political fight.

——————————————————————————————

The Commerce Clause has been clipped. Medicaid Expansion might be destroyed and the states might be able to kill the entire stinking mess. But the Obama Health Scam has been upheld. Upheld! Why? Because it’s a TAX! It’s a SCAM as we said all along. It’s a TAX even though Obama said “Read my lips, it’s not a tax.”

Read what we wrote on March 24, 2010:

“It’s Not A Mandate – It’s A Tax!”:

“It’s not a mandate – it’s a tax! We’re not the ones saying it. It’s the Obama defense. It’s a tax.

Obama promised his version of “Read My Lips – No New Taxes” during the primary and general election campaign. Obama attacked his opponents and said he would never raise taxes for those making less than $250,000. But now “It’s a Tax!” is the Obama defense.



* * * * * *

[snip]

Yale’s Jack Balkin anticipated some of the arguments the Attorneys General would pursue. Here is Balkin’s defense of the Obama health scam, from a legal perspective:
“Second, it is not actually a mandate. It is a tax, which people would not have to pay if they purchased health insurance. The House bill imposes a tax of 2.5% on adjusted gross income if a taxpayer is not part of a qualified health insurance program. The Senate bill imposes what is called an “excise tax” — a tax on transactions or events — or a “penalty tax” — a tax for failing to do something (e.g., filing your tax return promptly). The tax is levied for each month that an individual fails to pay premiums into a qualified health plan.”
It’s a tax. “Read my lips” Obama style:



The IRS will be the enforcer. It’s a tax.

Barack Obama attacked Hillary Clinton and John McCain and Sarah Palin by declaring one or all of them were too divisive whereas he would be “a uniter not a divider”, he would pass health care with a ton of bipartisan votes, they were for taxes and he would not raise taxes for those making less than $250,000, they were for mandates whereas he was against mandates, they were for taxing health insurance plans whereas he was against raising taxes on health insurance plans, they would penalize those who did not buy health insurance he would not…. Lies all.



This all goes to show:
Obama simply cannot be trusted. Obama cannot be trusted on any issue. Obama cannot be trusted by his friends. Obama cannot be trusted by his enemies. Obama cannot be trusted.

* * * * * *

Mandate-mas III, the Finale is a gold chunk because the Commerce Clause as a rationale is a failed argument. But it is a TAX!

The states probably have an opt out because the Supreme Court has gutted the Medicaid Expansion. But little consolation – IT’S A TAX!

To the Voting Booth!

Share

416 thoughts on “It’s A Tax!!!!!! (Video Included)

  1. This huge tax increase should really galvanize even more voters to support Romney and GOP candidates who support repealing Obamacare.

  2. gonzotx
    June 28th, 2012 at 10:50 am
    I am just sick, but being the pessimist I am , I expected this!

  3. GOP responds.

    During the week of July 9th, the House of Representatives will once again repeal ObamaCare.

  4. Scotusblog commenters pointed to this portion of the decision.

    The most straightforward reading of the mandate isthat it commands individuals to purchase insurance on p. 31 and 32.

    NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT
    BUSINESS v. SEBELIUS
    Opinion of ROBERTS, C. J.

    After all, it states that individuals “shall” maintain health insurance. 26 U. S. C. §5000A(a). Congress thought itcould enact such a command under the Commerce Clause, and the Government primarily defended the law on thatbasis. But, for the reasons explained above, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power. Under our precedent, it is therefore necessary to ask whether theGovernment’s alternative reading of the statute—that itonly imposes a tax on those without insurance—is a reasonable one.

    Under the mandate, if an individual does not maintain health insurance, the only consequence is that he must make an additional payment to the IRS when he pays his taxes. See §5000A(b). That, according to the Government,means the mandate can be regarded as establishing acondition—not owning health insurance—that triggers atax—the required payment to the IRS. Under that theory, the mandate is not a legal command to buy insurance.Rather, it makes going without insurance just another thing the Government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning income. And if the mandate is in effect just a tax hike on certain taxpayers who do not have health insurance, itmay be within Congress’s constitutional power to tax.

    The question is not whether that is the most naturalinterpretation of the mandate, but only whether it is a “fairly possible” one. Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22, 62 (1932). As we have explained, “every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality.” Hooper v. California, 155 U. S. 648, 657 (1895). The Government asks us to interpret the mandate as imposing a tax, if it would otherwise violate the Constitution. Granting the Act the full measure of deference owed to federal statutes, it can be so read, for the reasons set forth below.

  5. Big win for Pharma and Insurance Companies. Looks like the corporatists win yet again. Did we have any doubts Roberts was a corporatist? As I’ve said before, GWB’s regime was Phase I (of the corporatist/fascist take over); BO is Phase II.

  6. Basil translation : They can only enforce the mandate as a TAX.

    Seriously going to be fun watching Obama explain that. Makes a bigger case for Romney to say, elect me, elect a gop house and a GOP senate and we can remove Obamacare immediately.

  7. Repost from previous blog. Ed Morrisey’s take:

    “Basically, this is a tax that you have to pay to private companies. For all of the screaming the Right did over single-payer — and for good, outcome-based reasons — at least the taxes raised to fund it would go directly to government. The Supreme Court has signed off on what is, in very practical terms, a tax levied by the insurance industry on Americans simply for existing. It’s an amazing, and fearsome, decision that really should have both Right and Left horrified.’

  8. lol…..

    Huge victory for President: court rules his widely-despised heath care plan a huge tax increase

  9. This makes it easier for Congress to repeal. What Democrats forced through in an ugly manner, a majority Republican House can now repeal, right? Where’s the victory for Obamamao? It’s hollow. He will need to explain this NEW tax, and when people realize he lied all along, the pitchforks will come out. I agree that Obama has lost the election, and the healthcare debate all in one SC decision.

  10. never mind.

    ‘You’ve got it wrong Ed (I did too). It’s not a tax you pay to private companies… It’s a tax you pay to the government for *not* buying something from a private company. Roberts ruled it as a punitive tax.

    Which is odd because in this one case the court simultaneously ruled that the government can’t mandate that you purchase something, can’t penalize the states for NOT buying something but CAN penalize individuals for not buying something…’

  11. You know, the justices who voted for this are weasels. They are forcing people to pay a tax, which in a roundabout way is the same as mandating that someone purchase health insurance. You either pay a new tax, or you buy health insurance. I wonder how long it took these weasels to come up with this injustice?

  12. IF IT’S A TAX, THEN IT CAN BE REPEALED WITH A SIMPLE MAJORITY. Them’s the rules. Call your senator NOW.

  13. Romney should say “this decision ensures that I will give all Americans the largest tax cut in our history.”

  14. Newt Gingrich : Obamacare ruling guarantees repeal will be the biggest issue this november. Court declared it legal by interpreting mandate as tax

    Yup, not what Obama wanted i think.

  15. Update: It’s a TAX!!!! Not the Commerce Clause, but tax and spend. Mandate upheld: what now?:

    “The opinion actually ruled that the mandate violates the Commerce Clause, but as a tax that no longer matters.
    It’s an interesting argument, but one that should have Americans worried.  Basically, this is a tax that you have to pay to private companies.  For all of the screaming the Right did over single-payer — and for good, outcome-based reasons — at least the taxes raised to fund it would go directly to government.  The Supreme Court has signed off on what is, in very practical terms, a tax levied by the insurance industry on Americans simply for existing.  It’s an amazing, and fearsome, decision that really should have both Right and Left horrified. [snip]
    By the way, don’t forget when Obama insisted that this wasn’t a tax, via Patterico:

    So what now?  Mitt Romney and Republicans can now run on repeal as a big issue in the campaign.  They should emphasize the tax argument when they do, because this tax hits em>everyone.  The ruling may alleviate some of the bad polling the ACA has received, but probably not by much.  It’s going to remain deeply unpopular for the next few months.  On top of that, the decision to uphold the law also means that the fight is still on over the HHS contraception mandate.  We can expect the Catholic bishops to keep up the pressure on the Obama administration’s attempt to define religious expression for the purpose of controlling and limiting it — and we can probably expect the challenge to it to reach the Supreme Court, too.
    This started off as a political fight, though, and it’s now clear that it has to get resolved as a political fight.

    ——————————————————————————————

  16. Whip Cantor’s office : House will vote to repeal Obamacare July 11. GOP ready to go.

    Amazing, Obama now has Obama Health Tax and the Economy as his two biggest problems come Nov, he’ll lose on both.

  17. Newt : Court decision will focus attention on tax in obamacare and make clear it is largest tax increase in history – a big blow to our economy

  18. I hope that I am thinking clearly Basil. I am upset with this decision nonetheless. The Supreme Court found a way to frack us all, but still, I believe that they also have made it easier for Congress to repeal this new tax. Republicans had better do so, or I’ll be voting third party in the future. I think that the Tea Party influence in the current Republican House will help. The Tea Party is my political salvation right now. I will follow their lead from now on. The DemonRats can go frack themselves as far as I am concerned. They truly are the party of high taxes and LOW expectations. I hope the croak on their hollow victory. After this election, I am leaving the Democrats for the Republican party. I may not stay there long. That will depend on how they behave.

  19. My senators office just told me Boehner has a repeal bill ready to go week of July 9th, and Senate will move after that. Said quote “This is a good thing for our side” re tax ruling.

  20. This is now become the worst of all possible worlds for Obama. The majority of states have forcefully resisted ObamaCare. About 30 states went to court to challenge it. With the death of the Medicaid portion of the law it is likely the entire thing will die a very painful death of uncertainty piled on uncertainty.

    The Catholic Church will now continue it’s own challenges to the law both in the courts and in the streets/pulpits.

    Romney can now run against “tax and spend liberals” – a tried and true winning formula for Republicans.

    The Commerce Clause is in the operating table and might not recover.

    Insurance companies are the only ones smiling at all the forced customers they now get with the federal government as enforcer.

  21. admin agreed, this is the worst possible outcome for Obama, it has literally forced him out i the open as a high tax raiser in the middle of a huge recession.

    As i said earlier, i wouldt be surprised if that was really what the paic in the WH was about, not that it would be upheld,, but upheld as a tax must be scaring the crap out of the WH because..

    1 : How do you explain you lied that it was not a tax.

    2 : How do they explain now explaining people will definitely be forced into paying.

    3 : How does Obama get out of it……he can’t, its tied round his neck like a big tax hike albatross and we all know what that did for GHWB.

  22. My husband just said he will be getting rid of 10 people, 10 more people have lost their jobs! He can’t go over 49

  23. MCCONNELL: Obama Health Tax ‘Sold to American people on a deception’…

    Yup, Pelosi lied, Reid lied, Obama lied.

  24. The MM will spin it for him, the Repubs better get it together

    I had a bad taste in my mouth after the immigration ruling, I feel like throwing up now.

    Everything is such a battle, why can’t we win a few

  25. As I remember there was considerable discussion as to how this would be paid for. Taxing people for this was never part of the discussion. However, the SC said that is what it is, so I assume taxes will have to be collected for it, right!

  26. Romney could get megamileage, Romney could just announce that if elected his admin will not prosecute people for not paying Obamacare tax and will scrap it.

  27. In the Uk it is called National insurance contributions and taxed straight out of your paycheck. 12% of your paycheck.

  28. Free healthcare for illegals, now it all makes sense.

    The Supreme Court upheld Obamacare. A close read of the actual language reveals that the individual “mandate” applies to any “applicable individual” which is defined as anyone other than…(a) certain religious exemptions, (b) people in jail (they already get free healthcare), or (c) read carefully….

    “(3) INDIVIDUALS NOT LAWFULLY PRESENT. Such term shall not include an individual for any month if for the month the individual is not a citizen or national of the United States or an alien lawfully present in the United States.” SEE: 26 USC 5000A(d)(3)

    Meanwhile, Obama just ruled by executive edict that immigration laws would be ignored for a vast array of illegal aliens, and work permits issued, thus technically making them “lawfully present”

    So, basically, we just got told that we are going to be giving full health insurance for free to illegal aliens…

  29. Pelosi: “We have to pass the bill so you can see what’s in it.” Answer: A massive tax increase.

  30. Okay, I am cooled off now.

    I think Roberts set a huge trap. With Kennedy siding with Scalia gang, Roberts’s table was set perfectly.
    Either go with the right and kill it today, but let the libs run down the judgment, the court and his own name with Tea party, racist and all kind of names, OR go with the libs, set traps in it and kill it slowly at election time and after.

    He is like a professor, who gives incomplete grade but shows the path to a passing grade. He is
    telling the repubs and the country – I did my part by declaring it a tax and I got the libs on the bench to agree with me; you do the extra work by going to the election with this; get your guy in; get your congress in; and repeal it. You have work to do, but rise to your challenge.

    He gave dems a noose and the repubs – and the country – a challenge. Masterful, isn’t he?

  31. Preview of the Romney message: What the Court Didn’t Do Today, I Will Do on My First Day

    The Romney campaign previews the candidate’s remarks on the Obamacare Obama Health Care Tax ruling:
    President Romney will Repeal and Replace Obamacare:

    · Governor Romney disagrees with the Supreme Court’s decision. What the Supreme Court didn’t do on the last day of its session, Mitt Romney will do on his first day in office.

    · On Day One of a Romney Presidency, Mitt Romney will repeal Obamacare and replace it.

    · Let’s not confuse what the Court said today. The Court said that Obamacare is constitutional – but not that it’s good policy or good for the country.

    · Yesterday Obamacare wasn’t popular, today Obamacare isn’t popular.

    · Yesterday Obamacare was bad policy, today Obamacare is bad policy.

    · Obamacare is a job killer – it raises taxes, it cuts Medicare, and it puts government between patients and their doctors.

    · We have a path to defeating Obamacare and it is by electing a new president.

    · We urge everyone in the country who is opposed to Obamacare to join Mitt Romney in his campaign to replace President Obama. To defeat Obamacare, we must defeat President Obama.

    ………………………………

    Needs to sharpen the tax message much harder.

  32. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney says it is election goal and that he will act to repeal President Obama’s healthcare tax.

  33. I am trying to ketch up with the blog and the ruling from the Supremes.

    So, the HellCare bill is constitutional but the penalty for not having insurance is a tax penalty that you don’t need to pay if you don’t want to????

    You are not forced to have insurance, and anyone that doesn’t normally have to pay taxes because they make too little, doesn’t need to pay this tax fine, but who pays for their health care?

    All of us that already have health care don’t need to get involved in this mess??

    So that would boil down to those that want this health care, what ever it is in 2014 can start paying for it when? Any only those people will support the entire HellCare plan?

  34. Romney: “If we’re going to get rid of Obamacare, we’re going to have to replace President Obama.”

    Yup thats a good line to go with.

  35. If the polling on Obamacare Tax is correct, I cannot see this helping him. If people really want to get rid of it, they will vote for Romney. Obviously, Romney is already very simply calling it was the Supreme Court called it, a TAX. I have to wonder if this will increase the unemployment number. Not sure we can track that.

  36. Romney raising cash:

    http://politicker.com/2012/06/mitt-romney-raised-100k-in-less-than-an-hour-after-the-supreme-court-healthcare-ruling/

    According to Romney campaign spokeswoman Andrea Saul the Supreme Court decision upholding President Barack Obama’s healthcare reform law led to a windfall for Mitt Romney. Ms. Saul told The Politicker supporters donated at least $100,000 in the 50 minutes between the immediate aftermath of the ruling, which was issued at approximately 10:10 a.m. Shortly before 11:30, Ms. Saul said the total donations had reached over $300,000.

  37. Shadowfax, don’t celebrate if you have insurance. Next step will be to consider your insurance as taxable income.

  38. Mitt’s website crashed from the rush of donations. Back up now, but running slow. I just sent him some cash.

  39. Is this a subtle hint from Roberts to the People of the US about Nov.

    Justice Roberts, in his opinion: “It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices”

  40. Obama now has to run on the biggest middle class tax hike in US history. Good luck with that.

  41. Rubio is turning into a very viable lieutenant.

    Marco Rubio on CNN: “This has now turned the IRS into an enforcement agency for Obamacare”

  42. What to watch for tonight: Will ABCNews on the network news tonight show the video we posted with Obama telling Stephanopoulos that “it’s not a tax” while Georgie said “It’s a tax” ????

  43. I’m beginning to think Roberts was crazy like a fox, here. The expansion of the Commerce Clause was effectively struck down. That’s HUGE. And he may have led the liberal justices into a briar patch in their eagerness to uphold the mandate, by getting them to agree to call it a tax as the price for his vote.

  44. admin
    June 28th, 2012 at 12:07 pm

    Shadowfax, don’t celebrate if you have insurance. Next step will be to consider your insurance as taxable income.

    —-
    Don’t worry admin, no celebration going on here, just trying to understand how this White Elephant can support itself under the ruling of the Supremes if it stands. If you don’t have to pay the tax fine or have the insurance in the first place, it is only a voluntary HellCare plan for those that want to participate? And others can’t have a forced tax on them to pay for it, at least at this point? (Like you mention, the only way it could survive is to tax people that don’t want it and I don’t think this is covered?)

    Forced = mandate, right???

  45. http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/28/with-court-ruling-1-7-trillion-obamacare-tax-now-violates-obamas-2008-tax-pledge/

    With court ruling, $1.7 trillion Obamacare tax now violates Obama’s 2008 tax pledge

    The Supreme Court’s move to uphold Obamacare’s health-care mandate as a tax means that President Barack Obama’s far-reaching law massively violates his 2008 campaign-trail pledge to not raise taxes on middle-class and poor Americans.

    “I can make a firm pledge – under my plan, no family making less that $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase,” he said in a September 2008 campaign speech in New Hampshire.

    Prior to Obamacare’s passage in 2010, Obama denied it was a tax. In September 2009, Obama told ABC News that the law “is absolutely not a tax increase.”

    The court’s conversion of the law into a huge tax may also boost the GOP’s ability to persuade voters to back GOP candidates in 2012. The Obamacare tax may amount to $1.7 trillion over a decade, according to a Congressional Budget Office projection.

    The court’s conversion of the mandate into a tax also suddenly eases the GOP’s practical problems of passing a reform through the Senate.

    That’s because Senate rules allow a bare majority of 51 senators — not a super-majority of 60 Senators — to rewrite the controversial and unpopular law through reconciliation.

    Senate Democrats won’t be able to filibuster a reform if they have less than 50 senators, especially if the Republican Party reclaims a majority in the Senate this November.

    Seventy-five “percent of the [Obamacare] mandate penalty… falls on Americans earning less than $120,000 a year … [so] President Obama has imposed one of the largest tax hikes in American history on the middle class,” said a statement from the Republican minority of the Senate budget committee.

    Twenty-one percent of the tax increase will fall of people who earn just above the poverty level of $11,800 per individual, or $24,000 for a family of four, according to a statement from the committee’s Republicans, who are led by Alabama’s Sen. Jeff Sessions, a staunch opponent of Obamacare and big government policies.

    People who earn between two and three times the poverty level will pay 25 percent of the Obamacare tax.

    People who earn between three and four times the poverty level will pay 18 percent of the law’s cost.

    People who earn between four and five times the poverty level will pay 11 percent of the tax bill.

    The wealthiest slice of the population, those who earn more than five times the poverty level, will pay 25 percent of the taxes.

    The mandate-into-tax distinction was underlined by Ari Flesicher, a spokesman for former President George W. Bush.

    The “press should stop calling the ‘fine’ a ‘penalty,’” he tweeted. “Now if you don’t buy insurance, it’s more accurate 2say your taxes get raised,” Fleischer tweeted.

  46. Dem spin: The totally-not-a-tax health care bill is constitutional because it’s a tax, which we definitely did not impose on anybody.

  47. The Commerce Clause took a beating today:

    http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/06/the-mandate-is-constitutional-in-plain-english/

    Defending the constitutionality of the mandate, the government’s primary argument was that Congress can require everyone to buy health insurance using its power under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, because the failure to buy insurance shifts the costs of health care for the uninsured to health care providers, insurance companies, and everyone who does have health insurance. Five Justices – the Chief Justice and Justices Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito – all rejected that argument. But the government still won, because a different set of five Justices – the Chief Justice, and Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan – agreed that the mandate was constitutional, but for a different reason.

    The most important part of the Court’s opinion on the mandate came from the Chief Justice, John Roberts. He acknowledged that Congress has a broad power under the Commerce Clause, but he emphasized that Congress’s power to regulate commerce assumes that there is commercial activity to regulate. In his view, the mandate creates activity, rather than regulating it. If the Court were to interpret the Commerce Clause the way that the government does, he contended, it would allow Congress to regulate all kinds of new things – including forcing people to buy vegetables (with no specific reference to broccoli, however). “That is not the country” the Founding Fathers envisioned, he proclaimed.

  48. Legal Scholar Randy Barnett: SCOTUS Rewrote the Law to Make it a Tax, Throwing it Into the Political Process

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/28/Congressmen-Release-Statements-On-Supreme-Court-Ruling

    Georgetown University law professor Randy Barnett, who the Washington Post recently referred to as “perhaps the key legal thinker developing the case against the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate,” issued a brief but pointed statement on the Supreme Court’s decision today that largely affirmed the Obamacare legislation.

    Today’s decision validates our claim that a Congressional power to compel that all Americans engage in commerce was a constitutional bridge too far. By rewriting the law to make it a “tax,” the Court has now thrown ObamaCare into the political process where the People will decide whether this so-called “tax” will stand. And the People will also decide whether future Supreme Court nominees will pledge to enforce the Constitution’s restrictions on the power of Congress.

  49. Some guy on Fox, live-stream just said as an example, a person working but has no health insurance making $45,000/year, will start paying $95 penalty tax in 2014, then if this person still has no insurance will have to pay a penalty tax going up to $600+ in 2016.

  50. http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/election-just-became-about-obamacare_647928.html

    This Election Just Became About Obamacare

    In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision upholding the constitutionality of Obamacare, the principal choice now facing Americans on November 6 will be whether to keep Obamacare or to repeal it. The question is a binary one, and the answer — expressed almost entirely through their presidential vote — will go a long way toward determining the future course of this great nation.

    Yes, the economy is extremely important; and, yes, Obamacare is hurting the economy. But the reason why this election is the most important since the Civil War is not because Mitt Romney would make a far better steward of the economy than President Obama (though he would). Rather, it’s because we are about to decide whether to put what will soon be one-fifth of our economy under the control of the federal government; whether to funnel previously unthinkable amounts of power and money to Washington; and whether this nation conceived in liberty will continue to prioritize liberty.

    It is understandable why President Obama has no interest in framing this election as a referendum on Obamacare. His party already suffered perhaps its worst defeat since the 19th century thanks to his centerpiece legislation. With the Supreme Court’s ruling now behind him, he will have even less incentive to remind voters about Obamacare going forward. As far as he’s concerned, the less the American people think about it, the better. [snip]

    Yes, the fate of Obamacare will be the most important outcome of this election. On some level, the American people know this. There’s a reason why Romney gets standing ovations simply for mentioning repeal.

    The question is whether either candidate will convey that he knows what this election is really about. Obama can’t say it’s about Obamacare — even though that’s what he considers it to be about — because he’ll lose if he does. Romney so far hasn’t said it’s about Obamacare — perhaps because that’s not what he considers it to be about — even though he’ll likely win if he does.

    Regardless, the Court has cleared the field. The stakes are historic. The citizenry will decide.

  51. One big question is, what will the HellCare Plan cost per year and what will actually be covered?

    Medicare expansion to states not found constitutional, so who knows what bs is in those 2700 pages of references to other pages of bills and changes? Even Greta said she tried to read the bill (she is smart and a layer) and it didn’t make sense to her. I tried to read it, along with a group of others and it was so mangled, I couldn’t get a clear picture of it either.

  52. I think the dems just passed whatever they had in the bill hence all the “pass to know whats in it shit” and hoped to get a majority later to push through whatever changes they needed at a later date, i think the problem arose was that they thought this healthcare bill would be extremely popular with the public but really shot the pooch when the opposition against to went nuclear and fucked up their plans.

  53. Why can’t the Government now tax us to force us to do other things?

    Quit drinking, smoking, eating too much, cussing, gambling, cheating on spouse?

  54. Whoops and the fuck ups continue. Another Solyndra…….dumped on a big news day.

    Abound Solar: Another Tax Supported Green Energy Co. Reportedly Bites the Dust

    Abound got $400 million taxpayer loan guarantee; drew down $70 million of it. Now reportedly filing for bankruptcy.

    Late last year, Abound was representing that things were good.

    Fitch had privately warned govt before tax dollars were invested that Abound was extremely risky and “highly speculative.”

  55. Shadowfax, let’s raise taxes on anyone who voted for Obama. 90% of all income. It will not be legal under the Commerce Clause, but, hey, it’s a tax.

  56. http://www.forbes.com/sites/toddwoody/2012/06/28/report-abound-solar-recipient-of-400-million-loan-guarantee-to-close/

    Abound Solar, Recipient of $400 Million Loan Guarantee, Shuts Down

    Abound Solar, a Colorado thin-film photovoltaic panel startup that snagged $400 million in federal loan guarantees to take on industry leader First Solar, is shutting down and filing for bankruptcy, according to the U.S. Department of Energy.

    The company did not immediately respond to an inquiry seeking comment. Abound’s shut down was first reported Thursday by Greentech Media.

    “Because of the strong protections we put in place for taxpayers, the department has already protected more than 80% of the original loan amount,” Energy Department spokesman Damien LaVera wrote in a blog post Thursday, noting that Abound had drawn down less than $70 million of the loan guarantee. “Once the bankruptcy liquidation is complete, the Department expects the total loss to the taxpayer to be between 10 and 15 percent of the original loan amount.”

    LaVera said that Abound would shut its doors next week and file for bankruptcy.

    In February, Abound halted production of its cadmium-telluride thin-film solar panels in Colorado, laid off workers and delayed construction of a factory in Indiana that was to be built with proceeds from the $400 million loan guarantee.

    “Abound Solar still has long-term plans for a Tipton, Ind., manufacturing facility once production of its next-generation modules begins,” the company stated on its website in February. “The company anticipates having an update on a Tipton facility build-out in mid-2013.”

    The company made thin-film solar panels that while less efficient than standard crystalline silicon panels were cheaper to manufacture, particularly when silicon prices were high.

    But Like Solyndra and other thin-film startups, Abound increasingly found itself squeezed by plummeting prices for standard solar panels as Chinese manufacturers ramped up production and silicon costs fell as well as by the entry into the thin-film market by General Electric, which is building a 400-megawatt factory to produce cadmium-telluride solar panels.

    Although Abound executives told me they hoped to profit from supplying solar panels to customers that First Solar could not serve, that market apparently did not materialize fast enough.

    “Produced at lower scale and likely a higher cost, the chance for survival in the current market environment was always slim,” Shyam Mehta, a senior analyst at GTM Research, which is affiliated with Greentech Media, wrote of Abound’s solar panels in a research note Thursday. “Unfortunately, Abound and other module manufacturing closures including thin film and [cadmium-telluride] suppliers alike, is still just the tip of the iceberg.”
    ………………

    They know how to pick em.

  57. Yup admin, anything goes as long as it’s a tax.

    All those unicorns the obama supporters were expecting from their Dear Leader, were just Trojan horses for a gigantic tax increase.

  58. admin
    June 28th, 2012 at 12:49 pm
    ————–
    This is true. The government is on an expansion binge, at the same time as taking more of our liberty away from us. DANGER !!! The SC decision is not only about Obamacare. It’s about the future battles that will use this SC decision as support for the further erosion of our constitutional rights by forcing or COERCING Americans to do what the government “thinks” is best for them. Big government making the big decisions for the people. No thanks! Keep your hands off my liberty. It’s the most valuable thing I OWN!

  59. I’m waiting for the lawyers “read” on this ruling but after getting over my “sick in my stomach” moment, my next reaction was the Roberts is a fucking genius. 1)he removed the Court from the Nov election 2)restricted the Commerce clause 3)gutted probably the most fraudulent part of Obamacare, Medicaid expansion and by upholding the law using the taxing authority, administered a slow poison to campaigns of Obama and any Dem running in a contested election. Most Americans don’t understand the arcane language of Commerce clause, mandate, etc. but they sure as Hell understand TAX and IRS. IMO, 2012 just went from close Mitt win to blow out and for Dems in general, 2010 was a mild off shore breeze.

  60. So this is a breathing tax, because it’s a tax that is not based on the creation of wealth, and
    it’s not really a tax based on how well one takes care of themselves.

    And once again, the right to opt out has been eviscerated.

  61. Question: Can the Supreme Court of the future overturn one of their own rulings. If, for instance, Chief Justice Roberts concludes that “hey, I might have screwed up on this particular decision”, can a decision be revisited? If so, what is the mechanism to do so? The damage has been done with th SC’s decision. Can it ever be undone?

  62. “They know how to pick em.”
    *******
    Not hard to pick em, just follow the money and at the end of the trail there will be an Obama bundler. I’m waiting for someone to follow all of the money trails on these “deals”. I remember that after Solyndra went down, former employees were commenting about how they didn’t understand why the company was always buy the most expensive equipment, etc. “Follow the Money” it will eventually lead back to Jarrett’s office of “Pay to Play”.

  63. I love it, this is the best possible political outcome for Romney, for whom the commercials write themselves rerunning Obama’s “read my lips, this is not a tax” blahblahblah. Vote out the Tax & Spend Amateur!

  64. NoMoBama, read SHV’s comment.

    While the Court “upheld” ObamaCare the Court undermined the Commerce Clause. This is very important. The ramifications of this will take time to emerge. In future congress will now have to worry about the rationale for the legislation they are passing.

    As SHV notes the issue is now not the Commerce Clause but “tax and spend”. Barack Obama is putting on a brave face but what passes these days for the “left” should be very concerned if not upset.

    As Mukasy said, the Court gave Obama a cigar – an exploding cigar.

  65. “Can the Supreme Court of the future overturn one of their own rulings.”
    ********
    Sure, perhaps the best know is “Plessy v. Ferguson” (separate but equal) overturned by Brown v Board. Another example is when the Court said the use of child labor was Constitutional in 1916 and overturned that ruling in 1941.

  66. What really really really infuriates me is the Dems PASSED the law DECEPTIVELY saying it was NOT a tax.

    When that fell apart before the SAC, the justices conveniently accepted the argument that it was, after all, a tax.

    How is that possibly legal?

    How can the court uphold rulings which are not even in the original 2,000+ page document?

    What’s more, IF this law had been written as a tax would there have been enough congress people to have passed it?

    So the court provides cover for the BO regime, rewrites the law like a parent doing their kid’s homework and passes the friggin’ thing anyway.

    That is the most deceptive, devious duplicitous outcome imaginable, one that NO ONE saw coming.

    So congress lied or dissembled or screwed up and the SC said never mind, we’ll fix it for you, without even giving congress a chance to vote on the actual funding mechanism and thereby depriving the people of proper representation.

    I feel sick.

  67. Thanks for the article Trixta. Excerpts:

    http://rothenbergpoliticalreport.com/news/article/big-legal-win-for-president-big-political-win-for-republicans

    Moments after the Supreme Court’s decision upholding the constitutionality of the health care law, observers were already assessing its political implications for the November elections.

    The decision “amounts to a massive political win for the incumbent,” wrote Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post.

    “The decision will certainly be a plus for President Barack Obama’s re-election because it allows the president’s signature achievement to stand,” agrees Quinnipiac University pollster Peter Brown, a former veteran political reporter with Scripps-Howard.

    Both Chris and Peter understand politics, but I think that in this case they both got it wrong.

    For the White House, the Court’s decision certainly is a relief. Obviously, the law is the Administration’s crowning achievement, and the president and his allies see it both as an important accomplishment and as taking the country down the right public policy road. Having the law overturned would have created a big problem for the Administration.

    But the law remains unpopular, so the administration’s “crowning achievement,” purely from a political point of view, is not an unadulterated success. Of course, the president can now try to use the Court’s decision to boost popular support for the law, but after all these months, he may not be able to change opinion very much.

    But the way the court – or, Justice Roberts – justified upholding the law, by calling it a tax, has a substantial downside for the White House and for Democrats who supported it.

    Had the Court thrown out the law, Republicans would have had to scramble to figure out what to offer as a replacement. Democrats could have raised the specter of people being denied insurance for pre-existing conditions and young adults being thrown off their parents’ policies.

    Now, Republicans can attack the law not only for being “big government” but for being a huge tax during in weak economy, adding burdens to middle class taxpayers and slowing economic growth. And the GOP doesn’t have to come up with a detailed plan to “replace” Obama’s health care plan. [snip]

    The Court’s decision doesn’t undercut Romney’s opposition to the law. Instead, it gives him more political ammunition: taxes.

    So in the end, the Court’s ruling is something of a split decision: A big legal win for President Obama that enhances the Republicans’ political position heading to November.

  68. SHV,

    This made me feel better.

    The SC “administered a slow poison to campaigns of Obama and any Dem running in a contested election.”

  69. Another thought on “Roberts is a genius” and an observation by wobbei, that SCOTUS hates “politics” and makes it’s ruling with that in mind. Ruling that Obamacare is Constitutional based on the taxing authority rather than continuing the insidious trend of using the Commerce Clause, helps to restore the Constitution and puts the issue back into politics where it belongs rather than law. An up or down vote on a massive tax increase dooms Obamacare, IMO, especially after Nov. In the mean time, the Rethugs are going to put up repeal votes before the election and Dems in Congress have to be shitting their undies. Being forced to vote for massive tax increase during a recession and four months before a national election is political suicide, IMHO.

  70. Some smart analysis – Why the “left” should be crying, not celebrating:

    http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/06/28/im-not-down-on-john-roberts/

    Third, while Roberts has expanded the taxation power, which I don’t really think is a massive expansion from what it was, Roberts has curtailed the commerce clause as an avenue for Congressional overreach. In so doing, he has affirmed the Democrats are massive taxers. In fact, I would argue that this may prevent future mandates in that no one is going to go around campaigning on new massive tax increases. On the upside, I guess we can tax the hell out of abortion now. Likewise, in a 7 to 2 decision, the Court shows a strong majority still recognize the concept of federalism and the restrains of Congress in forcing states to adhere to the whims of the federal government.

    Fourth, in forcing us to deal with this politically, the Democrats are going to have a hard time running to November claiming the American people need to vote for them to preserve Obamacare. It remains deeply, deeply unpopular with the American people. If they want to make a vote for them a vote for keeping a massive tax increase, let them try.

    Fifth, the decision totally removes a growing left-wing talking point that suddenly they must vote for Obama because of judges. The Supreme Court as a November issue is gone.

    Finally, while I am not down on John Roberts like many of you are today, i will be very down on Congressional Republicans if they do not now try to shut down the individual mandate. Force the Democrats on the record about the mandate. Defund Obamacare. This now, by necessity, is a political fight and the GOP sure as hell should fight. [snip]

    With John Roberts’ opinion, the repeal fight takes place on GOP turf, not Democrat turf. The all or nothing repeal has always been better ground for the GOP and now John Roberts has forced everyone onto that ground. Oh, and as I mentioned earlier, because John Roberts concluded it was a tax, the Democrats cannot filibuster its repeal because of the same reconciliation procedure the Democrats used to pass it.

    It seems very, very clear to me in reviewing John Roberts’ decision that he is playing a much longer game than us and can afford to with a life tenure. And he probably just handed Mitt Romney the White House.

  71. Another thought to cheer people up, Roberts just gave Obama, the Dems. and especially the Obots a “White Elephant”; they are laughing and “high fiving” but the bills are coming due, soon.

    “White Elephant”

    “A white elephant is an idiom for a valuable but burdensome possession of which its owner cannot dispose and whose cost (particularly cost of upkeep) is out of proportion to its usefulness or worth. The term derives from the story that the kings of Siam (now Thailand) were accustomed to make a present of one of these animals to courtiers who had rendered themselves obnoxious, in order to ruin the recipient by the cost of its maintenance. In modern usage, it is an object, scheme, business venture, facility, etc., considered to be without use or value.[1]”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_elephant

  72. And let me add (about causes for my fury) the fact that the law decimates medicare by half a trillion and funnels that cash into medicaid.

    So retirees who paid for decades into the system will see their benefits cut and their costs rise to subsidize those who have not paid into the system.

    Add that to the fact of thousands of new IRS agents hired to make sure we all cough up and it is a friggin nightmare.

    Personally, I have felt the wrath of the IRS via my state income taxes for the past five years because the state and federal entities are sharing info, even if it’s wrong, to make sure they wring every last penny from saps like me.

    Two examples. In 2011 I was notified by the state I now live in that the feds had contacted them to say my 2008 tax return showed a NYS address and that must mean I’d failed to pay NYS income taxes.

    WRONG!

    I didn’t move to NYS until late 2007 and didn’t owe taxes which is why I didn’t file.

    Didn’t matter. I had to prove it 3 years after the fact even though I had paid income taxes in my previous state.

    Second, the first year I moved to NYS I had for the first time in my life money to put in a savings account as the result of selling my home. I intended to live on that money until I straightened my life out and get my health back. I had modest interest income, about $2G and claimed it on my federal taxes but somehow it wasn’t listed on my state income tax. Three years after that NYS tax department said I owed about $150 and if I didn’t pay they would place a lien on my property.

    and this was BEFORE the ruling today.

  73. “Democrats cannot filibuster its repeal because of the same reconciliation procedure the Democrats used to pass it.”
    *********
    Probably the most important result of ruling that the Mandate is a tax. Up or down vote; hoist meet petard.

  74. McConnell’s comments.

    “And the President of the United States himself promised up and down that this bill was not a tax.

    “This was one of the Democrats’ top selling points — because they knew it would have never passed if they said it was. The Supreme Court has spoken. This law is a tax.

    “This bill was sold to the American people on a deception. But it’s not just that the promises about this law weren’t kept. It’s that it’s made the problems it was meant to solve even worse.
    *********************************************************
    “Two and a half years ago, a Democrat president teamed up with a Democrat-led Congress to force a piece of legislation on the American people that they never asked for, and that has turned out to be just as disastrous as many of us predicted.

    “Amid economic recession, a spiraling federal debt, and accelerating increases in government health spending, they proposed a bill that has made these problems worse.

    “Americans were promised lower health care costs. They’re going up.

    “Americans were promised lower premiums. They’re going up.

    “Most Americans were promised their taxes wouldn’t change. They’re going up.

    “Seniors were promised Medicare would be protected. It was raided to pay for a new entitlement instead.

    “Americans were promised it would create jobs. The CBO predicts it will lead to nearly 1 million fewer jobs.

    “Americans were promised they could keep their plan if they liked it, yet millions have learned they can’t.

    “And the President of the United States himself promised up and down that this bill was not a tax.

    “This was one of the Democrats’ top selling points — because they knew it would have never passed if they said it was. The Supreme Court has spoken. This law is a tax.

    “This bill was sold to the American people on a deception. But it’s not just that the promises about this law weren’t kept. It’s that it’s made the problems it was meant to solve even worse.

    “The supposed cure has proved to be worse than the disease.

    “So it’s not just that the promises about this law weren’t kept. It’s that it has made the problems it was meant to solve even worse.

    “The supposed cure has proved to be worse than the disease.

    http://www.mcconnell.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=7fc835cd-28a3-44bf-9903-4f8cbbdbff5e&ContentType_id=c19bc7a5-2bb9-4a73-b2ab-3c1b5191a72b&Group_id=0fd6ddca-6a05-4b26-8710-a0b7b59a8f1f

  75. What Did SCOTUS Just Do?
    11:31 AM, JUN 28, 2012 • BY JAY COST

    Was today’s Supreme Court Obamacare decision a win for conservatives or a loss? It depends on what you were rooting for.

    If you were above all interested in the bill being struck down, it was mostly a loss. On the other hand, if you were more concerned about the qualitative expansion in the power of the government that the bill represented, it was definitely a win.

    First, the Roberts Court put real limits on what the government can and cannot do. For starters, it restricted the limits of the Commerce Clause, which does not give the government the power to create activity for the purpose of regulating it. This is a huge victory for those of us who believe that the Constitution is a document which offers a limited grant of power.

    Second, the Roberts Court also threw out a portion of the Medicaid expansion. States have the option of withdrawing from the program without risk of losing their funds. This is another major victory for conservatives who cherish our system of dual sovereignty. This was also a big policy win for conservatives; the Medicaid expansion was a major way the Democrats hid the true cost of the bill, by shifting costs to the states, but they no longer can do this.

    Politically, Obama will probably get a short-term boost from this, as the media will not be able to read between the lines and will declare him the winner. But the victory will be short-lived. The Democrats were at pains not to call this a tax because it is inherently regressive: the wealthy overwhelmingly have health insurance so have no fear of the mandate. But now that it is legally a tax, Republicans can and will declare that Obama has slapped the single biggest tax on the middle class in history, after promising not to do that.

    Conservatives have a shot at getting the best of both worlds: having the Supreme Court use Obamacare as a way to limit federal power while also using the democratic process to overturn the law. I didn’t think we could have one without the other, but now maybe we can.

    If Obama loses in November, that is…

  76. Roberts:

    “The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax,” Roberts wrote in an opinion that said the Constitution’s commerce clause could not be used to save the bill.”

    But HOW did he INTERPRET or DIVINE that the congress intended the law to be funded by a TAX? He just INSERTED that language? I don’t get the legality of that.

    “Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness,” Roberts concluded.

  77. Here’s the DNC’s Executive Director’s response.

    it’s constitutional. Bitches.

    Patrick Gaspard (@patrickgaspard) June 28, 2012

  78. Roberts used the taxation authority to uphold the law. I suspect his real motive, however, was to leave a legacy that the Roberts Court was not driven by right wing ideology. Just yesterday, the far left were calling him all kinds of derogatory names, and today they are lauding his decision as tempered and non-partisan. Had he ruled the other way, I would also suggest we might have had rioting in the streets at this time. Meanwhile, the alleged extremist Tea Party has responded with great disappointment, but without incident and determined more than ever to defeat Obama in Nov. My personal opinion all along as I posted was that it would be upheld, but I did not see the taxation rational as the reason. It is ironic that a 2nd Bush appointee , first David Souter under H, and now Roberts appointed by W, where not necessarily what they expected to get.

  79. Hope no one minds our focus on the jurisprudential side of things. But today is fascinating and we can’t resist.

    “Liberal” Slate magazine is seeing what we are seeing:

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/scocca/2012/06/roberts_health_care_opinion_commerce_clause_the_real_reason_the_chief_justice_upheld_obamacare_.single.html

    Obama Wins the Battle, Roberts Wins the War
    The chief justice’s canny move to uphold the Affordable Care Act while gutting the Commerce Clause.

    There were two battles being fought in the Supreme Court over the Affordable Care Act. Chief Justice John Roberts—and Justice Anthony Kennedy—delivered victory to the right in the one that mattered.

    Yes, Roberts voted to uphold the individual mandate, joining the court’s liberal wing to give President Obama a 5-4 victory on his signature piece of legislation. Right-wing partisans are crying treason; left-wing partisans saw their predictions of a bitter, party-line defeat undone.

    But the health care law was, ultimately, a pretext. This was a test case for the long-standing—but previously fringe—campaign to rewrite Congress’ regulatory powers under the Commerce Clause.

    This is why the challenge to the ACA, and its progress through the courts, came as a surprise to Democrats and to mainstream constitutional scholars: Three years ago, there was no serious doubt that Congress had the power to impose the individual mandate.

    A Bloomberg story last week nicely captured the stakes: “Obama Health Law Seen Valid, Scholars Expect Rejection”: [snip]

    The scholars expected to see the court gut existing Commerce Clause precedent and overturn the individual mandate in a partisan decision: Five Republican-appointed justices voting to rewrite doctrine and reject Obamacare; four Democratic-appointed justices dissenting.

    Roberts was smarter than that. By ruling that the individual mandate was permissible as a tax, he joined the Democratic appointees to uphold the law—while joining the Republican wing to gut the Commerce Clause (and push back against the necessary-and-proper clause as well). Here’s the Chief Justice’s opinion (italics in original):

    Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Congress already possesses expansive power to regulate what people do. Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clause would give Congress the same license to regulate what people do not do. The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers. The individual mandate thus cannot be sustained under Congress’s power to “regulate Commerce.

    The business about “new and potentially vast” authority is a fig leaf. This is a substantial rollback of Congress’ regulatory powers, and the chief justice knows it. It is what Roberts has been pursuing ever since he signed up with the Federalist Society. In 2005, Sen. Barack Obama spoke in opposition to Roberts’ nomination, saying he did not trust his political philosophy on tough questions such as “whether the Commerce Clause empowers Congress to speak on those issues of broad national concern that may be only tangentially related to what is easily defined as interstate commerce.” Today, Roberts did what Obama predicted he would do.

    Roberts’ genius was in pushing this health care decision through without attaching it to the coattails of an ugly, narrow partisan victory. Obama wins on policy, this time. And Roberts rewrites Congress’ power to regulate, opening the door for countless future challenges. In the long term, supporters of curtailing the federal government should be glad to have made that trade.

    This Roberts decision reminds us of the brilliant Marbury decision which cemented judicial review.

  80. By the way…….Those Obamacare exemptions? They’re now tax breaks for rich donors and corporations.

  81. Another take on this, with a bit on Medicaid.

    http://morallaw.org/news/judge-roy-moore-condemns-supreme-courts-ruling-upholding-obamacare-as-tyranny?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=judge-roy-moore-condemns-supreme-courts-ruling-upholding-obamacare-as-tyranny

    Jun 28, 2012

    Judge Roy Moore Condemns Supreme Court’s Ruling Upholding ObamaCare as Tyranny

    MONTGOMERY, ALA. — Judge Roy Moore, former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice and President of the Foundation for Moral Law, issued the following statement about the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling today upholding ObamaCare.

    Judge Moore stated:

    “Perhaps the week before July 4th is an appropriate time to recognize the tyranny of the federal government that is now upon us.  The recent history of our federal government, to quote the Declaration of Independence, ‘is a history of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.’ When the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court says that government may ‘tax’ individuals for health care, what is next–mandated life, home, and auto insurance? In ObamaCare, all three branches of government have ignored the Constitution and especially the 10th Amendment, which protects the rights of the states and the people to direct their own destinies.  A return to God and the United States Constitution is the only hope for the future of our Country.”

    Judge Moore and the Foundation for Moral Law, a religious-liberties organization, had filed an amicus brief with the United States Supreme Court in the ObamaCare case, State of Florida v. Dept. of Health and Human Services.

    Click to read the Foundation’s ObamaCare brief.

    The Foundation argued in its brief that the Constitution should be interpreted as the Framers intended it; that the Framers established a federal government with limited, delegated powers; and that the Constitution gives the federal government no authority to require states to expand their Medicaid programs and require citizens to purchase medical insurance.  According to the Tenth Amendment, these powers are reserved to the states, or to the people.  And just as Congress cannot require the states to expand their Medicaid programs, Congress also cannot cut off states’ federal Medicaid funds if they refuse to do so. Indeed, this part of the ObamaCare law was the only part restricted by the Court’s decision today.

    The Foundation for Moral Law, a national non-profit legal organization, is located in Montgomery, Alabama, and is dedicated to restoring the knowledge of God in law and government through litigation and education relating to moral issues and religious liberty cases.

  82. Jay Cost sees today’s SC decision in much the way we do:

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/what-did-scotus-just-do_647932.html

    First, the Roberts Court put real limits on what the government can and cannot do. For starters, it restricted the limits of the Commerce Clause, which does not give the government the power to create activity for the purpose of regulating it. This is a huge victory for those of us who believe that the Constitution is a document which offers a limited grant of power.

    Second, the Roberts Court also threw out a portion of the Medicaid expansion. States have the option of withdrawing from the program without risk of losing their funds. This is another major victory for conservatives who cherish our system of dual sovereignty. This was also a big policy win for conservatives; the Medicaid expansion was a major way the Democrats hid the true cost of the bill, by shifting costs to the states, but they no longer can do this.

    Politically, Obama will probably get a short-term boost from this, as the media will not be able to read between the lines and will declare him the winner. But the victory will be short-lived. The Democrats were at pains not to call this a tax because it is inherently regressive: the wealthy overwhelmingly have health insurance so have no fear of the mandate. But now that it is legally a tax, Republicans can and will declare that Obama has slapped the single biggest tax on the middle class in history, after promising not to do that.

    Conservatives have a shot at getting the best of both worlds: having the Supreme Court use Obamacare as a way to limit federal power while also using the democratic process to overturn the law. I didn’t think we could have one without the other, but now maybe we can.

    If Obama loses in November, that is…

  83. Obama lied about it not being a tax? Aw, maybe he made an honest mistake. It’s not like he was a constitional scholar or anything. /sarcasm

  84. Is it true that by refusing to rule states have to expand medicaid the very people the POS ostensibly cares so much about will be left holding the bag and will have to pay the bill?

  85. Roberts may well have pulled a fast one here.

    1) The commerce clause now has a limit.

    2) GOP gets to run against a HONKIN BIG TAX INCREASE by the Dems.

    3) Repeal just became much, much easier, whether R’s get a filibuster-proof Senate or not.

    Every single waiver that Obama granted to companies, unions, etc now becomes a HUGE TAX BREAK to his wealthy donors. Run with the tax theme, Mitt. It’s killer.

    Romney has raised 1.5 million dollars on his website today so far. And the majority whip just said that because the penalty is now a tax, it’s a revenue issue, and can be repealed by 51 votes, and that’s how the Senate will approach it.

  86. Basically its one big clusterfook whatever way you look at it. The amount of ammunition handed to Romney today is the equivalent of a political nuke warhead.

  87. Oh, and add point #4 to the above: Dems cannot now run on “nasty horrible extremist court.”. Cut that right out from under them.

  88. It’s interesting that the talking heads were blind sided by Roberts but are now starting to wake up and see the long term importance of the ruling. Obamacare was going down by way of repeal or by fundamental incompetence of the law. Dead on or before 2020. The ruling on Commerce Clause and necessary and proper, however, is huge, IMO.

  89. I appreciate everyone’s attempt to spin today as a plus for the anti-POS side but I confess it’s a stretch for me.

    The ordinary person (non-news-junkie) won’t understand or care about the fine points in the SC ruling. To most it will appear as a huge POS victory. Nothing succeeds like success or the perception of success which is what MSM is spinning.

    Sorry but I see this as a big win for the POS.

  90. I don’t know, I just keep thinking that if Hillary had tried to pass her health care right now, the Universal Health Care plan for all, she would be happy to see it get past the Supremes and would not only have presented a well thought out plan, cost savings and good for all…but Obama wouldn’t be sitting there thinking he passed a bill she and Bill couldn’t.

    I find this pretty depressing knowing that both parties will tell the biggest lies over this to get our votes.

  91. “Oh, and add point #4 to the above: Dems cannot now run on “nasty horrible extremist court.”.
    ********
    Perhaps the #1 Dem. campaign tactic that could sway an undecided to hold their nose and vote for Obama. In the current environment of pretty evenly split D and R, a small change in the remaining 15%, especially in “battle ground” states will mean the difference between a narrow win and a Mitt blow out. Eliminating the extremist SCOTUS meme is worth, IMO, 2-3% more for Mitt.

  92. Basil

    Sorry but I see this as a big win for the POS.

    —–
    I don’t see it as a BIG win, but a face saving win for him with a lot of drama and bs attached to it.

    I was pretty sure the commerce clause would not pass but I never thought they would just revamp it into a tax and call it a rose for Berry.

  93. “To most it will appear as a huge POS victory.”
    ********
    And will drive more people to the polls for “revenge”. Also, now that Obamacare, has been saved, “I can stay at home on mom’s basement and blog rather than get off my ass and vote for the “lightbringer”.

    I hope that the Obots see it as a huge victory until the election. What could be better negative motivation, SCOTUS doesn’t need saving by Obama and Obamacare is “safe”.

  94. Just want to shout, “Thank You!” from all the grapes on my vine for the great job done on His44 today!

    BTW You might like to know we are hearing lots of cheers from average people — Repubs (and even some DEmocrats)– that the emphasis on TAX is taking an ax to O’s chance in Nov! … even if they find the fine points elusive. We are sending them here for further enlightenment.

  95. I think if voters had to start paying taxes on this HellCare bill THIS year, then all the R’s trumpeting, “Big Taxes by Baracko” would have a major effect on swing voters,

    but since they mainly listen to the MSM, they can ‘what me worry’ out in the future of 2014 and sweep the Repubs under the rug this election, (on the Hellcare bill at least).

    Baracko got another election free pass today by the Supremes.

  96. Shadowfax,

    (3:15)

    Me either. How can it be legal for the SC to simply rewrite the law and “deem” it a tax rather than a mandate and thereby preserve the legislation?

    It was UNCONSTITUTIONAL as written and the SC rewrote it so it’s constitutional same way the RBC gave HRC delegates to the POS. The opinion has apparently been ready for weeks if not months. The POS knew all along he would win. The MSM will conspire to conceal the fact that it’s a tax the same way it refuses to cover F & F.

    I am disgusted. Clear the field not level the field is the name of the game.

    For the justices to “help” the regime by shaping, polishing and revising the 2000 page monstrosity where necessary is NOT FAIR Those who opposed it did it on the good faith expectation the SC wold rule on what both sides filed with the court. Why didn’t the SC tweak the opposition’s side to make it more palatable or powerful or convincing and pass that?

  97. Question: is it legal for the Executive Branch to grant “waivers” from a tax?

    ……………………………………….

    Very good question?

  98. Basil
    Yup, I agree. Sounds like the HellCare bill itself and it’s legal justification was another Trojan White Elephant. My guess is that WH lawyers got help from some of the Supremes on just how to package this brown bag of poop, so it would look cute on voters porch until someone lights it on fire.

    It also adds to the ugliness of Republicans screaming, “Taxes and debt!” while they fight for the Bush tax cuts.

    What a freakin’ mess.

  99. HillaryforTexas

    Question: is it legal for the Executive Branch to grant “waivers” from a tax?

    ——–
    Isn’t that a ‘Tax exemption”?

  100. SO Holder is facing contempt charges for lying to congress about his role in F & F.

    BO has now been proven to have LIED that the ACA was NOT a tax.

    Isn’t there recourse to hold him in contempt?

  101. WHITE HOUSE INSIDER: OBAMACARE …”Now we are truly ready to fight.”
    by Ulsterman on June 28, 2012
    A longtime D.C. political operative considers today’s Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare a good thing in the fight to defeat Barack Obama in 2012.
    Here’s why.
    This will be quick. Don’t have time to go over all of this with you right now. Don’t forget the work going on w/Holder.
    The Obamacare ruling is good news for us. Real good news. It’s 2010 all over again now. Swing states will shift over to Romney in most cases. Trust me on this. We’ve done the polling. The data is conclusive on this. It’s a huge tax. We got Obama lying. Again.
    The Tea Party movement, which was as real and powerful a political movement as I’ve ever seen in my lifetime, is back in play. That scares the hell out of the Obama White House. You just got a bunch of Dems sweating hard over their re-election. The Republican Party will now be a lot more focused and clearly conservative and that’s exactly what they need to be this time around. We must make the election a clear divide between one side and the other and this Obamacare ruling has forced that to happen.
    And the initial reports I’m getting are telling me there was a lot more clever going on inside that decision than the initial reaction will indicate. It’s the Obama Tax now. And states were given an out. The entire law is a big ass convoluted mess and the ruling has reinforced that fact. Obama will have to defend something he doesn’t understand, and Romney can now sit back and just repeat over and over again “repeal-repeal-repeal”.
    You can call bullsh-t on me here and I’ll understand if you do but I’m telling you right up this ruling today is GOOD NEWS. Politically, as a motivator, it’s great news. Watch contributions toward Republicans jump up even more than they already were. Watch the Obama White House have to face very hard questions over the Obamacare tax issue. Watch states rise up to challenge the administration using the weapon the Supreme Court placed in their hands to do so. Watch the Tea Party come back stronger and more powerful than ever.
    The giant has woken up. Country needed a hard kick in the ass to remind us what is at stake in November. Now we are truly ready to fight.
    Last thing. Romney was preparing for this decision. He gets to go with the better script now. He’s coming out swinging hard on this one.

  102. On day of contempt vote Eric Holder skips town, heads to Disneyworld

    On the day in which the U.S. House of Representatives has determined that Attorney General Eric Holder’s actions are egregious enough to warrant a criminal contempt vote, the AG has skipped town and headed to … Disneyworld.

    http://redalertpolitics.com/

  103. lil ole grape

    WHITE HOUSE INSIDER: OBAMACARE …”Now we are truly ready to fight.”
    by Ulsterman

    ——-

    So the plan has changed with this Supreme vote to hope for a repeat of 2010, and think the Tea Party will save us? Motivate the R’s to fight for Mitt like never before?

    As others mentioned above, let the obots go back to sleep because their BarackoCare is ‘safe’.

    It’s not the fight I was looking for.

  104. moonpluto,

    You credit Americans with more intelligence and common sense than exists, IMHO.

    Plus, Romney still has Romneycare to contend with.

    I would love to think this was a super-secret double agent clusterf*ck by Roberts using psy-ops to confuse the issue and make it seem, on first glance, that the POS won all the while knowing that once the significance of the entire ruling sank in the POS would realize he was up the creek without a paddle but real life is not a novel and I can’t ascribe such noble aspirations to the CJ.

    But I hope you’re right.

  105. N.H. Legislature Overrides Governor, Approves Voter ID Law

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/28/N-H-GOP-Legislature-Overrides-Dem-Governor-Approves-Voter-ID-Law

    In yet another vote bucking the state’s executive office, New Hampshire’s Republican controlled-legislature overrode Democrat Gov. John Lynch’s veto of a voter ID bill on Wednesday. New Hampshire is now the latest on a growing list of states to require that voters present photo ID when voting.

    In New Hampshire, different forms of identification are accepted, or residents have the option of signing an affidavit. The list will be shortened in 2013, and student ID cards and documents more than 5 years old will no longer be accepted.

    Lynch was opposed to the restrictions.

    The votes weren’t even close, with the Senate voting 18 to 5 to override; the House went 231 to 112. The two chambers also passed a bill amending the measure to offer voters a simpler affidavit.

    Democrat Lynch has been opposed by the GOP legislature on several issues, including “parental notification for abortion, labor rights and the right to use deadly force in self-defense — since Republicans gained control of both chambers in 2010.”

    …………………………

    Lets see if Obama launches war with NH too.

  106. 21 tax increases

    The high court’s ruling leaves in place 21 tax increases in the health-care law costing more than $675 billion over the next 10 years, according to the House Ways and Means Committee. Of those, 12 tax hikes would affect families earning less than $250,000 per year, the panel said, including a “Cadillac tax” on high-cost insurance plans, a tax on insurance providers, and an excise tax on medical device manufacturers.

    “This is a clear violation of the president’s pledge to avoid tax hikes on low- and middle-income taxpayers,” said a statement from the panel, which is chaired by Rep. Dave Camp, Michigan Republican.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/28/republicans-ruling-focuses-election-obamas-health-/

    On the campaign trail four years ago and since taking office, Mr. Obama has been fond of saying that middle-class families will not see their taxes rise “a single dime” under his leadership.

  107. Holder first AG in 200 years to be held in contempt.

    18 Dems voted with repubs.

    Over 100 walk outs.

  108. BASIL99
    June 28th, 2012 at 3:09 pm
    —————–
    One of my friends feels the same way as you do. I don’t. If anything, think of the implications of the Obama campaign having to address this HUGE tax burden that they have forced on to the American taxpayer during a time of significant economic upheaval. It won’t fly. Although I believe Romney to be ahead in electoral votes up until yesterday regardless of most of the polling saying it is a very close race, Obama is going to lose support because of his scheme backfiring on him. He cannot run and hide from his TAX monster. If there is one thing mos Americans have disdain for, it’s the IRS and high taxes.

  109. Sorry but I see this as a big win for the POS.
    ========================================

    !00% correct Basil99. While not surprised by the ruling, the reality is now settling in and I feel almost as sick as when Hillary was forced out of the race. This was a huge set back for us today, and with Romney as the candidate, it will be tough for him to have credibility on the mandate issue. I think the adm. is correct in that Mitt must remain focused on economy and we have to, sadly, hope unemployment remains high for him to have a shot.

  110. BASIL99 June 28th, 2012 at 4:38 pm
    ————————–
    Dems ran out of Wisconsin, didn’t they? How did that turn out for them?

  111. BO presumably has much more control over elections than he does over SCOTUS, so their giving him a way to go on toward an event he is quite capable of manipulating is very bad news. Although a judge did block Holder’s attempt to stop FL from cleansing its voter rolls.

    The really sickest thing of all is that he/Dems feels good about screwing Main Street people. That’s who he wars against. Carville had the Tea Party is done drum beating again recently. However he really should not count on that. The PA branch of AFP is holding town halls tonight in Philly and near Hershey.

  112. nomobama,

    He can if it’s not covered and it won’t be.

    ‘He cannot run and hide from his TAX monster.’

  113. From Crawdad’s site:

    “The U.S. House of Representatives voted 255 to 67 to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt. 17 Democrats voted yes on the resolution, while 108 walked out without voting.”

  114. As if I were in step with them, Tea Party Patriots’ email has just arrived looking for money and includes what I just said: This Supreme Court ruling is a slap in the face to the majority of the American people who want ObamaCare fully repealed. The Tea Party Patriots stand with the American people and say: fully repeal ObamaCare.

    Needs to be pointed out and frequently that Obama/Dems are fighting Main Street.

    Am hoping to hear soon that Holder got what he so richly deserves. Not looking forward to news tonight and tired of this little screen coming up with depressing news as well. Mentioning that he is in Disney World. When does tee vee EVER mention what he does in his free time. The 15 millionth subliminal message about this administration.

    However, we will ride on in our quest. Of that I am certain.

  115. jbstonesfan,

    “100% correct Basil99.”

    I don’t WANT to be right on this. 👿

    Btw, as a lawyer, can you tell us if Roberts can be charged with ethical misconduct by taking it upon himself to interpret and rewrite the original monstrosity and equate a “penalty” with a “tax” when the latter was vociferously denied by BO and crew and was not contained in the bill?

    As I have been asking, is that legal? Isn’t the justice supposed to rule on what’s before him, not what he deems the intent to be? Isn’t that judicial activsm that rises beyond his authority?
    the unstatedsai

  116. holdthemaccountable.

    “Dems ran out of Wisconsin, didn’t they?”

    You are right about that but I have gone back to thinking the entire show is rigged specifically and solely for the POS.

  117. Now I’m beginning to get very suspicious about Boehner holding the Holder contempt vote the same day as the ACA ruling.

    This all seems orchestrated to give the POS the best coverage and suppress the bad news and Boehner seems to have been complicit.

  118. the entire show is rigged specifically and solely for the POS.
    ———————
    Quite possible. It’s nearly Friday and very close to July 4th. The tourists are already here in good numbers.
    I’m signing off now. I saw where he had a bus tour scheduled for next week. PA and maybe OH. Wonder if it’s same bus he used in 2010, made in Canada.

  119. Media cannot ignore it now, Holder’s contempt charge just moved Fast n Furious into the mainstream, people will be asking why the US Attorney General is being charged.

    It cannot be ignored now.

  120. moononpluto,

    They can and they will ignore it if past is prelude and I believe it is. MSM will also ignore the minor inconveniences of the POS lying about the funding mechanism and the sheeple won’t even realize it’s a tax until a few years from now when he’s safely ensconce in his second term.

    Sorry for the pessimism but today was a disaster for the country, IMHO.

  121. Still seeing red.

    The POS now has his liberal court. Roberts should “Hang his Head.”

    How is it possible for the CJ to have opined that elections have consequences and the people’s recourse is the ballot box when he just ruled on a bill which was clandestinely prepared, deceptively passed and which lied to the people’s representatives and by extension to the people?

    How many would have NOT signed onto the ACA had it been revealed the funding mechanism was a tax? Probably not enough to have passed the thing.

    So Roberts just enabled the BO regime to lie and what’s more he gave them carte blanche to continue lying with no repercussions.

    Had he ruled based on the “PENALTY” component I would not be as incensed as I am by his blatantly fixing the bill so it would comply with law.

    That’s called CHEATING and it means Roberts was LYING about his concern for the people’s preferences.

    We are doomed.

  122. BASIL99
    June 28th, 2012 at 5:26 pm

    I am with you. I am so massively disappointed on both immigration and now taxcare, I feel so defeated.

    Even Rush said there is NO WAY to spin this in the postive, none…

  123. Case in point – even Drudge devotes only a regular font red headline on the far right of the page to Holder. By tomorrow it will be as if the contempt ruling never happened.

  124. Yesterday I was feeling like the winds were blowing in the prefect direction to get the Fraud out of DC. I was actually pretty confident he would not make a second term.

    Today, not so much.

  125. The two Republican “no” votes on Holder were Reps. Steve LaTourette (Ohio) and Scott Rigell (Va.).

  126. Say goodby to Steve and Scott

    The two Republican “no” votes on Holder were Reps. Steve LaTourette (Ohio) and Scott Rigell (Va).

  127. OK, moononpluto. I don’t have the testicular fortitude to watch MSM at the moment so I will take your word for it.

    BTW, anyone else notice O’Reilly’s absence this week? Why? It’s only the biggest week in terms of political fallout in the past few years. Why is BR fielding out his show to losers like Juan Williams?

  128. admin
    June 28th, 2012 at 1:43 pm
    ——————-

    You are using the word “undermine” when it comes to the Commerce Clause. Isn’t this more like limiting the scope of the Commerce Clause, and if so, is that really undermining it? I guess if you were to say that Congress now has a less broad means of its use, that could be considered undermining.

  129. Ulsterman: “Attorney General Eric Holder is the first presidential cabinet member in the history of the United States to be cited for contempt by Congress. [….]

    “UPDATE: Following the contempt vote, House Republicans introduced and then passed legislation allowing for a special counsel to independently investigate the Operation Fast and Furious scandal. The parallels to Watergate grow ever closer… “

  130. “Tremendous Pressure” And Reverse His Vote?
    —Ace

    Volokh:

    Scalia’s dissent, at least on first quick perusal, reads like it was originally written as a majority opinion (in particular, he consistently refers to Justice Ginsburg’s opinion as “The Dissent”). Back in May, there were rumors floating around relevant legal circles that a key vote was taking place, and that Roberts was feeling tremendous pressure from unidentified circles to vote to uphold the mandate. Did Roberts originally vote to invalidate the mandate on commerce clause grounds, and to invalidate the Medicaid expansion, and then decide later to accept the tax argument and essentially rewrite the Medicaid expansion (which, as I noted, citing Jonathan Cohn, was the sleeper issue in this case) to preserve it? If so, was he responding to the heat from President Obama and others, preemptively threatening to delegitimize the Court if it invalidated the ACA? The dissent, along with the surprising way that Roberts chose to uphold both the mandate and the Medicaid expansion, will inevitably feed the rumor mill.

  131. I am a little pissed off today, but I refuse to be glum. If CJ Roberts was actually helping the cause to defeat Obama as he very well could have been doing (there’s not agreement on this), then it is not as bad a day as it may seem to some. I feel that the law will be repealed due to this decision, and that is exactly what I had hoped for, yet it would have been great for it to have been defeated because it was deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. I think that we will know the truth of this within the coming days… either John Roberts was helpful in making Obama’s defeat more likely in November or he helped Obama’s chances for a second term. I am of the former belief. Obama is going to lose in November, and today’s SC decision helped the cause.

  132. Washington Times piece:

    ***
    “But they all miss the point, and, more, by looking purely at the political, miss the forest for the trees.

    In voting to uphold Mr. Obama’s disastrous health-care overhaul, the chief justice took away the president’s main line of attack that surely would have been deployed had the court voted 5-4, along party lines. The Divider in Chief, already bent on stoking cultural warfare — upper-middle class vs. lower-middle class, white against black against Hispanic, gay against straight, believers against non-believers — had no doubt hoped to win one more target for his bilious bifurcation.”
    **
    But Justice Roberts did just the opposite (and, bonus, also strictly adhere to the original intent of the Constitution). Obamacare is unconstitutional if it were to be enacted via the Commerce Clause, but not if it’s simply a tax, the justice wrote. “Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.”
    **
    In so doing, Justice Roberts has just busted Campaign 2012 wide open. The high court’s ruling leaves in place 21 tax increases costing nearly $700 billion. Of those taxes, 12 would affect families earning less than $250,000 per year.

    Now that Obamacare’s penalty is a “tax,” not a “fee,” Mr. Obama is breaking a 2008 campaign pledge not to raise taxes on Americans earning less than $250,000……
    ***

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/28/curl-roberts-to-the-rescue-for-romney/

    Interesting times!!!

  133. YIKES!

    Roberts is on an epilepsy medicine known to cause cognitive dysfunction. In 2007 the NYT brought it up as a possible prelude to a Roberts impeachment.

    I have been listening to talk shows and the hosts confirm my original (while simplistic) question of how Roberts could have substituted a “tax” issue for what was described as a “penalty” in the original ACA.

    How could he have created out of thin air a basis for the law which did not exist in the law? It’s more than judicial activism.

    I am far from alone in thinking this is one of the cruxes of the issue. It makes no sense whether viewing the SC decision as a lay person or as an accomplished legal mind.

    It does not pass the smell test.

    There is something wrong with the ruling. Could it have something to do with Robert’s mental state?

    Now, even if repubs managed to repeal the law wouldn’t the issue just go back to the SC and be overturned once again?

  134. BASIL99

    On a positive note, Trey Gowdy’s hair was gorgeous today.

    ——-
    Well that’s an uplifting image. 😉

  135. SHV
    June 28th, 2012 at 6:29 pm

    But where did Roberts get the authority to rewrite the bill? Is THAT constitutional?

  136. THIS I agree with.

    Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito Dissent: ‘We Cannot Rewrite the Statute to Be What It Is Not’
    “Judicial tax-writing is particularly troubling.”

    Chief Justice John Roberts held in his majority opinion today that Obamacare’s individual mandate may be considered a constitutional tax rather than an unconstitutional mandate.

    Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito forcefully disagree with Roberts in their dissent. “[W]e cannot rewrite the statute to be what it is not,” the four Justices write. “[W]e have never—never—treated as a tax an exaction which faces up to the critical difference between a tax and a penalty, and explicitly denominates the exaction a ‘penalty.’ Eighteen times in §5000A itself and elsewhere throughout the Act, Congress called the exaction in §5000A(b) a ‘penalty.'”

    The dissenting Justices also argue that “judicial tax-writing is particularly troubling,” since the Constitution requires tax bills to originate in the House of Representatives, “the legislative body most accountable to the people, where legislators must weigh the need for the tax against the terrible price they might pay at their next election, which is never more than two years off.”

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/scalia-kennedy-thomas-and-alito-dissent-we-cannot-rewrite-statute-be-what-it-not_647952.html

  137. either John Roberts was helpful in making Obama’s defeat more likely in November or he helped Obama’s chances for a second term.

    ——–
    Somehow I just can’t accept the fact that Roberts sided with the libs to defeat Obama. He mentioned the bill might be a piece of doo, but that doesn’t mean he is working as a double agent.

    That is too wishful thinking for me and I am still too pist at this whole scam. 99% scam, all the way around the block.

  138. More;

    T]o say that the Individual Mandate merely imposes a tax is not to interpret the statute but to rewrite it. Judicial tax-writing is particularly troubling. Taxes have never been popular, see, e.g., Stamp Act of 1765, and in part for that reason, the Constitution requires tax increases to originate in the House of Representatives. See Art. I, §7, cl. 1. That is to say, they must originate in the legislative body most accountable to the people, where legislators must weigh the need for the tax against the terrible price they might pay at their next election, which is never more than two years off. The Federalist No. 58 “defend[ed] the decision to give the origination power to the House on the ground that the Chamber that is more accountable to the people should have the primary role in raising revenue.” United States v. Munoz-Flores, 495 U. S. 385, 395 (1990). We have no doubt that Congress knew precisely what it was doing when it rejected an earlier version of this legislation that imposed a tax instead of a requirement-with-penalty. See Affordable Health Care for America Act, H. R. 3962, 111th Cong., 1st Sess., §501 (2009); America’s Healthy Future Act of 2009, S. 1796, 111th Cong., 1st Sess., §1301. Imposing a tax through judicial legislation inverts the constitutional scheme, and places the power to tax in the branch of government least accountable to the citizenry. […]

  139. Basil99, it’s called the Supreme Court. The rationale the court uses can be but does not have to be an argument used in oral argument. Roberts is quite lucid and even brilliant.

    If the congress repeals Obamascam there is no issue before the court.

    The Supreme Court is the final arbiter so the question of “penalty” versus “tax” is moot. That a tax bill has to originate in the House and this one did not is also moot. It’s a tax.

  140. BASIL99
    June 28th, 2012 at 6:54 pm

    ——-
    Yup, I agree with them too.
    So what happens if the majority of the Supremes scramble a bill to make it fit, then what?

    There is nothing higher than the US Supremes, and they are there until they die in their chair.

  141. More from the dissent.

    “‘[A] tax is an enforced contribution to provide for the support of government; a penalty . . . is an exaction imposed by statute as punishment for an unlawful act.’”

    We never have classified as a tax an exaction imposed for violation of the law, and so too, we never have classified as a tax an exaction described in the legislation itself as a penalty.

    Eighteen times in §5000A itself and else- where throughout the Act, Congress called the exaction in §5000A(b) a “penalty.”

    Section 5000A(d) exempts three classes of people from the definition of “applicable individual” subject to the minimum coverage requirement: Those with religious objections or who participate in a “health care sharing ministry,” §5000A(d)(2); those who are “not lawfully present” in the United States, §5000A(d)(3); and those who are incarcerated, §5000A(d)(4). Section 5000A(e) then creates a separate set of exemptions, excusing from liability for the penalty certain individuals who are subject to the minimum coverage requirement: Those who cannot afford coverage, §5000A(e)(1); who earn too little income to require filing a tax return, §5000A(e)(2); who are members of an Indian tribe, §5000A(e)(3); who experience only short gaps in coverage, §5000A(e)(4); and who, in the judgment of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, “have suffered a hardship with respect to the capability to obtain coverage,” §5000A(e)(5). If §5000A were a tax, these two classes of exemption would make no sense; there being no requirement, all the exemptions would attach to the penalty (renamed tax) alone.

    The last of the feeble arguments in favor of petitioners that we will address is the contention that what this statute repeatedly calls a penalty is in fact a tax because it contains no scienter requirement.

    And the nail in the coffin is that the mandate and penalty are located in Title I of the Act, its operative core, rather than where a tax would be found—in Title IX, containing the Act’s “Revenue Provisions.” In sum, “the terms of [the] act rende[r] it unavoidable,” Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet. 433, 448 (1830), that Congress imposed a regulatory penalty, not a tax.

    For all these reasons, to say that the Individual Mandate merely imposes a tax is not to interpret the statute but to rewrite it.

  142. According to Chief Justice John Roberts and his liberal colleagues on the Supreme Court, Congress does not have to call a tax a tax in order for it to be a tax. Congress can, in fact, create a penalty instead of a tax, and the President can tell the nation it is not a tax, but the courts can later decide Congress meant otherwise.

    Never mind that Congress made it clear it did not intend to impose the individual mandate to buy health insurance as a tax. Never mind that the razor-thin majority by which Obamacare passed would never have existed if that majority had known it was imposing a tax on every living American. Never mind that the case might not have made it to judgment until 2014 if it had walked into the courthouse as an objection to a tax.

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/28/Wrong-Wrong-Wrong-the-Supreme-Court-Worst-Decision-Since-Kelo

  143. Roberts Facing Medical Option on 2nd Seizure

    By DENISE GRADY and LAWRENCE K. ALTMAN
    Published: August 1, 2007

    Despite his quick recovery from the seizure he suffered on Monday, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. faces a complex diagnosis and a difficult decision.

    Because the seizure was his second — he had a similar one in 1993 — he meets the criteria for epilepsy, and he and his doctors will have to decide whether he should take medication to prevent further seizures, said neurologists not involved in his care. (Neither the chief justice nor his doctors would comment yesterday.)

    The decision will involve weighing the risk of more seizures against the risk of side effects from the drugs. Major seizures can be a frightening and traumatic experience for patients and family members. Patients are advised to avoid heights and not to swim alone, and many states bar them from driving until they can provide evidence that the disease is under control.

    But the drugs can have troubling side effects, including drowsiness or insomnia, weight loss or weight gain, rashes, irritability, mental slowing and forgetfulness. Many patients can be treated with minimal side effects, doctors say, but it may take trial and error to find the right drug.
    *************************************************

    Dr. W. Allen Hauser, a professor of neurology and epidemiology at Columbia University, estimated that the chief justice had about a 60 percent chance of having another seizure at some point, based on research on other patients who had had two seizures.

    “I would say there is no standard recommendation,” Dr. Hauser said. “With multiple seizures, my recommendation generally is to put patients on antiseizure medication, and I think that would be the recommendation of most neurologists.

    “That said,” he went on, “the reason one doesn’t immediately put everybody on the medications when they have seizures is that there are side effects to all the medications.”

    “Fifteen percent will have some problem with the first drug that will lead to discontinuation and a different drug,” Dr. Hauser added. “Virtually everybody will have some side effects.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/01/health/01seizure.html?_r=1

  144. Sorry but this is outrageous.

    So now – just as in 1984 – up is down and light is dark.

    A tax is a mandate is a penalty and they are all interchangeable whenever the SC decides?

    The language is being rewritten along with laws. God help us.

  145. Oh don’t EVEN with the seizure disorder stuff. Millions of people have epilepsy, and take various drugs to control it. They go to their jobs, think quite clearly, and function just fine every day.

    Epilepsy is common as dirt. It’s a nothingburger.

  146. I don’t see Roberts as brilliant, I see him as a traitor to the constitution. We have no guarantee the fraud will be defeated for the WH. Seeing as things have been rolling out in his favor, I don’t see how anyone can call this brilliant. He just opened the door for the gov to tax us for ANYTHING, for eating broccoli, for NOT eating broccoli, for being fat and using up too many resources, for being too thin and using too many resources, ie sweaters to be warm, for being too white and the cause of all evil in the land…

    This makes me ill. It reminds me of 2008 and everyone thought Hillary had some brilliant last minute plan. Didn’t happen.

    It is what it is…treason to the American people and Constitution…Period.

  147. HillaryforTexas
    June 28th, 2012 at 7:48 pm

    OK. It WAS reported on in 2007 in the NYT when they were concerned about a conservative court.

    I think people are grasping at straws to try and comprehend this.

  148. gonzotx
    June 28th, 2012 at 7:55 pm

    While I understand the POV that Roberts penned a wily, brilliant ruling I’m not convinced.

    “It reminds me of 2008 and everyone thought Hillary had some brilliant last minute plan.”

    Me too.

  149. I gave my first donation to Romney this morning. I’m looking at this from a business and fiscal POV. This was always a tax, I wonder how many people will refuse to pay it and rather go to jail. I imagine millions. IRS goes through local authorities to collect/arrest people for not paying their taxes, I know in VA, a delegate named Bob Marshall openly said 2 years ago, even if this crap is found consitutional, they will not allow local authorities in VA to arrest people for refusing to pay to buy a private product.

    And they keep saying, people will get “subsidies”, where the hell do they think this money comes from??

    I’m so glad I no longer own my business, the smaller sized businesses are screwed. And instead of having pro-growth policies, now we have a piece of crap of a law that will suffocate any growth.

  150. The only solace I take is this bill will be crushed by its own weight, for example the 5% tax on homes sold, people don’t know yet about it, there are so many such taxes. The bill is unpopular and it will get crushed by its own weight, unfortunately it will cause much suffering to many many Americans in the meantime.

  151. Well I guess Boehner didn’t have to worry about too much celebration in the House, however, the Dems were not so worried about their behavior, as usual, and I am sure the MM will cover for them, chuckel, chuckel, boys will be boys…
    *****

    Posted by Ace at 11:47 AM New Comments Thingy

    DNC Executive Director Taunts on Twitter: “It’s Constitutional. Bitches.”
    —Ace

    Executive Director of the DNC Patrick Gaspard actually said that.

  152. Tim,

    Unfortunately the crushing will go on for years, maybe decades and we will find ourselves like Greece. We are on our way to Europe, it’s like the boats filled with Pilgrims are going East instead of West. Who said you couldn’t turn back time…

  153. gonzotx
    June 28th, 2012 at 8:19 pm

    Hi. Yes, it will accelerate, the very people this was supposed to help is the very people it will hurt. The very rich will pay beaucoup money for the best care, the poor have some safety net, the middle class is screwed paying taxes to be redistributed, all the while their healthcare is going to go down the toilet, the elderly will be subjected to whatever Queen Pelosi says they can get through HHS.
    And with the economy even getting more ground into the ground, revenues are less, so more rationing. Trump was correct in saying with a growing economy, lots more revenue, we can afford more, now everything is going to go into the $hitter, we all know that’s where its headed, we’re all going to see it in slow motion. Everything happening in Europe is going ot happen to us, while the East is getting richer, they now have more of those “evil” millionaires in that region of the world that in the West.

  154. …not meant for anyone here…but I think we all can agree that the average Jane and Joe out there are not really paying attention and frankly are very, very uninformed (seriously, we have people ‘out there’ who do not even know who the VP is)…

    …and even the “educated ones”…it is astonishing how many people, who are busy making ends meet and just getting thru their day…have no idea at all what is going on in politics or current events…truly, they go to work, cook dinner for the kids, enjoy their sports, reality tv, etc and that’s about it…wake up and time to go to work…

    …I say that because I honestly do not think that the majority of people out there realize that they are going to be forced to pay into the Obamatax…it is going to come right out of the paycheck and be “supervised” by the IRS…and if the IRS isn’t happy, they will just take the penalty out…no questions asked…you just don’t get your money…

    …now, having said that…honestly, how many of O’s working supporters really know they have to pay for the Obamatax whether they like it or not…I contend that many of them think they are going to be getting free health care…

    …wait until the working O supporters become more informed…like the young people who are barely hanging in there with a job…wait until they find out that not only are premiums going up…but they can probably kiss about $1500-2000 a year good bye regardless if they go to a doctor or not…does not matter if they ever go to a doctor they will be ponying up for the rest of their lives…

    …the repubs better start a very vocal and very easy to understand crash course in what Obamatax really means to everyone and their hard earned money…

    for starters, they can play with this nifty little thing and then maybe…’wake up and smell the coffee’

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/what-health-bill-means-for-you/

  155. This is my take away from today’s big event and I marvel at the the brilliance of the founding fathers of this country (and at Roberts too). Yeah, there may be concern in the immediate that Obama didn’t get hurt as many wanted him to be but I think he is done politically. This will slowly sink in by November. And if it does not then the voters and the political candidates are not as sophisticated as they are cracked up to in this country. What I am admiring is how tactfully Roberts skirted the obvious political implications and yet gave the people an out if they can take it. IT IS A FUCKING TAX ON THE MIDDLE CLASS. The penalty, er.. tax can’t be too high and people would rather pay the penalty than buy insurance and insurance companies may actually go broke over paying for all the people with pre-existing conditions. Wonder if the insurance companies will now give money to Romney to repeal it.

    I was going to quote this quote from Roberts but I see that Althouse has a post on it:

    “It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”
    That’s the quote from Roberts’ opinion that he extracted up front as he began the announcement of the opinion today.

    It is not the job of the supreme court to save people from their stupid choices. If it is a true democracy, go to the polls and elect the right guy (or gal). Find out what is going on — we all did in 2008.

  156. Sponsored ByBeltway Confidential

    Nancy Pelosi: I want justice for whatshisname

    In a speech on the House floor just now arguing against the contempt vote for Attorney General Eric Holder over the Fast and Furious probe, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., claimed that while she was urging her Democratic colleagues to vote against the resolution, they were all nevertheless firmly behind the effort to get justice for the family of slain federal agent Brian Terry.

    It would have seemed more sincere and authentic had Pelosi not mispronounced his name on the House floor, initially calling him what sounded like “Brian Taylor” before correcting herself.

    53 minute mark

    http://www.c-span.org/Events/Full-House-Votes-on-Contempt-Charges-Against-Atty-Gen-Holder/10737431952-1/

    UPDATE: The video is here. Pelosi stumbles over Terry’s name at the 53 minute mark.


  157. “”If a mandate was the solution, we could try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody buy a house. The reason they don’t have a house is they don’t have the money.””

    Pathological Liar.

  158. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/obama-topic-mandates

    “Earlier, we presented a slightly more idealistic, slightly less gray, slightly less mathematically challenged version of the president talking to ABC’s George Stephanopolous on the topic of whether or not the Affordable Care Act should be treated as tax. Obama said “I absolutely reject that notion”. The Supreme Court, however, whether with a last minute change of heart by Chief Justice Roberts for whatever reasons, or not, disagreed in what ended up being a shocking hail mary effort, and essentially said that Obama’s entire spin campaign of Obamacare as ‘not a tax’ is wrong, in the process making Obamacare constitutional but also making it the largest tax increase in the history of the US. We are eagerly looking for the CBO’s scoring of how the ACA will impact the parabolic charts of projected future US deficit and debt. In the meantime, once again looking back in time, we present an even younger version of the president, all the way back in 2008, sharing his thoughts on the now so very crucial topic of mandates. To wit: “If a mandate was the solution, we could try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody buy a house. The reason they don’t have a house is they don’t have the money.” He is right. Hopefully, this rather insightful allegory into cause and effect from 4 years ago is not a preamble into what the SCOTUS may have just unleashed with the imminent arrival of the Affordable Housing Act.”

  159. S
    June 28th, 2012 at 8:25 pm

    My husband after the ruling said he is laying off 10 employees and outsourcing, you can multiply that by the thousands and take that to the bank.

  160. gonzotx
    June 28th, 2012 at 8:35 pm

    I’ve heard the same thing this morning after the rulling from several business collegues. They are getting rid of their healthplan, dumping them on the exchange and will be outsourcing. Revenues are down, and there’s a hostile federal govt OTurd intent on driving businesses out of business.

  161. pm317
    June 28th, 2012 at 8:29 pm

    And if it does not then the voters and the political candidates are not as sophisticated as they are cracked up to in this country.
    ************************

    pm317…they are not…they are going to need a lot of help and “educating”…that is why MR and all his crew are going to have to SPELL it out…

    they should start showing the costs…and all the HIDDEN COSTS…all the unrelated things they did to find the money for this monstrosity…

    (ex )http://www.realtor.org/small_business_health_coverage.nsf/docfiles/government_affairs_invest_inc_tax_broch.pdf/$FILE/government_affairs_invest_inc_tax_broch.pdf

    and the panels that have no oversight that will be dictating healt care, etc

    bottom line…this freaking thing is so INTRUSIVE into our personal lives…and again…all controlled by the IRS…people have no idea the new world order we are walking into…

  162. This absolutely depresses me, but I’m at the point, let this accelerate the fiscal insanity, its all headed that way anyways, let it accelerate and maybe then people will wake up. The Consitution is treated like a piece of trash, freedoms are taken away one by one now, out in the open, slowly. Boiling a frog theory. The people I feel saddest for is the next generation.

  163. gonzotx
    June 28th, 2012 at 8:35 pm
    S
    June 28th, 2012 at 8:25 pm

    *******************

    I hear you gonzotx…and I agree…let’s hope MR get down to business and specifics so people will begin to understand this theft from us to the drug and insurance companies…forget the holistic life style…the drugs companies are here to enslave us forever…

  164. So what do Joe Manchin(I don’t think he did vote for this), Claire Mcakill, Jon Tester, any of these idiots who voted for this crap say now? There constituents hate this PO$, where are there statements??

  165. pm317@8:29PM

    I agree completely. Despite all of the spin, this is certainly not a victory for the Fraud and was definitely not the result he craved. He wanted to win it with the Commerce Clause, not with the stigma of the largest tax increase ever. This tax-hike will be a major campaign issue as the CBO will now have to re-score the bill from that perspective (as was mentioned in a previous comment). When you come right down to it, are any votes going to change because of this ruling? Those who support the Fraud would vote for him even if it was struck down. And nothing fires up the Republicans like a tax-hike issue. Roberts was clever in saying “Uh, you can’t get away with not calling this a tax.”

    Now is not the time to sulk; now is the time to start working for Romney and every Congressman and Senator up for re-election who can get rid of the Fraud and give control of congress to the Republicans. Repeal is the cleanest way to get rid of this mess and always was.

  166. I give up I’m beyond depressed, it’s just one disappoint after another, Mittens was weak when he came out today after the ruling, I was stunned, sat there looking at the TV thinking to myself that’s it thats all he’s got. I’m sorry but we have four more years of BS to look forward to, and years of dealing with the liberal left because of the nominations he will make in the next few yearsc to the supreme court. To those of you who are saying Roberts was brilliant, wake up, he sold the conservatives up the river. I’m leaving the country tomorrow for vacation, I’m tuning out, I’ve had enough.

  167. So Ct said it was a tax for one ruling and not a tax for another ruling. This country is done as a republic. These people are just making it up as they go along.

    The AntiInjuction Act prohibits courts from reviewing taxes until after the tax is actuallypaid and then you can seek a refund. So, Justice Roberts held it was not a tax for purposes of the the AntiInjuction Act. Then proceeded to hold it was a tax for purposes of its constitutionalittyy.

    The republic is really done, there are now no limitations on the federal govt, 234 years ago people wanted freedom from a tryanny, now we have another bunch of people who want what the British wanted 234 years ago, to rule people with no bounds.

  168. Well, if Roberts had ruled against it, Obama would have had a fantastic political issue to run on with the independents. Now he does not. He can’t even gloat about this victory because now it has been branded a tax.

  169. “It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”

    I repeat my previous post. This WAS a political move by Roberts. By IGNORING the obamacare as written and passed and REWRITING it so it would be constitutional he deprived the people of their proper congressional representation because many congress critters would NOT have signed on to the bill had it been couched in language indicating it was a tax.

    They were duped and as a result the people they represent were also duped. Of course, the congress people who signed on to it were also stupid but that goes without saying. I don’t doubt many dems will now be on the ropes if they’re up for reelection but not BO. But it’s too late for the people to have a real say in the decision.

    Semantics matters.

  170. But how is it SCOTUS’ responsibility if stupid congress critters got duped and signed it? It is not their job to pass judgement on those critters’ morality.

  171. Take it to the election is what he is saying. At least he gave you a big win by calling it a Tax which in fact what it is.

  172. Roberts through conservatives under the bus. This was nothing more than his desire
    to be remembered by liberal scholars as the voice of reason on an otherwise partisan
    court. The ramifications of this decision will effect our nation for generations to come.
    We can all put on brave faces, but let’s be honest with ourselves, this was a bad day for our cause. I hold out very little hope for Romney. As stated above,
    somehow Obama always seems to get what he wants. Call it luck, dirty
    politics, or an otherwise conservative justice going against every conservative
    principle, but this is one fortunate President considering the mess this country is in.

  173. Any one who promoted Mittens as the nominee now has a responsibility to pressure him to perform; milquetoast will not cut it. For the naysayers about Roberts’ ruling; get a grip! Remember the Alinsky rules that the other side has used against us since 2007? Well it is the darkest hour right before we WIN! Get off your high horses and kick some serious butt; for every man and woman of voting age is needed for the citizenry to REPEAL this debacle. That is what Roberts did; made it imperative that America wakes up and uses the system to get rid of legilation that they do not approve of or is bad.

    It is this very ruling that will cause the middle class, and should cause everyone else, to get as mad as hell and refuse to take it anymore; notwithstanding the thievery,thuggery, and lying that will occur on the Dimocrats’ part that will be the burden of former Democrats to counter….even greater than what we witnessed in 2007 and 2008. This should light a fire under the asses of Republicans, Independents, and just plain old good folks of every stripe.

    Us southerners had it right about the government from the git go; can’t trust them. The plain folks of America understand TAX INCREASES and being LIED TO and the IRS……….oh yeah, the IRS. The Tax Man Cometh. Spread the word and solicit voter registration and voting. Every vote counts. We need five votes for Romney to counter all those illegal ones for the Dimocrats.

    What upsets me are all the Eeyores as the You Know Who liked to call them.

  174. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theanchoress/2012/06/28/did-roberts-just-give-obama-the-bird/

    People don’t seem to realize that Roberts’ decision has essentially, in an election year, handed this issue back to the voters, where it belongs, while also giving the legislature some room to maneuver. Obamacare was rammed through against the wishes of the majority. Now, the majority can unram it or solidify it, as it chooses, but at least what happens now will happen with the consent of the governed. Bottom line: System worked, Roberts worked it.

    I get the sense that some are unable to see any victory that does not come with a stark pronouncement made at the bang of a gavel. But we ought not to consider court rulings as an optimal form of representation.

    I’m not saying Roberts has applied a political calculus to his opinion. Perhaps he has just answered those threats in a creative way. Giving him the bird, so to speak.

    Read the rest. It will give you hope.

  175. pm317
    June 28th, 2012 at 9:48 pm

    Quiet honestly, I agree with an earlier poster, I’m beyond depressed. Roberts essentially rewrote the law, it was argued as a mandate, not a tax. He could have killed the awful piece of crap right here and now. And instead this will drag out.
    There is really no limits now, nothing to stop the lunatic dems, this was never about healtcare or the poor, it was about control and power. Next, they’ll want to regulate the doctors. There is no limits anymore, anything the Congress wants to pass, they can, and say its a tax, even inactivity.

  176. A quick thought. Since the Court ruled this is a “tax”, does that make all the waivers now null and void?

    Only Congress can pass tax breaks, not the Executive branch. Also, this is a direct tax since it is being collected by the IRS.

    That means HHS via Obama dictate does not have the authority to grant tax breaks.

    I emailed my Congressman about this. I hope I get a response.

  177. Ladies and Gentlemen,

    We have a tyrant in the White House. It will become more and more clear to the people as we approach November. The tyrant will lose. Don’t you think that people will now start tuning into what is going on? There will be plenty of Pro-Romney ads pointing out the lies of Obama. It also up to all anti-Obama people to pass on to whomever may listen what a crappy piece of legislation this is, and how most everyone is on the hook for it. BIG new taxes passed during an election year with economic woes unseen since the Great Depression spell disaster for the Once in office. I hate how this went down, but there are signs that CJ Roberts was trying to steer a center course that gives the opposition plenty of ammo to use against Obama. If they can’t use it successfully, then they don’t deserve to win.

  178. I plan on calling Manchin’s office and Jon Tester’s office and ask them, will they continue to support this massive tax after OTurd said it was not a tax?

  179. It is SCOTUS responsibility for deliberately and willfully misrepresenting the content of a law in order to save it, deem it constitutional and allow it to stand.

    It is judicial activism on steroids and it is a horrible blow to the constitution IMHO.

  180. I wonder how many millions will not comply? I know of several people who do not have insurance, and have no intentions of buying it, so is the IRS going to come arrest them? I know these people will not comply and refuse to pay a tax for just sitting there and doing nothing.

  181. Yay, jbstonesfan! I was thinking about contacting the local tea party group to see how I may involve myself to defeat Obama. I have never done that before, but I am feeling motivated now.

  182. tim
    June 28th, 2012 at 9:55 pm
    ———————-

    If nothing else, embrace the rhetoric that Roberts has opened the door to and tell 10 different people that it is a middle class TAX.

  183. ” . . if stupid congress critters got duped and signed it?”

    Let me rephrase my comment. The congress was LIED to, deliberately, by BO, Pelosi, Reid and others. They called the funding mechanism a penalty. They did everything possible not to call it a tax because they wanted to avoid political fallout. The definitions of penalty and tax are different. Congress agreed to the bill with, of course, no republicans signing on to it, plenty of backroom deals like the Cornhusker Kickback and a Christmas Eve vote assured by the congressional leadership and BO that it was a penalty.

    THEN, when it seemed the penalty was not constitutional, the administration reluctantly argued that never mind, the penalty was really a tax.

    This is pure unadulterated BS. It is lies, obfuscation and approaches the level of the WH security leaks – a deliberate withholding or airing of info to solidify power. It is contemptible. And the SCOTUS enabled this horrible tactic.

    LIES are not acceptable.

  184. In a word – yes. A veritable army of IRS agents has been hired just for that. Having had five years of unpleasant experience with the state and federal tax agencies I know they are capable of anything.

  185. my 2 cents, I will never ever believe this $hit is consitutional. A govt cannot force a person to buy something and then tax them for not buying it. Just because 5 people’s opinion on a panel said its “constitutional” doesn’t mean crap, so, they’re fine if 1 year from now, Pelosi and her lunatic minions says I have to buy botox or else I have to pay a “tax”?

    Even the British didn’t go this far, they just wanted to raise taxes on tea, they weren’t taxing the colonists for not buying tea.

  186. @basil99: And the SCOTUS enabled this horrible tactic.

    ———–
    I am not being argumentative. But how did the SCOTUS enable that? If nothing else, Roberts convinced the liberals to go along with him to call it what it is, a TAX. It is not his job to point out how flawed the bill is. Neither is it his job to save us or congress critters from being lied to. Vote the bums out, that is our job.

  187. nomobama
    June 28th, 2012 at 10:13 pm

    yep, the several people I know have no intention of buying it or paying the penalty, even if turbo tax tells them so, I asked them today, and they said, if the tool says they owe $500 in taxes, $100 being the penalty for having Health insurance, they will pay only $400 in taxes, they have already said, not happening.

  188. Romney Money Bomb: $2.8 Million $3.2 Million
    —CAC

    And climbing.

    If you haven’t yet, you know what to do…

    Oh, and we need the Senate too:
    MA-SENATE (Current hold, leans R, most vulnerable seat for us) DONATE
    VA-SENATE DONATE
    OH-SENATE DONATE
    FL-SENATE DONATE
    ND-SENATE DONATE
    MT-SENATE DONATE
    NM-SENATE DONATE

    MO, WI go to whomever you wish.

    Nebraska is going to Deb. We need 4 more (as of right now, i see ND, MT, MO–>R as well but all are very close (well, maybe not Missouri); WI if a particular candidate wins. But why stop there?
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    He needs a voice coach too! Maybe Christie will lend him his!

  189. Even the British didn’t go this far, they just wanted to raise taxes on tea, they weren’t taxing the colonists for not buying tea.

    ===================

    LOL, very good!

  190. I think folks that think we can work our buns off and get votes for a Republican win to overturn Baracko is unaware of where many of us live. I live in ObamaLand, about 95% obots where I work and live. I have lost many obot friends since 2008 because I have spoken out against Barry. At best, in these past years I have turned at best 4 or 5 voters, and the best I can do beyong that is not remind the others to vote.

    That’s reality.

    Roberts isn’t a brillant double agent, he talked about the courts not having the responsibility to protect voters from a bad law because he knew conservatives were going to blame him for this decision.

    I would love to believe that this rulling was great for a Republican win, but it just means they will have to get their $hit together and become united like they did in 2010.

  191. Basil, you comments ring true. Now, don’t you think others, even those who might have been agreeable to another term for Obama, will have similar concerns. The anti-Obama politic has to hammer on this now through election day. People need to hear and understand what has happened here. Eyes will open for many. I just believe it, but work needs to be done to make it happen. For me, prayer will be part of my response. You can all snicker about that if you want, but I find that it works for me.

  192. Not sure if any read Gingsberg’s words, I used to respect this woman’s legal acumen, but no more, she does not sound that smart. She refers to the MA plan and how good it is as a basis for voting for this law. How the hell is it her job to decide policy?? She’s supposed to be a judge, just judge the damn bill, not decide whether its good policy or not!

  193. “For me, prayer will be part of my response. You can all snicker about that if you want, but I find that it works for me.”

    nomobama, nothing to snicker about prayers, they have a very calming and peaceful effect.

  194. Not encouraging…Redstate
    ********************

    Hold Mitch McConnell To His Word

    Posted by Erick Erickson (Diary)
    Thursday, June 28th at 5:09PM EDT

    In February, Mitch McConnell told Senate Republicans he would not bring up any votes on Obamacare repeal.

    On March 1, 2012, the Senate considered Senator Roy Blunt’s amendment to the Senate version of the highway bill. It was the only amendment the Senate GOP offered.

    On its surface, it was a good amendment. It would allow religious employers to opt out of the new Obamacare mandate on contraception and abortifacient drugs. But strategically, it is another lame effort by Senator Mitch McConnell to let Senate Democrats in swing states absolve themselves of any blame for what Barack Obama has done.

    Consider the alternative. There is another amendment Senator McConnell expressly refused to bring up that week as an alternative — an amendment by Senator Jim DeMint for full repeal of Obamacare.

    “Wait,” you say, “It’d never pass.” True. But neither did Roy Blunt’s and they knew it going into the vote.

    At the time, McConnell’s loyal lieutenants went on record that McConnell did not want to anger Harry Reid with Obamacare votes.

    The outrage over McConnell’s refusal to bring up the DeMint amendment caused McConnell to promise several outside groups he would dedicate an entire month, the month of March, to efforts to repeal Obamacare and get Democrats on the record.

    He did not keep his word.

    Now it is time for him to do so.

    There are a number of close Senate races with incumbent, endangered Democrats. It is time to put them back on record on whether or not they support the most massive tax increase in American history.

    It is time for Mitch McConnell to keep his word.

  195. I’m still going with this ruling is a major help for Mitt. His pledge to repeal Obamacare was, IMO, blowing smoke since the chances of getting 60 votes for cloture, even with a R. Senate, were very small. Now a majority with do it. Obama threatened veto also works for Mitt.

  196. Some legal guy, ( sorry, I don’t remember who he was, he was one of the guys that pushed this HellCare bill on to the Supremes). He explained to Greta that the Medicare mandate that was deemed unconstitutional would allow any state to opt out of BarryCare. He said uninsured folks in that state would be in the same situation they are in right now.

    How could the bill pay for itself if a number of states opt out? Will they just keep raising taxes to pay for it?

  197. gonzotx
    June 28th, 2012 at 10:38 pm

    He needs a voice coach too! Maybe Christie will lend him his!

    * * *

    Well, Romney needs that and more. But what he really needs is a healthcare point man – one
    who will go against obamacare day in and day out, going around the country and taking it to the media and Dems
    from now until election day; someone who knows healthcare policy, history, economics, and so on.

    And I have just the man for ya. Newt is a health care expert, knows that stuff inside out and upside down.
    Romney should announce this week that Newt will be his point man on obamacare repeal and that he will
    guide the repeal strategy. And then let him loose.

  198. JBStonesfan@9:48PM

    “I am signing up tomorrow to volunteer for Romney at his Boca headquarters.”

    A sensible, commendable move. Personally, I will be working for both Romney and George Allen here in Virginia, a pivotal swing state. Funny, I hated George Allen when he was Governor, Senator, and Representative and was happy to see him beaten by Webb in 2006. But now ….

  199. ecoast

    I agree that Mitt needs to have a specific plan for health care replacement, but if you want him to convince Democrats to vote for him, you need to find someone that Dems will at least listen to from the get go.
    Newt might be good for Republicans and conservatives but not the best choice for left of center voters.

  200. Other than Hillary who is the most qualified, Mitt is well qualified to write a revised health care plan. After all he has written one before as a Gov, and he knows the pitfalls. You re-elect O, and you get the same old Shit as the man refuses to learn.

  201. Sarah Palin 3 days ago…

    As we wait for the impending Supreme Court decision on Obamacare, I reiterate what I wrote in my first post on this topic nearly three years ago. I stand by everything I wrote in that warning to my fellow Americans because what was true then is true now, and it will remain true as we hear what the Supreme Court has to say.

    It was a pretty long post, but a lot of people seem to have only read two words of it: “death panel.” Though I was called a liar for calling it like it is, many of these accusers finally saw that Obamacare did in fact create a panel of faceless bureaucrats who have the power to make life and death decisions about health care funding. It’s called the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), and its purpose all along has been to “keep costs down” by actually denying care via price controls and typically inefficient bureaucracy. This subjective rationing of care is what I was writing about in that first post:

    The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.

    Health care by definition involves life and death decisions. Human rights and human dignity must be at the center of any health care discussion.

    Rep. Michele Bachmann highlighted the Orwellian thinking of the president’s health care advisor, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of the White House chief of staff, in a floor speech to the House of Representatives. I commend her for being a voice for the most precious members of our society, our children and our seniors.

    We must step up and engage in this most crucial debate. Nationalizing our health care system is a point of no return for government interference in the lives of its citizens. If we go down this path, there will be no turning back. Ronald Reagan once wrote, “Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth.” Let’s stop and think and make our voices heard before it’s too late.

    If the Supreme Court doesn’t strike down Obamacare entirely, then Congress must act to repeal IPAB and Obamacare before it is indeed “too late.” All of Obamacare must go one way or another. 

    – Sarah Palin

  202. SC Representative Trey Gowdy for Vice President with Mitt Romney!!!! I just heard his impassioned speech before Congress today on Holder’s contempt hearing and he is a VERY powerful speaker. He is absolutely outstanding and I am glued to every word that comes out of his mouth. It helps that he’s attractive as well.

  203. You know, one solution to this Obamacare tax, and its a solution that I’m sure many people will adopt, is to stop filing income tax returns.

    There are already many people who do not file returns, and the IRS only has a limited staff to track down people who pay a lot one year and don’t pay anything the next – big earners with a permanent address.

    The little guys aren’t worth the trouble, especially in today’s context where people are losing their jobs and changing their address by being foreclosed or moving to another state.

  204. Then that would mean everyone else costs would go up to recoup that loss, they ain’t that stupid. The whole thing should not be there.

  205. Yesterday’s judgement is mind boggling to me. I do not know whether Roberts is brilliant or just stupid. Courts generally look at the intent of the legislature in enacting a bill. Here the congress clearly intended it to be a mandate (penalty) and not the tax. Here in an evenly divided court, one guy basically comes out and say let us pass this, change the intent of the legislature and it makes it legal.

    Brilliant or not, he gave O a pyrrhic victory depriving him all campaign issues. He can not rally his troops saying that” Elect me or else Sc takes away all his rights” or he can not campaign on Obama Hellcare because he does not want to say he increased taxes on middle class.

    In essence, Mitt Romney is handed all the help he needed to win this election and I am hopeful that this helps in boosting his chances over O.

    As some pointed out, a cursory reading of Scalia’s dissent gives an impression that it was originally written as the judgement and some how Roberts changed his mind and joined the liberals. Was it a calculated political move? I do not know, but if so, it was a brilliant move as Admn and others explained

  206. as i said before, dressing up the ruling as a wolf in sheeps clothing would be about right, the dems think the ruling was great until they actually at what is at the heart of it, when they do that with a clear head, they will see what a shit hand Roberts has dealt them.

  207. DID ROBERTS GIVE IN TO OBAMA’S BULLYING? From Breitbart

    As legal scholars study the Supreme Court’s decision in the Obamacare case, more and more are concluding that Justice Anthony Kennedy’s dissenting opinion, striking down the law in its entirety, was once the majority opinion–and that Chief Justice John Roberts switched his vote at a late stage. If so, it would appear that the Chief Justice may have succumbed to the bullying meted out by President Barack Obama, who attacked the Court in the aftermath of oral arguments in March, when Obamacare seemed headed for certain defeat.

    Read more
    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/28/Did-Roberts-Give-in-to-Obama-Bullying

  208. Good Morning all.

    I’m still sick to my stomach about all this, a govt forcing a citizen to buy something or else get fined by the IRS and go to jail, that is massively well beyond anything this country was founded on, people are going to suffer, especially the very middle class. I honestly could not sleep. I’m going to take others advise, I think me and my wife and maybe my SIL also will be volunteering for Romney, donating may not be enough anymore, now that I have all this free time, I’ll go volunteer at their offices.

    Here is Ulterman’s latest, I wish I could see his POV on how this is a good thing to oust OTurd, I just don’t see that way, yet at least…

    http://theulstermanreport.com/2012/06/28/white-house-insider-obamacare-now-we-are-truly-ready-to-fight/

  209. And I still firmly believe, you will have millions upon millions of people who will not pay a fine for not buying a private product. Is the IRS going to come arrest all of them?

  210. I read in several places, that because this is now considered a tax, you only need 51 senators to overturn it, reconcialtion can be used, since its a budgetary matter with a simple majority. The dimocrats used reconcialtion to ram this through, when clearly it was not being defined at that time, so nothing new there, Pelosi and her ilk lied to the American people.

  211. God Obama really knows how to raise money for Romney.

    Fundraising update for #FullRepeal: 42k+ donations, $4.2 million raised online for @MittRomney since scotus decision.

  212. The Romney campaign says they’ve raised $4.2 million online in 20hrs since Scotus decision to uphold ACA.

  213. http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/235551-romney-campaign-reports-42m-raised-off-healthcare-ruling-

    Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign has raised $4.2 million since the Supreme Court ruled the healthcare reform legislation constitutional, his press secretary reported in a tweet on Friday morning.

    Romney responded to the ruling by renewing his pledge to repeal the Affordable Care Act known as “Obamacare.”

    He wrote in a fundraising email to supporters on Thursday: “Today, the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare. But regardless of what the Court said about the constitutionality of the law, Obamacare is bad medicine, it is bad policy, and when I’m President, the bad news of Obamacare will be over.”

  214. Obamacare Ruling is Judicial Activism of the most Pernicious Sort

    FWIW, While Roberts may have exhibited “brilliance” in crafting the SC decision I personally find the tactics used abhorrent.

    Had the court ruled the (former) mandate unconstitutional as written and thrown it back to congress for reconsideration that would have been one thing and I would support that.

    But to simply gut the law’s original foundation to transform it (at BO’s advantage) into something that was then constitutionally palatable makes me see red.

    It’s true this might backfire on BO and provide headwinds to the opposition but that is not the point.

    Here’s a post which I think makes it most convincingly.

    Obamacare ruling is judicial activism of the most pernicious sort
    By Jim Huffman

    Law Professor, Lewis & Clark Law School

    The Supreme Court’s validation of the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) individual mandate. . . . it is judicial activism of the most pernicious sort.

    Writing for a five-justice majority, Chief Justice Roberts held that the requirement that individuals purchase health insurance or pay a penalty is within Congress’s constitutional power to tax. He reached this conclusion notwithstanding that President Obama and ACA supporters in Congress have repeatedly insisted that it is not a tax.

    Why is this judicial activism? Because, by converting into a tax what Congress enacted as a regulation, the court has effectively legislated. It has made possible through judicial decision what Congress chose not to do, and probably could not have done, through the legislative process.

    The rationale for the chief justice’s willingness to uphold the mandate as a tax is that the court should, if possible, defer to Congress by searching the Constitution for any plausible source of authority. There is ample precedent for this posture of judicial deference, but it is misguided in this case for reasons Justice Kennedy underscored during oral argument.
    *****************************************************>
    Few would disagree that Congress has the power to tax for the purpose of providing health care to the uninsured or as a means of encouraging individuals to purchase health insurance. But that is not what Congress did. In the name of deference to Congress, the Supreme Court has transformed what was enacted as a penalty under the Commerce Clause into a tax under the taxation power.

    But if Congress had purported, at the time, to be imposing a tax on individuals who fail to purchase health insurance, the politics would have been very different. Indeed, it is unlikely the measure would have been approved as a tax. That is why the president insisted that it is not a tax and why Congress abandoned proposals to encourage purchase of insurance by imposition of a tax.

    Taxes are not politically popular. Just ask the thousands of school districts that have failed to get voter approval for new taxes. Or consider why local governments have introduced all manner of charges and fees rather than seek tax increases. It is far easier to enact regulations than it is to impose taxes. The Supreme Court has effectively relieved Congress of the political burden of calling a spade a spade — calling a tax a tax.

    http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/28/obamacare-ruling-is-judicial-activism-of-the-most-pernicious-sort/2/

  215. moononpluto
    June 29th, 2012 at 7:53 am

    Do you have a link? I read somewhere he’s raised close to $4 million since yesterday but I can’t find moneybomb stats.

  216. nomobama
    June 28th, 2012 at 10:43 pm

    Basil, you comments ring true. Now, don’t you think others, even those who might have been agreeable to another term for Obama, will have similar concerns.

    I fervently hope so! And, FYI, I am considering to donating to MR now.

    Tim,

    Prayer sure can’t hurt. 😉

  217. THIS is another reason I am aghast at the SC ruling. Orwell was astonishingly predictive.

    “And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed
    –if all records told the same tale–then the lie passed into
    history and became truth. “Who controls the past,” ran the
    Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present
    controls the past.”…George Orwell, “1984″

    Obama a liar. Obamacare is a tax. Obama lied about tax increases.

    As Palin said, Obama lied, freedom died. (for today)

  218. The choice is now Romney or Obama with his agenda and 4 years of unchecked executive orders and signings with no re-election to worry about, it would be a huge nightmare, you what he’s capable of with holder, the EP, the EO’s on immigration, imagine that times 100 with no restraint.

  219. From the Stephanopoulos interview. (2009?)

    Stephanopoulos: “Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money and fining them if they don’t. How is that not a tax increase?”

    OBAMA: No, tha-tha-that’s not true, George. Eh, for us to say that you’ve gotta take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it’s saying is is that we’re not gonna have other people carrying your burdens for you, any more than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase. People say to themselves, “That is a fair way to make sure that if you hit my car, that I’m not covering all the costs.”

    RUSH: Stephanopoulos then said, “Well, it may be fair, and it may be good public policy, but for you to say that this isn’t a tax. This just…”

    OBAMA: No, no. B-b-but George y-y-y-you can’t just make up that language and decide that that’s called a tax increase.

    STEPHANOPOULOS: I don’t think I’m making it up. Merriam-Webster Dictionary: “Tax: A charge, usually of money, imposed by authority –

    OBAMA: (snickering)

    STEPHANOPOULOS: — on persons or property for public purposes.”

    OBAMA: George, the fact that you looked up Miriam’s dictionary (sic), the definition of tax increase indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now. Otherwise you wouldn’ta gone to the dictionary to check on the definition! I mean –

    STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, no.

    OBAMA: If — if what you’re saying is –

    STEPHANOPOULOS: I wanted to check for myself, but your critics say it is a tax increase.

    OBAMA: My critics say everything’s a tax increase! My critics say that I’m taking over, uhh, every sector of the economy. You know that! Uh, eh, eh… Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we’re gonna have an individual mandate or not but –

    STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it’s a tax increase?

    OBAMA: I absolutely reject that notion.”

  220. This is pretty good and quite clear, this is bad for Obama.

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_scott_rasmussen/supreme_court_keeps_health_care_law_on_life_support

    The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision that President Obama’s health care law is constitutional keeps it alive for now. But it’s important to remember that the law has already lost in the court of public opinion. The Supreme Court ruling is a temporary reprieve more than anything else.

    In March, I wrote that the health care law was doomed even if it survived the court. Looking at the data today, it’s hard to draw any other conclusion.

    Fifty-four percent of voters nationwide still want to see the law repealed. That’s going to be a heavy burden for the Obama campaign to bear.

    It’s hard to believe that public opinion will change between now and Election Day because opinion on the law hasn’t budged in two years. In fact, support for repeal now is exactly the same as it was when the law first passed.

    Consistently, for the past two years, most voters have expressed the view that the law will hurt the quality of care, increase the cost of care and increase the federal deficit.

    As a result, the fact that the law remains in place may end up hurting the president’s chances for re-election more than helping them. It gives Mitt Romney another easy target and one that can be tied directly into concerns about the economy.

    If Romney wins, there is virtually no chance the existing health care law will survive.

    If the president is re-elected, the law has a better chance of surviving, but it would still face an uphill struggle. Legislative battles to protect the law would most likely dominate his second term.

    To understand why, keep in mind that most Americans initially supported the concept of health care reform because they wanted the cost of care to be reduced. But only 18 percent believe the current law will accomplish that goal. A massive 81 percent also believe it will end up costing the government more than projected.

    The president believes that government regulation can control the cost of care, but most voters disagree. Voters think that consumer choice and competition between insurance companies will do more to reduce costs than additional regulations.

    Individual Americans recognize that they have more power as consumers than they do as voters. Their choices in a free market give them more control over the economic world than choosing one politician or another.

    Seventy-six percent think they should have the right to choose between expensive insurance plans with low deductibles and low-cost plans with higher deductibles. A similar majority believes everyone should be allowed to choose between expensive plans that cover just about every imaginable medical procedure and lower-cost plans that cover a smaller number of procedures. All such choices would be banned under the current health care law.

    Americans want to be empowered as health care consumers. They don’t want the government telling them what to do.

    The president and his colleagues in Congress thought the battle for their health care plan ended in March 2010. Romney and many Republicans thought it might end in the Supreme Court before Election 2012 really took off.

    Now, we recognize that the battle for the president’s health care plan is just beginning.

  221. nomobama
    June 28th, 2012 at 10:43 pm
    For me, prayer will be part of my response. You can all snicker about that if you want, but I find that it works for me.
    _____________________________________________________

    Only those so stupid as to believe there are none wiser would snicker. I’m with ya bro.

  222. THIS.

    A new precedent has been set for congress to file any bill and disguise it other than a tax and pass it under false pretenses then have the SC ride to the rescue and say, after the bill has been signed off on, that, never mind, it’s really a tax and congress has the right to pass taxes.

    According to the SC ruling congress apparently has the right to pass taxes under the guise of passing something else – a mandate or a penalty.

    That means the language can’t be trusted, the definitions of words have changed, and there’s not a thing we can do about it except try to vote the regime out.

    Good luck with that. With the Scytl company of Spain in charge of our voting machines, with the graft and thuggery associated with the Chicago Way, I am not optimistic.

    According to the ruling we can now be taxed for NOT doing anything from NOT exercising to NOT watching a particular TV show to NOT buying a specific car to NOT donating to the BO election – OK that’s a stretch but after yesterday’s ruling you never know what is now possible.

    I will donate to MR and pray for the best but IMHO the SC just handed the regime unlimited power.

  223. moononpluto
    June 29th, 2012 at 8:30 am

    Good article but its optimism is predicated on the assumption Americans votes will actually be fairly counted. I am not so sure of that.

  224. Did Roberts switch his vote at the last minute?

    Did conservative justices wrote their opinion as the “Majority”, and the liberal justices write theirs as the dissenting?

  225. Axelrod on ruling: ‘A victory 4 ppl all over this country’

    really……….last time i looked, the majority did not want it. So think on.

  226. Right on cue, here’s the first GOP ad using the rerun of “read my lips!” Sorry if this has already been posted.

  227. democrat1
    June 29th, 2012 at 6:19 am
    Yesterday’s judgement is mind boggling to me I do not know whether Roberts is brilliant or just stupid. Courts generally look at the intent of the legislature in enacting a bill.
    **********

    Not brillant, just wants his social peers to write well of him. He is weak, so weak, we had no idea.
    *************

    from ACE
    *****

    . I do not know whether Roberts is brilliant or juI was just reading a bit about the making of The Good, the Bad, and The Ugly. Sergio Leone included a brutal Union prison camp; he noted that there was a lot written about the Confederates’ brutal prison camps (like Andersonville) but nothing about the Unions’ similar camps. The winners, he noted, don’t get written about that way.

    Roberts has aligned himself with the elites, who he supposes will be the Winners, and will thus have the final say in the history books about him. And he’s probably right that they will have the final say: Conservatives simply do not have much sway at all in some of the most critical institutions in America. And we’ll continue paying a high price for that until we change that.

    Politics is culture, and culture is politics. Until we claw into a position of near parity in the academic, legal, and media guilds, the liberals will continue to have the power of declaring who are heroes and who are villains.

    And weak men like John Roberts will continue kowtowing to their judgments.st stupid. Courts generally look at the intent of the legislature in enacting a bill.
    *************

    Not brillant, just wants his social peers to write well of him. He is weak, so weak, we had no idea.

    from ACE

  228. This healthcare crap is a perfect picture of what the left has become. An authoritarian movement intent on de-legitimizing all opposition as subhuman, violent, and psychologically damaged. Then they attack in the most vicious, nasty ways I have ever seen in my life, because, see, conservatives are not actually human beings, they are a blight on humanity, so it’s ok.

    The filth flowing out of the mouths of the left after this SCOTUS ruling has been breathtaking. N*gger and cunt and retard babies and shoving molotov cocktails up asses. Democratic OFFICIALS have felt free to spout off “bitches and motherfuckers.”
    This is beyond policy now, for me. I have always been, and remain, a somewhat moderate centrist policy-wise.

    But that’s irrelevant now. Because the left in this country has demonstrated what they will do with power. No matter what liberal policies they espouse, no matter what they claim to believe, it’s all expendable if only they can grab some power and be lords of the fucking universe and crush underfoot any dissenters. What they are “about” is raw, naked power, that THEY and they alone get to exercise “for your own good.”

    It’s not about policy for me. Not anymore. It’s about who I trust with power. And while I disagree with conservatives and libertarians on a lot of stuff, the worst they seem to want is leaving people alone more than I’d like. You know what? I can live wiith that, compromise with that, nudge that to provide a few more services, a lot easier than I can reason with a group of power – hungry haters who will sell out any principle and destroy all dissent to grab more power, “for the people.” I have seen them justify executive overreach, drone assassinations, abuse of legislative process, and everything else under the sun as “necessary” to “liberal” ends. They are for/against anything at all that advances their power.

    Watch what they DO. It tells you who they are. At this point, I will fight tooth and nail to keep the left far, far away from power. They are juvenile, destructive, and high on their own superiority, convinced of their ability to create a perfect utopian society if they can only fucking eliminate the pesky obstacles who disagree. Not vote out. Not win the argument. ELIMINATE the very possibility of any counter-argument being made at all.

    Are there a few assholes on the right who think that way as well? Sure. But it’s not the generally accepted view. On the left? It is the majority view anymore.

    I’ve said before that I feel like the woman in the scary movie who’s been hiding in the closet with the trusted security guard. Only to see him peel off the mask and I realize with horror he’s the serial killer.

    This isn’t about policy arguments. It’s about who I trust with power. And while I may find that the nimrods fleeing up and down the halls with me range from decent person to useless idiot, one thing is for certain. The security guard who pulled that mask back is a bigger danger than any of them.

  229. We aren’t going to get away with just refusing to purchase insurance or pay the tax. We are forgetting about the National Medical Device Registry which is included in obamacare. That requires chips be implanted in all of us by March. Ron Paul has been warning us since last year:

    http://beforeitsnews.com/story/665/502/Hidden_Obamacare_Secret:_RFID_Chip_Implants_Mandatory_for_All_by_March_23,_2013.html

    Many people probably are not yet aware of this. Won’t they be surprised!!

  230. Dems are running around in a panic going, “It’s NOT a tax! Its not its not its not!”

    I think it is beginning to dawn on them that they were handed a grenade with the pin pulled. 😀

  231. Leanora, I am surprised! I had not heard this before. Someone please tell me again how the Bible is a big fairy tale.

  232. yheitman
    June 29th, 2012 at 12:55 am

    SC Representative Trey Gowdy for Vice President with Mitt Romney!!!! I just heard his impassioned speech before Congress today on Holder’s contempt hearing and he is a VERY powerful speaker. He is absolutely outstanding and I am glued to every word that comes out of his mouth. It helps that he’s attractive as well.

    ——–

    😆

    Yup, Trey has some fans here.

  233. moononpluto
    June 29th, 2012 at 4:59 am

    Then that would mean everyone else costs would go up to recoup that loss, they ain’t that stupid. The whole thing should not be there.

    ———
    Either way, they can’t recover the loss by not expanding Medicare, where any state is now able to opt out.

    A boat load of folks refusing to pay the Tax/fine is nothing compared to only one state opting out, and many states opting out will make the new ACAHellCare Plan completely break down.

  234. HillaryforTexas,

    Your belief about the scary “left” is what I had concluded years ago, bub back then, I thought of them as people who voted for fringe parties plus some on the far left in the Democratic party. I figured maybe 20% of the Democrats were whacky left. Now, good grief! It’s lucky if there are 20% decent, sane democrats anymore.

    It’s true. The DemoRats speak from both sides of their mouths, and as a whole, they cannot be trusted. It’s classic leftism as far as I’m concerned. Obtain power through whatever means possible, then crush dissent, even within their own ranks. Once power is obtained, ensure that it is held for eternity. These people are manaical.

  235. The more I think of it, by making the expansion of Medicare unconstitutional, and states NOW ABLE to OPT OUT…the ACA is finished, broken before it exists.

    There are not enough future taxes/fines/penalties collected by the IRS to make it work.

    ——–
    And hark, my son who wants to believe in Barry but knows he is worthless posted this cartoon on FB….maybe the young voters are starting to see the light.

    http://www.solidprinciples.com/blog/political-cartoons-14/

  236. nomobama, same boat here. The loony commies and authoritarians were always a fringe in the Dem party. Tolerated, but not well-liked. I knew they were there, but not important. Now? They OWN the party.

  237. I’m glad that dims are in a panic realizing they now have to defend OC as a tax but that does not mitigate what the SC did yesterday which borders on fraud and deprived the American People of due process.

    Just imagine that the court had stopped with its proper determination the mandate was unacceptable under the commerce clause and the only way to authorize it was if it was declared a tax.

    The bill would have gone back to congress.

    No one thinks congress would have then passed the same bill as a tax so the court, by conjuring another basis for the consitutionality, namely the tax mechanism, legislated instead of overseeing with an impartial eye.

    On the first day of oral arguments the court asked the WH if the bill was a tax because if it was the court could not have ruled under the anti-injunction law which prevents rulings on taxes until they’re imposed. The justices also said the bill was not constitutional under the commerce clause.

    Apparently, next day the WH said OK, then it’s a tax and for some reason the justices failed to apply their previous determination they could not rule on a tax issue until taxes had been paid.

    The SC pulled BO’s butt out of the fire and spit in the eye of the entire country. Sure, the dems will suffer some heartburn over this and some will be sacrificed on the alter of OC but the law will stand and we are screwed.

    Where in the world can the American People go now for a proper adjudication of the issue? No where. The SC sided with the POS, imprisoned us in his corrupt grasp and threw away the keys.

    Can we escape? Don’t know but I DO know we should not be in this position. We should not have to fight over the unconstitutionally passed ACA and yet what is the alternative? And is there any way to be successful?

    And it is the SC that put us in this position.

  238. Good comment from HA.

    It was presented to the American people as NOT a tax to get it past the Legislative Branch and the Executive Branch. It is then morphed INTO A TAX in order for it to get past the Judicial Branch. Bait and Switch. Lawlessness. Goal seeking ruling. This literally was taxation without representation.

  239. Basil, I had a question yesterday that no one answered for me. Can a Supreme Court decision be overturned? I think probably yes, but I do not know for sure. Anyone know?

  240. The recourse, BASIL? Us. The courts won’t save us. WE have to do it. From here on out, my sole criteria for voting is “Of the choices available, who will do the most to roll back the power of the federal government?”

    That’s it. I’m done. I could care less about abortion, foreign policy, good programs, any of it. I have ONE question in evaluating viable candidates. Will they reduce or expand federal power. Anything else is far down the list for me.

  241. HillaryforTexas, I find myself receptive to some libertarian thought, and feel compelled to head in that direction, and it’s all to do with feeling the need to protect myself from government overreach. I recognize the need for government, but big government has been shown not to be my friend. I just want to be left alone for the most part. I do not want to be forced to be a part of some grand government social expirement in which I cannot be myself. Big government means massive intrusion in one’s affairs. I hate it.

  242. nomobama, I’m at the point of saying I’d rather work at the state level for any social programs etc I find desirable. The Feds have proven over and over their real interest is POWER, not solving problems.

  243. nomobama

    Shadowfax,

    Is it the expansion of Medicare or is it the expansion of Medicaid?

    ———-
    I will check for you and try and find the video from Greta’s show last night that is backing what I am saying, the only thing that gives me hope.

  244. BASIL99
    June 29th, 2012 at 1:18 pm
    ————-
    A friend and I were discussing this yesterday. This most certainly is “taxation without representation”.

  245. Nomobama – I stand corrected, it is the ruling of expanding MEDICAID for the ACA law was found unconstitutional, allowing states to opt out, and will cause (IMO) the whole bill to break down if and when states opt out.

    Here is the video of Bill McCollum, was a previous AG, and is the first lawyer to bring suit against the HellCare bill…this gives me hope.

    Admin, please imbed.

    He talks about this specific situation around 1:30 minutes:

    http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/index.html#/v/1711536211001/ex-attorney-general-war-on-obamacare-far-from-over/?playlist_id=86925

  246. Obama campaign: It’s a penalty, not a tax…

    Well that’s not what the court has said it is, if its a penalty then you cant have it, only as a tax.

    You cant have it both ways, either its a tax or it is struck down, which is it.

    ……………………………….

    A top surrogate for President Obama insisted Friday that the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act was not a tax — despite the fact that the Supreme Court narrowly preserved the law on those grounds.

    “Don’t believe the hype that the other side is selling,” Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick told reporters on a conference call.

    “This is a penalty,” Patrick said. “It’s about dealing with the freeloaders.”

    (Also on POLITICO: How to repeal the health law: A GOP recipe)

    The Supreme Court upheld the entirety of the health care law Thursday on narrow grounds, declaring that the individual mandate was legal under Congress’ taxing powers.

    In the wake of the decision, Republicans and conservatives have accused Obama of raising taxes. Radio host Rush Limbaugh called the act “nothing more than the largest tax increase in the history of the world” on Thursday.

    The White House has repeatedly insisted that the mandate is not a tax, with President Obama telling ABC in 2009 that he rejected that notion.

    But Patrick said that it was about keeping people from getting care in expensive emergency room settings rather than private care settings. Further, he said that it would affect about one to two percent of Americans.

    “By whatever name, it’s a solution,” Patrick said — still insisting that it was not a tax.

    http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/06/obama-campaign-its-a-penalty-not-a-tax-127721.html

  247. Shadowfax
    June 29th, 2012 at 1:43 pm
    —————-
    Thanks for clarifying this for everyone. That’s what I thought, and it makes a difference in the context of your original comment.

  248. Byron York explains part of the back story.

    No one knew it at the time, but the key moment in the Supreme Court Obamacare case came on March 26, the first day of oral arguments, when few people were paying close attention.

    Before getting to the heart of the case, the justices first wanted to deal with what seemed to be a side issue: Was the penalty imposed by the individual mandate in Obamacare a tax? If it was, the case would run afoul of a 19th century-law known as the Anti-Injunction Act, which said a tax cannot be challenged in court until someone has actually been forced to pay it. Since the Obamacare mandate wouldn’t go into effect until 2014, that would mean there could be no court case until then.

    No one had challenged Obamacare on that basis; the challengers wanted the case to go forward now. The White House, having argued strenuously during the Obamacare debate that the penalty wasn’t a tax, wanted to go ahead as well. So the court, on its own, tapped a Washington attorney to make the argument that the penalty was a tax and therefore the case should not go ahead.

    “The Anti-Injunction Act imposes a ‘pay first, litigate later’ rule that is central to federal tax assessment and collection,” said the lawyer, Robert A. Long, on that first day of oral arguments. “The Act applies to essentially every tax penalty in the Internal Revenue Code. There is no reason to think that Congress made a special exception for the penalty imposed by [Obamacare].”

    After Long made his case, it fell to the administration’s lawyer, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, to argue that no, the mandate was not a tax, and therefore the case was not subject to the Anti-Injunction Act.

    At the same time, everyone knew that the next day, when Verrilli planned to argue that the mandate was justified under the Constitution’s Commerce Clause, he had as a backup the argument that it was also justified by Congress’ power to levy taxes — in other words, that it was a tax.

    Justice Samuel Alito saw the conflict right away.

    “General Verrilli, today you are arguing that the penalty is not a tax,” Alito said. “Tomorrow you are going to be back, and you will be arguing that the penalty is a tax. Has the court ever held that something that is a tax for the purposes of the taxing power under the Constitution is not a tax under the Anti-Injunction Act?”

    “No,” answered Verrilli.

    At the time, some observers found the whole thing a little boring; the real action would come the next day, when the court got to the question of whether the Commerce Clause could be stretched to include the individual mandate.

    But a lot of those same observers were shocked on Thursday, when Chief Justice John Roberts, rejecting the Commerce Clause argument, agreed with Verrilli that the mandate simultaneously was and was not a tax, and that therefore Obamacare would stand. Roberts joined the court’s four liberal justices, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan, who seemed prepared to uphold Obamacare under any circumstances.

    Roberts’ sleight of hand drove his conservative colleagues nuts. “The government and those who support its position on this point make the remarkable argument that [the mandate] is not a tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act, but is a tax for constitutional purposes,” wrote dissenters Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. “That carries verbal wizardry too far, deep into the forbidden land of the sophists.”

    After the ruling, Obamacare opponents pointed out the thousands of times the president and Democratic lawmakers had contended that the mandate penalty was not — repeat, not — a tax. But it no longer mattered. “Call it what you will,” said former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

    Outside the court, the conservatives who thought they knew Roberts seemed baffled. “For whatever reason, and you’ll have to ask Justice Roberts, he re-wrote the statute,” said Mike Carvin, who argued against Obamacare in the case. “I’m glad he re-wrote the statute rather than the Constitution, but none of it can pass rational scrutiny.”

    Maybe rational scrutiny isn’t what is called for. If a person wants to do something badly enough, he’ll come up with a reason for doing it. John Roberts, apparently, wanted to uphold Obamacare, even if it meant venturing deep into the forbidden land of the sophists.

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/york-roberts-dodge-at-heart-of-obamacare-decision/article/2500925

  249. moononpluto
    June 29th, 2012 at 1:46 pm

    Ever see that old Abbott and Castello routine – Hu’s (Who’s) on First?

  250. HillaryforTexas,
    Thank you for the answer about the Supreme Court being able to overturn one of their previous decisions. It’s imperative that people vote out Obama and as many Democrat representatives in Congress as is possible in November. There are two very old members on the Supreme Court that may not last another 4 years (Ginsburg and Kennedy). The DemoRats cannot be in a position of power that allows them to make the choice of replacements. We have seen how their recent choices bave voted in this Obamascam fiasco. The DemoRats cannot have the opportunity to fill thre court with more justices in the Kagan and Sotomayor mold.

  251. Tell you all you need to know, the contempt, its like the election is a trivial stumbling block, nothing to them.

    Obama Campaign E-Mail: ‘Let’s Win The Damn Election’

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/29/Obama-campaign-curses-out-Americans

    Last night, bathing in the afterglow of the Supreme Court’s absurd decision to uphold Obamacare as a tax, the Obama campaign – which clearly got into the brandy stash at HQ – sent the following email. Its subject line: “Let’s win the damn election.” Here’s what it said:

    Benjamin —

    It’s been a good day.

    But this is a three-step process.

    1. Pass historic health care reform. Check.

    2. Get affirmation from the highest court in the country. Check.

    Step three? Win the damn election.

    Mitt Romney has been clear he’d repeal Obamacare on Day One. Just another reminder of how much is at stake in November.

    Donate $3 or more today:

    https://donate.barackobama.com/Upheld

    Let’s go,

    Messina

    Jim Messina

    Campaign Manager

    Obama for America

    Because nothing says classy like using four-letter words in mass emails. Or using the word “motherf***ers” in Tweets. Or smarmily suggesting that Obamacare is “Still a BFD” – i.e. Big F***ing Deal – and then trying to sell T-shirts that say the same thing.

    This campaign is so desperate for cash that they’re now cursing out their own supporters. Of course, that’s no surprise – they’ve already given the middle finger to the entire country.

    …………………………………

    So its a damn election, well there ya go folks, you can tell they think the election is nothing but a barrier to them, they would rather not do.

  252. ” BASIL99
    June 29th, 2012 at 1:55 pm

    Byron York explains part of the back story.”
    *********
    Interesting…thanks for posting that

  253. Uh oh…….Issa has secret wiretaps.

    http://www.examiner.com/article/revealed-secret-wiretap-tapes-trouble-for-attorney-general-eric-holder-and-doj

    Revealed secret wiretap tapes trouble for Attorney General Eric Holder and DOJ

    Anonymous sources presented secret wiretap applications last week to the chairman of the Congressional committee which could spell disaster to Attorney General Eric Holder’s Fast and Furious defense.

    The evidence reveal high-level Department of Justice officials approved the “gun walking” tactics that could have led to the death of a U.S. Border Patrol agent.

    The committee has been trying for 15-months to get information from Holder, who has used every legal, and arguably illegal means, to stall the committee from furthering their investigation with information from the Department of Justice (DOJ).
    Advertisement

    According to The Hill, indicate the secret documents reveal that “high-level DOJ officials knew about and approved the ‘gun walking’ tactics.”

    Yesterday Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) said the investigation panel will vote next week to hold Holder in contempt of Congress.

    “The Justice Department is out of excuses,” House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said. “Either the Justice Department turns over the information requested, or Congress will have no choice but to move forward with holding the attorney general in contempt for obstructing an ongoing investigation.”

    Congress started investigating Eric Holder’s Fast and Furious program after agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) went to Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) presenting substantial evidence against Holder and the DOJ.

    The agents were concerned because they were being forced into “gun walking.” Some agents were removed from their positions because of their reluctance and questioning of the ethics and legalities of what they were being made to do.

    Everything peaked when U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry was killed in 2010 by some of the guns used in the Obama Administration’s operation.

    When Holder told the Senate Judiciary Committee he was unaware of the gun walking in November 2011, Texas Sen. John Cornyn, a former attorney general for the state of Texas countered, “You cannot be expected to have known about the operation known as Fast and Furious despite the fact that we know you received an NDIC memo on July the 5th, 2010.”

    “You received another memo on Fast and Furious on November 1st, 2010, and you say you cannot be expected to have known about it, because of the size of your agency?” Cornyn continued.

    When Cornyn asked if the attorney general had apologized to the family of agent Brian Terry, Holder replied, “I have not apologized to them but I certainly regret what happened…”

    “Have you even talked to them?” Cornyn asked.

    “I have not,” answered Holder.

    “Would you like to apologize today for this program that went so wrong, that took the life of a United States law enforcement agent?” the Texas senator inquired.

    “I certainly regret what happened to Agent Brian Terry,” Holder said. “It is not fair, however, to assume that the mistakes that happened in Fast and Furious directly led to the death of Agent Terry.”

    …………………………………

    Now we know why Issa is like a bulldog with a bone and the EP has been asserted.

  254. Oh Jeezus.

    From the oral arguments in March.

    Verrilli: That if they don’t pay the tax, they violated a federal law.

    Kagan: But as long as they pay the penalty—

    Verrilli: If they pay the tax, then they are in compliance with the law.

    Justice Stephen Breyer: Why do you keep saying tax?

    Verrilli: If they pay the tax penalty, they’re in compliance with the law.

    Breyer: Thank you.

    Verrilli: Thank you, Justice Breyer.

    Breyer: The penalty.

    Verrilli: Right. That’s right.

  255. Front Page of Drudge in big letter…….

    SECRET WIRETAPS ROCK DOJ…………………Popcorn anyone?

  256. The Dem Spin and talking point is that this is a penalty and not a tax, they must not be allowed to get away with this and frame it.

  257. The 21 Obamacare taxes.

    A 156% increase in the federal excise tax on tobacco
    Obamacare Individual Mandate Excise Tax
    Obamacare Employer Mandate Tax
    Obamacare Surtax on Investment Income
    Obamacare Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans
    Obamacare Hike in Medicare Payroll Tax
    Obamacare Medicine Cabinet Tax
    Obamacare HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike
    Obamacare Flexible Spending Account Cap – aka “Special Needs Kids Tax”
    Obamacare Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers
    Obamacare “Haircut” for Medical Itemized Deduction from 7.5% to 10% of AGI
    Obamacare Tax on Indoor Tanning Services
    Obamacare elimination of tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D
    Obamacare Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike
    Obamacare Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals
    Obamacare Tax on Innovator Drug Companies
    Obamacare Tax on Health Insurers
    Obamacare $500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives
    Obamacare Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2
    Obamacare “Black liquor” tax hike
    Obamacare Codification of the “economic substance doctrine”

    For full details on each tax, go to Americans for Tax Reform.

    http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2012/06/29/scotus-says-obamacare-is-just-a-tax-heres-obamacares-21-taxes/

  258. Twelve of the Obamacare tax hikes will affect families earning less than $250,000 per year,including a “Cadillac tax” on high-cost insurance plans, a tax on insurance providers and an excise tax on medical-device manufacturers. According to the Congressional Budget Office & Joint Committee On Taxation, at least 75% of individual mandate penalties will fall on those making less than $250,000.

    The taxes amount to almost a trillion over 10 years but that was?is before new CBO stats.

  259. tim
    June 29th, 2012 at 6:50 am
    And I still firmly believe, you will have millions upon millions of people who will not pay a fine for not buying a private product. Is the IRS going to come arrest all of them?
    ***************************************

    Tim, I could be wrong but the way I understand it is that if you are working, the IRS will just automatically take it out of your tax return…the IRS is going to be so deep into our lives it is unreal…

    Romney and his crew MUST START educating people as to the DETAILS in Obamatax…they MUST educate people to the role the IRS is going to have in controlling our money…yesterday I posted a calculator that was on the WP site that gave you estimates of what you would be paying…this is going to be very expensive…and we won’t be able to control it…

    personally I fell that they are robbing us…I know many people in the holistic, alternative medicine field…they never use any of these practices of traditional medicine…many people have not even seen a doctor in years and they are fine…many that have used alternative treatments and have had success with tumors going away, etc…many that got worse from traditional corporate medicine practices…(ex many using chemo then suffer from additional problems from the chemo, etc)

    BUT this will not be honored by Otax…what they are doing is trying to force all of us to be slaves to the insurance and drug companies…big, big, big, money…

    for example, the FDA won’t even look at alternative methods and tries to shut them down…war on vitamins/supplements with congress, etc…but they have no problem approving corporate big money drugs…

    …this whole thing is a racket…it is not about health…it is not about cutting the cost of health care…it is about central control of all of us…and a direct line to controlling our money…and whatever they say it will cost now…you can bet is going to double and triple over and over again…

    btw…have not heard about that “chip” someone mentioned above…now that sounds too far out to me…but if that were ever remotely in the realm of something in the otax…then MR and his crew need to make an ad based just on that…freaky!

  260. “SECRET WIRETAPS ROCK DOJ…………………Popcorn anyone?”
    *********
    My money is still riding on the assumption that this massive cover up is not about who knew or approved “it” but what was the “it” the DOJ/WH approved. And the “it” isn’t a botched gun tracking op.

  261. another big point for MR and his crew to get out there is that O has given many, many waivers to his “supporters”…so what makes someone the O admin selects eligible for waivers…which only increase the cost for everyone else that does not have the waiver…

    why does anyone or any business get a waiver and another does not??

    We need the Romney people and supporters to get cranking on all these UNANSWERED QUESTIONS AND HIDDEN COSTS – MR and his superpacs need to flood the airwaves with details so people really understand what the hell is going on…

    http://www.atr.org/full-list-obamacare-tax-hikes-a6996

  262. In the midst of a fiery floor debate over contempt proceedings for Attorney General Eric Holder, House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) quietly dropped a bombshell letter into the Congressional Record.

    The May 24 letter to Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), ranking member on the panel, quotes from and describes in detail a secret wiretap application that has become a point of debate in the GOP’s “Fast and Furious” gun-walking probe.

    The wiretap applications are under court seal, and releasing such information to the public would ordinarily be illegal. But Issa appears to be protected by the Speech or Debate Clause in the Constitution, which offers immunity for Congressional speech, especially on a chamber’s floor.

    According to the letter, the wiretap applications contained a startling amount of detail about the operation, which would have tipped off anyone who read them closely about what tactics were being used.

    Holder and Cummings have both maintained that the wiretap applications did not contain such details and that the applications were reviewed narrowly for probable cause, not for whether any investigatory tactics contained followed Justice Department policy.

    The wiretap applications were signed by senior DOJ officials in the department’s criminal division, including Deputy Assistant Attorney General Jason Weinstein, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Kenneth Blanco and another official who is now deceased.

  263. Obama to Soldiers: Pay Up
    Threatens to veto bill unless it hikes health care fees for service members

    http://freebeacon.com/obama-to-soldiers-pay-up/

    The Obama administration on Friday threatened to veto a defense appropriations bill in part because it does not include higher health care fees for members of the military.

    “The Administration is disappointed that the Congress did not incorporate the requested TRICARE fee initiatives into either the appropriation or authorization legislation,” the White House wrote in an official policy statement expressing opposition to the bill, which the House approved in May.

    President Obama’s most recent budget proposal includes billions of dollars in higher fees for members of TRICARE, the military health care system, and is part of the administration’s plan to cut nearly $500 billion from the Pentagon’s budget.

    Some fear the administration’s proposal is an effort to increase enrollment in the state-run insurance exchanges mandated under the president’s controversial health care law.

    The administration urged the House to “reconsider” to fee increase, arguing they are “essential for DOD to successfully address rising personnel costs.”

    The House bill has significant bipartisan support, and easily passed by a margin of 299 to 120.

    ………………………..

    Obama is a shit.

  264. Looks like he is getting a slight bump today as he is up 3.9% on RCP. Next week’s polling should be more telling. Romney must get some national adds placed in prime time emphasizing the deception re taxes on healthcare….As Adm has said since day one, Obama cannot be trusted. I think the Holder thing will not play out well as a election strategy for the republicans if they overplay their hand like they did with Bill.

  265. moononpluto
    June 29th, 2012 at 2:27 pm

    The Dem Spin and talking point is that this is a penalty and not a tax, they must not be allowed to get away with this and frame it.

    Axeldouche refused to call it a tax on ABC, Deval, refused to correctly name it, same thing with Pelosi. Their feet have to beheld to the fire.

    It’s a TAX! The country was LIED to! And the SC enabled the lies to continue.

  266. Angienc (an atty) pretty much sums up what I (non-atty) also think is the significance of Roberts’ Obamacare ruling. The substance of the law was thrown back into the political arena to be dealt with but getting a 7-2 ruling on the Commerce Clause is what is significant. I think that Roberts has been waiting his whole judicial career to make this ruling and he sucked the “liberals” in supporting it.

    http://crayfisher.wordpress.com/2012/06/29/comments-of-the-day-on-taxes-american-history-and-power-sharing/

  267. Justice Department says in letter it won’t prosecute AG Eric Holder after the House voted to hold him in criminal contempt of Congress

    ………………..

    lol idiots.

  268. Shameful……

    The Justice Department moved Friday to shield Attorney General Eric Holder from prosecution after the House voted to hold him in contempt of Congress.

    The contempt vote technically opens the door for the House to call on the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia to bring the case against Holder before a grand jury. But because U.S. Attorney Ronald Machen works for Holder and because President Obama has already asserted executive privilege over the documents in question, it was expected Holder’s Justice Department would not take that step.

    Deputy Attorney General James Cole confirmed in a letter to House Speaker John Boehner that the department in fact would not pursue prosecution. The attorney general’s withholding of documents pertaining to Operation Fast and Furious, he wrote, “does not constitute a crime.”

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/29/after-holder-contempt-vote-republicans-eye-civil-court-case-to-extract-furious/

  269. I really do appreciate all the silver-lining theorists but unfortunately while I am at heart an optimist I am also a realist.

    No one knows why Roberts ruled the way he did, what his motives were or what his intention was. Nor does it make much difference at this point.

    What we do know is the consequences of his action which is to force those who were against the ACA to continue expending energy on fighting it. It should have been thrown back to congress and they should have had to wage the battle over whether to refashion the bill so it did meet the constitutional requirement it be enacted as a tax. I DOUBT that fight would be successful.

    Instead, the bill has now been deemed constitutional. Roberts caved and screwed the American people.

    What we’re stuck with is one big-a$$ tax increase and the erosion of our rights. For that I despise the guy.

  270. http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/missouri-dem-senator-hiding-reporters_647993.html

    Macaskill on the run

    Missouri Democratic senator Claire McCaskill is “hiding” from reporters after the Supreme Court’s Obamacare decision yesterday, according to a local news report:

    McCaskill won’t say where she stands on Obamacare, though she voted for it. And she won’t make her self available to members of the press curious to hear her thoughts.

    “There’s only ever been one goal for Claire. Affordable, accessible health care for Missouri,” a spokesman for the senator told the local news outlet.

    The Missouri senator is in the middle of a close reelection battle. Her past support of Obamacare is thought to pose a great political risk to her future.

    McCaskill made news earlier this week by announcing that she will not attend the Democratic convention later this year.

  271. Bo’s theme songs (stolen from other posters)
    Taxman (The Beatles)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqK97av7I3s

    Liar Liar (The Castaways)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDEdFxUZ01s

    Liar, liar, pants on fire
    Your nose is longer than a telephone wire

    Taxman

    Let me tell you how it will be,
    There’s one for you, nineteen for me,
    ‘Cause I’m the Taxman,
    Yeah, I’m the Taxman.
    Should five per cent appear too small,
    Be thankful I don’t take it all.
    ‘Cause I’m the Taxman,
    Yeah, I’m the Taxman.

    (If you drive a car ), I’ll tax the street,
    (If you try to sit ), I’ll tax your seat,
    (If you get too cold ), I’ll tax the heat,
    (If you take a walk ), I’ll tax your feet.
    Taxman.

    ‘Cause I’m the Taxman,
    Yeah, I’m the Taxman.
    Don’t ask me what I want it for
    (Haha! Mister Wilson!)
    If you don’t want to pay some more
    (Haha! Mister Heath!),
    ‘Cause I’m the Taxman,
    Yeah, I’m the Taxman.

    Now my advice for those who die, (Taxman!)
    Declare the pennies on your eyes, (Taxman!)
    ‘Cause I’m the Taxman,
    Yeah, I’m the Taxman.
    And you’re working for no-one but me
    And special bonus updated lyrics by a HA poster.
    If you try to sleep, I’ll tax your sheet;
    If you get hungry, I’ll tax what you eat;
    If you bite a candy, I’ll tax your treat;
    If you’re not a vegan, I’ll tax your meat;

    If you don’t buy healthcare, I’ll tax your retreat;
    If you’re my Treasury Secretary, then you can tax cheat;
    If you thought I wouldn’t tax you, my deceit is complete;

    If you were fooled by hope’nchange, my pretense was discreet;
    If you don’t know me by now, look up the word conceit;
    If you receive my donation e-mail, just hit delete;
    If you vote for me this November, tax, rinse and repeat.
    If you love America, you know who to defeat;
    If you vote for Romney, repeal and recovery will be sweet. ~S

  272. Swing states not fans of OC

    Survey USA polled the Supreme Court decision overnight and the results don’t look promising for Obama — not in Florida and not in…California!

    In liberal California, 45% of citizens opposed the Court’s decision. Only 44% agreed with it.

    In the crucial swing state of Florida, 50% of voters oppose the Court’s decision and only 39% agree.

    In Kansas, America’s heartland, 52% oppose, 38% agree.

    The deep-dive numbers look even worse.

    In Florida, only 20% of voters think that ObamaCare will improve their health care. 47% think it will get worse. The numbers are virtually the same in Kansas, 48/16%.

    Obama’s even upside down in California, 23/38%.

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/29/First-Polls-ObamaCare-Bad

  273. I have been getting a boat load of spam from Michelle, Donna Borazill, Nasty and now the most comical- from Joe.

    Get out your hankies and get ready to tear up….

    —-

    Yesterday I shared an emotional moment with Barack in the Oval Office after he learned health reform had been upheld. [We can hear the yelling, “Yea, this is a big effin deal bro”.

    Barack Obama is a man who refused to give up. No matter how politically unpopular it was, he knew it was the right thing to do.

    Tomorrow is the biggest fundraising deadline of this election so far. Romney and the Republicans may outraise us again — you can bet they’ll have a whole slew of special interests who want to see Romney make good on his promise to repeal Obamacare on Day One.

    But they can’t beat us if we pull together. Our grassroots movement is unstoppable when we put our minds to it.

  274. Well something good about CA for once…

    In liberal California, 45% of citizens opposed the Court’s decision. Only 44% agreed with it.

    Sound about right, the obots are already over Him, only the folks with Beamers still want to give the half black guy another chance because any Republican is waaaaaaay to scary to vote for.

  275. Okay, I posted the weeping email from Joe above and thought that was the most pitiful of emails to try and get money for his bro Barack…but this one takes the freakin’ cake!!

    This one is from the damned DCCC:

    Hi xxxxxxxxxxx —

    We’re reviewing our Democratic supporter records in advance of tomorrow’s Federal Election Commission (FEC) deadline. Your record is copied and pasted below:

    Supporter record: xxxxxxxx
    Name: xxxx xxxxxx
    2012 Online Support: Pending
    Suggested support: $3.00

    If you’re planning to contribute to our campaign to win a Democratic Majority for President Obama, it’s critical that you make your donation in the next 24 hours. Tomorrow is the midyear FEC reporting deadline of the 2012 general election. We’re relying on your support: 80% of our contributions are $35 or less.

    You can click this personalized link to make your contribution of $3 or more today >>

    Thanks for standing with us.

    Brandon English
    DCCC Digital Director

    P.S. Our records show your email address as xxxxxxx. If you’ve made a contribution offline or our records are incorrect, and you have made a recent online donation, please click here to let us know.

  276. And Carney the Clown had to play semantics Jeopardy.

    White House claims ObamaCare fine a ‘penalty,’ despite court calling it a ‘tax’

    White House Press Secretary Jay Carney pauses during his daily news briefing at the White House in Washington. (AP)

    First it was a penalty. Then it was a tax. Now it’s a penalty again.

    The war of words over what to call the fine attached to the federal health care overhaul’s most controversial provision continued Friday, as the White House took issue with the Supreme Court’s argument — even though that argument alone spared President Obama’s law.

    The five-justice majority argued that, while the fine imposed by the law for not buying health insurance would otherwise be unconstitutional, the fine is actually legal under Congress’ authority to tax.

    Ergo, the fine is officially a “tax” in the eyes of the court. The law stands.

    But in a case of biting the hand that feeds, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Friday the fine is still just a “penalty.”

    Calling it a “tax” causes obvious political problems for the White House. Obama fought that label vigorously when selling the bill in 2009.

    Carney went on to say Friday that the “penalty” will affect only about 1 percent of Americans, those who refuse to get health insurance. He said the penalty was modeled after the one put in place in Massachusetts when Mitt Romney was governor.

    “It’s a penalty, because you have a choice. You don’t have a choice to pay your taxes, right?” Carney said.

    Carney was initially reluctant to assign a label to the fine when pressed repeatedly by reporters Friday. “Call it what you want,” he said.

    [Photo of his face is priceless]

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/29/white-house-claims-obamacare-fine-penalty-despite-court-calling-it-tax/?intcmp=trending

  277. Hm. Taxing someone as a penalty for not doing something is problematic. But what if you pass a tax on everybody for a public benefit purpose — then offer an exemption to everyone who opts out by buying their own insurance (or whatever).

    Maybe Ginsberg and others went along with this because it lays a foundation for Single Payer? Slowly do more and more benefit with the tax proceeds, and make the exemptions more and more narrow….

  278. S
    June 29th, 2012 at 2:38 pm

    yes, you are partly right, I’ve filed as an individual, as a S corp also. But there’s the thing, there are many ways to manipulate (putting in more deductions, front loading it) how you pay your taxes so that you underpay and owe money rather than get a refund… and then at that point you as an individual are essentially in the driver’s seat as to whether you will pay the ObamaCare tax or not.
    People don’t realise if more people took more deductions than they are supposed to, the amount of revenues the Tresury is relying on plummets, and essentially you pay it all at the April time, but if enough people did this, the revenues the govt gets month to month slowes down a lot.

    So, yes, people can not pay for the tax… I just wonder how many millions won’t, I know several who don’t have HC, they pay out of pocket for their expenses, and they have no intention of being forced to buy something they don’t want to.

  279. “It’s a penalty, because you have a choice. You don’t have a choice to pay your taxes, right?” Carney said”

    what a buffoon this man is, there is NO choice, you have to buy what nonsense THEY the govt wants you to buy or you are taxed! and the IRS will come after you!
    If there is a real choice, then you can refuse to buy something and you won’t be taxes for NOT buying it! That is not the case here, you are taxed for NOT buying something, you have NO choice in the matter.

  280. Not the brightest bulb in Congress, or anywhere else I imagine. Apparently, “taxes” are now referred to as “Washington talk” now.

  281. Roberts isn’t a brillant double agent, he talked about the courts not having the responsibility to protect voters from a bad law because he knew conservatives were going to blame him for this decision.

    ======================

    That’s also simply true. We have division of powers. It’s Congress’s job to decide whether a law would have good effects. It’s the SC’s job to decide whether the law is constitutional.

    For the SC to get into the effects of the law, would be a form of ‘judicial activism

    The SC has effectively thrown the ball back to Congress. The former congress passed it; the next congress can change it.

  282. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/28/Kent-Terry-Jr-Releases-Statement?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BreitbartFeed+%28Breitbart+Feed%29

    “Agent Terry’s brother Kent responded to the walkout in a grieved email:

    Very sad that our childish Goverment walks out. What kind of respect? Does that tell you they’re for getting justice for Brian and [Jaime] Zapata and any law enforcement that dies in the line of duty? This is the respect they get.”

    Childish isn’t the word I would have used, “Disgusting” is more what these CBC pathetic people are doing.

  283. noobama, you asked if a SC ruling can be overturned… yes, by congress. But we then need a congress willing to do that. And considering a majority of this country hates this PO$ law, they can elected a congress to overturn it.

  284. Bingo!

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post-supreme-court-and-natural-law

    “A few weeks ago I wagered with a coworker that the United States Supreme Court would uphold the Affordable Care Act otherwise known as Obamacare. He reasoned that the federal government has no authority under the Constitution to force an individual to purchase a product from a private company. My reasoning was much simpler. Because the Supreme Court is a functioning arm of the state, it will do nothing to stunt Leviathan’s growth. The fact that the Court declared no federal law unconstitutional from 1937 to 1995—from the tail end of the New Deal through Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society—should have been proof enough. He naively believed in the impartialness of politically-appointed judges. For the first time he saw that those nine individuals are nothing more than politicians with an allegiance to state supremacy.

    It was a tough but valuable lesson to learn.”

  285. Good for Gov Rick Scott, he has no intention of implementing this disaster in his state. He’s on Greta stating exactly why he won’t, I hope he also mentioned to Greta he’s not going to sic the sheriff’s office to do the IRS’s bidding to round up people in his state who won’t pay taxes for not buying something they don’t want!

  286. I’m so happy, the new series of Dallas has just been handed a 2nd series straight away by TNT because its been such a ratings success. It is fabulous.

  287. Tim 9:03

    Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill will be running against most likely one of the main three Republicans in the race. The Missouri Primary will be in August. The three likely Republican candidates are:

    Todd Akin, U.S. Representative

    John Brunner, businessman, Chairman Emeritus of Vi-Jor

    Sarah Steelman, former Missouri State Treasurer and also a State Representative.

    May 24-27, 2012 polling: Akins 23%, Brunner 25%, Steelman 28%, Undecided 20%

    Rasmussen Poll June 7, 2012: McCaskill 42% McCaskill 41% McCaskill 39%
    Akins 50% Brunner 51% Steelman 51%

  288. Oops. The June 7 Rasmussen Poll in a likely match up didn’t post as I wrote it.

    It should be McCaskill 42% – Akins 50%, McCaskill 41% – Brunner 51%, McCaskill 39% – Steelman 51%

  289. Southern Born
    June 29th, 2012 at 10:23 pm

    Thanks! I’ll be donating to whoever is the repub nominee over Ms. Claire “my kids told me to vote for OTurd” McCaskill.
    I hope its the repub lady, I think its great so many women are getting into the Senate.

  290. I’m shocked. /s

    The DOJ informs the House of Reps, they won’t investigate Holder. And the US atty who intervened is the same that’s going to “investigate” Barry’s intel leaks from the WH.

  291. If your children told you to vote for McCaskill, perhaps you should immediately consider serious therapy for them! 😉 You do not want to get down on the level of Claire and Caroline Kennedy. LOL

    We have long awaited the day when we could hopefully vote Claire out. Claire threw her lot in with BO early in 2008 and made vicious comments about Bill Clinton. Many of us have L-O-N-G memories. Some suggested that Claire thought that she could ride the elevator to the top with BO but she has been thrown under the bus when her usefulness was up after the BO win.

    As for Sarah Steelman, her polling numbers are going down compared to earlier this year. Akins has some problems with possibly not telling the truth about where his residence actually is, however, his numbers are going up. Brunner is the only one to have an ad so far.

  292. tim
    June 29th, 2012 at 6:46 am
    I’m still sick to my stomach about all this…
    &&&&&&&

    Tim, and others here disheartened by the SC ruling on the HealthScare bill…

    Before the ruling, I kinda saw this as a can’t lose proposition. If ObamaCare got overturned, he’d look like the incompetent who let the Medical/Industrial complex write the convoluted bill. If it got upheld, the piece of shit would continue rolling down the hill, headed for the little village called USofA, timed to hit the village in 2014.

    And even before 2014, we are already seeing the downsides. “Hey, my deductible just shot up”. “Why isn’t this covered any more??”.

    So for the link tim posted, let’s read Ulsterman’s WH Insider:

    WHITE HOUSE INSIDER: OBAMACARE …”Now we are truly ready to fight.”

    by Ulsterman on June 28, 2012 with 133 Comments in News

    A longtime D.C. political operative considers today’s Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare a good thing in the fight to defeat Barack Obama in 2012. Here’s why.
    &&&&

    This will be quick. Don’t have time to go over all of this with you right now. Don’t forget the work going on w/Holder.

    The Obamacare ruling is good news for us. Real good news. It’s 2010 all over again now. Swing states will shift over to Romney in most cases. Trust me on this. We’ve done the polling. The data is conclusive on this. It’s a huge tax. We got Obama lying. Again.

    The Tea Party movement, which was as real and powerful a political movement as I’ve ever seen in my lifetime, is back in play. That scares the hell out of the Obama White House. You just got a bunch of Dems sweating hard over their re-election. The Republican Party will now be a lot more focused and clearly conservative and that’s exactly what they need to be this time around. We must make the election a clear divide between one side and the other and this Obamacare ruling has forced that to happen.

    And the initial reports I’m getting are telling me there was a lot more clever going on inside that decision than the initial reaction will indicate. It’s the Obama Tax now. And states were given an out. The entire law is a big ass convoluted mess and the ruling has reinforced that fact. Obama will have to defend something he doesn’t understand, and Romney can now sit back and just repeat over and over again “repeal-repeal-repeal”.

    You can call bullsh-t on me here and I’ll understand if you do but I’m telling you right up this ruling today is GOOD NEWS. Politically, as a motivator, it’s great news. Watch contributions toward Republicans jump up even more than they already were. Watch the Obama White House have to face very hard questions over the Obamacare tax issue. Watch states rise up to challenge the administration using the weapon the Supreme Court placed in their hands to do so. Watch the Tea Party come back stronger and more powerful than ever.

    The giant has woken up. Country needed a hard kick in the ass to remind us what is at stake in November. Now we are truly ready to fight.

    Last thing. Romney was preparing for this decision. He gets to go with the better script now. He’s coming out swinging hard on this one.

    Chin up. Fists clenched. Eyes open.

    Let’s roll.

    -WHI

  293. OT: – Where’s Sancho Panza when we need him?

    Not long ago iirc someone posted something to the effect that the wind in Scotland had dropped too low to power the windmills????

    Anyway, here’s what those windmills are doing now


    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-18625801
    Big increase in Scottish renewables output

    Renewables output has doubled since 2006

    Scotland’s renewable energy output increased by 45% in the first quarter of this year, compared with the same period last year.

    UK government figures showed Scotland generated 4,590 gigawatt hours (GWh) of renewable energy in the first three months of 2012.

    This was an increase of 1,435 GWh on the first quarter of 2011.
    [….]

    The UK Department of Energy and Climate Change also issued revised statistics for 2011 which showed that renewable electricity generation in Scotland was 13,735 GWh in 2011, an increase of 44.3% from 2010 and up 97.3% from 2006.

  294. tdo: “…Renewables output has doubled since 2006…”

    There is still the question of, Will wind power produce our energy (i) when we need it? (ii) where we need it?

    (i) The very fact that output goes up and down so much and depends on weather conditions and time of day and means that a lot of energy may be produced that we can’t use or, inversely, that there’s not enough power there when we want it. The only solution to smooth this out is massive storage, which is a major technological challenge we haven’t met yet.

    (ii) If the power is produced in the Baltic, for example, but consumed in southern Germany, some efficient means of transmission has to be found. This is another challenge we haven’t met yet. The best transmission over large distances is by direct current, which calls for special (expensive) lines separate from those already existing (ac transmission). And are you going to build these to provide unreliable power to the consumer?

    Upshot: Even as wind power increases, we need more and more power from other sources – nuclear, gas or even coal – to make up for the gaps.

  295. Please everyone if you care, please write to your congressman and senator and get this stopped,make the law pass quickly, this should not be happening.

    http://now.msn.com/living/0512-military-dogs-euthanized.aspx

    Military dogs euthanized as ‘equipment’ under cruel law

    If roadside bombs and other hazards of war don’t kill military dogs, senseless government regulations and red tape might. The United States is breeding 100 puppies a year to train for bomb sniffing and other soldierly duties, but many aren’t making it back to happy homes because an obscure federal law classifies them as “equipment” rather than personnel — and makes adopting them a financial and bureaucratic nightmare. A bill to require that the military ship the heroic dogs home and ease potential veterinarian costs for adopting families is currently bogged down in Congress, as dogs continue to be euthanized. In the meantime, at least there is an occasional happy ending.

  296. Good, hope they learn a lesson to all kids…

    http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/06/29/students-that-bullied-bus-monitor-karen-klein-suspended-for-one-year/

    The middle school students who tormented a bus aide in Upstate New York have been suspended from school for one year, according to the Greece School District.

    The students insulted Karen Klein and made fun of her weight and looks — calling her “fat” and saying she looks “like a troll” — and threatened to egg her house.

    At one point, a student even says Klein’s family killed themselves to not be anywhere near her. Klein’s eldest son committed suicide a decade ago.

    The incident was captured in a 10-minute cell phone video by one of the students and posted to YouTube, drove Klein to tears.

    At least 10 minutes of the bullying was recorded, but it is unclear how long the taunting lasted.

    The following is a partial statement issued from the Greece School District:

    “Greece Central School District Superintendent Barbara Deane-Williams today announced that the due process requirements have been met and the district is able to release the result of their investigation and the assignment of disciplinary consequences for the four Athena Middle School students involved in the mistreatment of their bus monitor.

    “Following individual meetings this week with school and district administrators, each family waived their right to a hearing and agreed to one-year suspensions from school and regular bus transportation. The Greece Central School District is legally required to provide all students ages 5 to 16 with an education, therefore, during the 2012-13 school year, the students who have been suspended will be transferred to the district Reengagement Center, located in a non-school facility. This alternative education program keeps middle school students on track academically while providing a structured opportunity for students to take responsibility for their actions by completing community service hours and receiving formal instruction related to conduct and behavior that prepares them for a productive future. The program includes a strong parent involvement component.

    “Each student will be required to complete 50 hours of community service with senior citizens and will complete a formal program in bullying prevention, respect and responsibility. In accordance with district policy, if at 30 weeks into the school year the students have completed the conditions of their discipline and are in good standing at the Reengagement Center, they can apply for early readmission to Athena Middle School.”

    On a positive note, the 10 minutes of humiliation led to action and an outpouring of support for Klein.

    Since the video Klein has turned into an Internet celebrity and a fund was set up to raise $5,000 to send Klein on vacation.

    That $5,000 quickly surged to more than $650,000 and Klein said she plans on donating some of the money to charity.

    “They say I’m such a great person, and they love me, but they don’t even know me,” Klein said.

    Last week, a father of one of the bullies apologized to Klein.

    The apology was a start for Klein. Robert Helm is the father of one of the four Athena Middle School seventh grade boys who picked on Klein on the bus.

    “There’s no excuse and we’re going to get to the bottom of that, but it really broke my heart and I shed a lot of tears thinking about that whole thing. I just want you to know that my family, all of us, are deeply saddened by this whole thing and we’re going to get it right,” Helm said.

    ………………..

    finally someone took action against these bullying kids.

  297. I knew Issa knew the answers before he even asked them, he has Holder dead in the crosshairs and Holder has enough rope to hang himself. Explosive, go to link and read the whole damn thing, Holder should be in an orange jumpsuit.

    Grassley, Issa: Why were whistleblowers in ATF assigned to boss who wanted “dirt” on them to “take them down”?

    http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/30/e-mails-reveal-retaliation-cover-up-at-atf-doj-following-fast-furious-exposure/

    E-mails reveal retaliation, cover-up at ATF, DoJ following Fast & Furious exposure

    I recall a time when Democrats regularly lionized whistleblowers … during the Bush administration, of course. The media hailed them as heroes; Time Magazine even made them the collective Person of the Year for 2002. Democrats loved them so much that they ran one of the whistleblowers on that cover in my Congressional district in 2006 against Rep. John Kline, a former Marine colonel that Colleen Rowley’s campaign photoshopped into a Nazi uniform for their campaign website. Needless to say, Rowley has disappeared back into well-deserved obscurity, while Kline still represents my district.

    These days, in the Obama era, Democrats and the media seem a lot less admiring of whistleblowers, oddly enough. Imagine for a moment that Rowley had been assigned a new boss at the FBI after her whistleblowing, one that had told others that the agency needed to “get whatever dirt we can” on her to “take her down,” and especially if that boss had previously said in the presence of at least one witness that the FBI needed to “f**k” said whistleblower. Can you imagine the media meltdown that would have occurred? Well, you’re going to have to be satisfied with imagining it, but Senator Charles Grassley and Rep. Darrell Issa want answers as to why two Operation Fast and Furious whistleblowers got assigned to work for a man who said exactly that about them:

    In a Friday letter to the DOJ’s Inspector General Michael Horowitz, Grassley and Issa said they’re now concerned retaliation is much more likely following Thursday’s votes to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in criminal and civil contempt of Congress.

    “We just learned that ATF senior management placed two of the main whistleblowers who have testified before Congress about Fast and Furious under the supervision of someone who vowed to retaliate against them,” they wrote before describing how senior political figures have made dangerous threats before.

    Grassley and Issa said that in early 2011, right around the time Grassley first made public the whistleblowers’ allegations about Fast and Furious, Scot Thomasson – then the chief of the ATF’s Public Affairs Division – said, according to an eyewitness account: “We need to get whatever dirt we can on these guys [the whistleblowers] and take them down.”

    Thomasson also allegedly said that: “All these whistleblowers have axes to grind. ATF needs to f—k these guys.”

    According to Grassley and Issa, when Thomasson was asked about whistleblowers’ allegations that guns were allowed to walk, Thomasson said he “didn’t know and didn’t care.”

  298. I was pondering today if there was some way to split the difference on healthcare that both left and right could compromise on. There is concern about “freeloaders”, and also concern about govt involvement in everyday healthcare. There is concern about young people who voluntarily choose not to be insured, which should be their right, except what if they get cancer or have a bad wreck or need major surgery?

    I’m beginning to wonder if the govt portion ought to be guaranteed- issue and subsidized for catastrophic coverage only. A safety net for the truly crushing monster bills from severe injury, hospitalizations, etc. CATASTROPHIC coverage for all, which is in truth pretty cheap. Catastrophic is not expensive at all.

    Then for the daily, run of the mill stuff like office visits, preventative, etc, go with mostly free market reforms, HSA vouchers and tax credits for subsidies, existing employer plans, etc. Let people control their own money, choose employer plans, and bargain shop for the routine stuff.

    I haven’t fleshed this out – just musing on it. It’s kind of socialist for the big expensive stuff, lots of freedom and a McCain or Ryan type plan for the routine stuff.

  299. One of my biggest beefs with the govt-run programs of both Medicare and Medicaid is that they go out of their way to actively crack down on…… compassion and charity.

    Think I’m kidding? I’m not. Let’s say that a doc has a long time patient with 4 kids, who all got sick so Mom brings them all in. There is a $10 copay per child, plus mom, so that’s $50. Mom doesn’t have $50. Compassionate doc says “don’t worry about it, I’m going to waive your copays today.” He/she has just committed Medicaid fraud, according to our govt. For which he can be criminally prosecuted at worst, and be kicked out of the Medicaid program and any pending payments seized at best.

    Same thing with Medicare. It’s fucking insane. And its crap like that that makes people leery of govt healthcare. Not because it’s not a good idea (it is), but because our govt keeps doing stuff with it that smacks of a desire for absolute control rather than just providing services.

  300. This is really going to set POTUS off:
    June 30, 2012

    AP source: Adelson giving $10 million to aid GOP | Fox News
    Casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson is making another huge campaign contribution aimed at electing Republicans and voting President Barack Obama out of office. One of the world’s richest men, Adelson is donating $10 million to the campaign activities of the billionaire Koch brothers. A person familiar with Adelson’s pledge confirmed the donation Friday, requesting anonymity to discuss the private arrangement. Adelson has already contributed $10 million to a super political action committee that backs likely Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, Restore Our Future, and $5 million to each of two organizations promoting House Republicans. During the GOP presidential primary, Adelson and members of his family gave $21 million to a super PAC promoting former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.
    Oil executives Charles and David Koch founded small-government, anti-tax group Americans for Prosperity.
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/30/ap-source-adelson-giving-10-million-to-aid-gop/?test=latestnews

  301. The Obama campaign will host events in Geneva, Switzerland in August as part of their “European outreach effort.” George Clooney will headline a fundraiser there, with 150 tickets going for $20,000 per piece. There’s even more to the bargain: if you go as a couple, the second ticket is half-off!

    With the Obama campaign’s increasingly desperate campaign emails begging for cash from the American people, perhaps the campaign thinks they’ll find more fertile soil outside the country. Especially in the aftermath of the Supreme Court ruling that upholds Obama’s European-style healthcare plan, Obama’s hoping to cash in on like-minded folks abroad. Americans don’t believe that Obamacare is a triumph; they see it as a massive net negative, sucking our coffers dry and handing us long-term rationing in return. Europeans, however, know nothing else. The entitlements have already kicked in. What better place to ask for campaign cash?

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/06/29/Obama-European-campaign-July-4

  302. “I’m going to waive your copays today.” He/she has just committed Medicaid fraud, according to our govt….
    ********
    Seems insane but when the change was made, I read the explanation and discounting/waving payments was IRRC a form of bait and switch. Before the rule change, I used to “discount” all bill to insurance…ie collected what insurance would pay, no insurance, no charge. After the rule change that was illegal and considered fraud. I think the new rule was that at least two bills had to be sent to the patient. There was no rule that said that the money had to be collected so I had a standing rule that no patient was referred to a collection agency. Feds never dragged me into court so I guess it was legit.

  303. Obama’s European style healthcare plan

    =======================

    I wish! In fact most European countries use something more like Single Payer. And they all have better records than ours. I’ve only heard of one European country that uses private insurance companies in a similar way, and they are very heavily regulated toward the patients’ benefit.

  304. The middle school students who tormented a bus aide in Upstate New York have been suspended from school for one year, according to the Greece School District.

    =====================

    I’m glad they’re getting punished. But isn’t suspending them from school kind of like throwing Brer Rabbit in the briar patch? Maybe they should continue in school but be suspended from riding the bus: make them walk.

  305. There is still the question of, Will wind power produce our energy (i) when we need it? (ii) where we need it?

    =====================

    It’s sometimes admitted that the bottleneck is in the grid. But too often what’s said, is that clean power ‘doesn’t work’ — rather than admitting that no one wants to spend what it would take to improve the grid.

    Isn’t Google investments working on some better transmission from their deep sea tidal project?

    As for irregular use, for one thing, as we get more electric cars which can charge overnight, that will even out the demand somewhat.

    (Does your last paragraph have a typo?)

  306. No wonder Obama and the DNC are worried.

    When people say Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling was a big win for President Obama, the Romney Campaign must shake their heads just a little bit. Since the ruling, Team Romney has raked in $5.5 million. That money isn’t coming from big time donors at fundraisers, but is made up of 55,000 separate donations, with 65 percent of those people donating for the first time.

    These numbers come after Romney outraised President Obama in May, spent less and Obama seems to be draining his war chest quickly.

    Just one month after the start of the general election campaign, Mr. Obama has seen his financial cushion sliced in half. An $80 million cash-on-hand lead at the end of April was down to $45 million at the end of May, according to new Federal Election Commission filings. Romney did out-raise Obama in May. It was the first time he’d done so.

    But Romney and his supporting superPAC also spent about a third of what team Obama spent on television ads, yet did not get drowned out on the airwaves. That’s because Crossroads GPS and two other so-called social welfare groups spent $16 million on ads in the swing states, hammering Obama.

    Obama also spent more than he took in last month, although he still has a huge advantage over Romney in the money race at this point.

    Fighting to keep his job, President Obama spent more money than he raised in May, and ended the month with $109.7 million in cash reserves — a more than 6-to-1 advantage over his Republican rival Mitt Romney, federal reports filed Wednesday show.

  307. Okay, I did it. I bit the bullet. Let us see how long I live. On my big facebook community that is about my hometown area and people, I finally came to the decision that it matters little to me if I lose ‘friends’ and have started a campaign to WAKE UP the citizens there as best I can to the effects of this Fundamental Transformation of America under the current regime. I posted my first comments in my fight against ObamaCare and in turn the current regime and those who support it. I posted my first last night and it has had quite an effect; a handful of ‘liberals’ do not like it. I premised my idea on that if there are not more hometown folks who love this country and want to see the future secure for the coming generations than those who don’t then that little historical site did not matter to begin with.

    A second post was written like this:I got this in an email from a friend: Subject: The Country of Texas ~ especially for my Texas buddies
    Please note that Texas is the only state with a legal right to secede from the Union . (Reference the Texas-American Annexation Treaty of 1848.)

    We Texans love y’all, but we’ll probably have to take action if Barack Obama wins the election. We’ll miss you too.

    Here is what can happen:

    1: Barack Hussein Obama is President of the United States, and Texas secedes from the Union in summer of 2013.

    2: George W. Bush will become the President of the Republic of Texas . You might not think that he talks too pretty, but we haven’t had another terrorist attack, and the economy was fine until the effects of the Democrats lowering the qualifications for home loans came to roost.

    So what does Texas have to do to survive as a Republic?

    1. NASA is just south of Houston , Texas . We will control the space industry.

    2. We refine over 85% of the gasoline in the United States .

    3. Defense Industry–we have over 65% of it. The term “Don’t mess with Texas,” will take on a whole new meaning.

    4. Oil – we can supply all the oil that the Republic of Texas will need for the next 300 years. What will the other states do? Gee, we don’t know. Why not ask Obama?

    5. Natural Gas – again we have all we need, and it’s too bad about those Northern States. John Kerry and Al Gore will have to figure out a way to keep them warm….

    6. Computer Industry – we lead the nation in producing computer chips and communications equipment -small companies like Texas Instruments, Dell Computer, EDS, Raytheon, National Semiconductor,Motorola, Intel, AMD, Atmel, Applied Materials, Ball Microconductor, Dallas Semiconductor, Nortel, Alcatel, etc, etc. The list goes on and on.

    7. Medical Care – We have the research centers for cancer research, the best burn centers and the top trauma units in the world, as well as other large health centers. The Houston Medical Center alone employees over 65,000 people.

    8. We have enough colleges to keep us getting smarter: University of
    Texas , Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Texas Christian, Rice, SMU, University
    of Dallas , University of Houston , Baylor, UNT ( University of North
    Texas ), Texas Women’s University, etc. Ivy grows better in the South anyway.

    9. We have an intelligent and energetic work force, and it isn’t restricted by a bunch of unions. Here in Texas , it’s a Right to Work State and, therefore, it’s every man and women for themselves. We just go out and get the job done. And if we don’t like the way one company operates, we get a job somewhere else.

    10. We have essential control of the paper, plastics, and insurance industries, etc.

    11. In case of a foreign invasion, we have the Texas National Guard, the Texas Air National Guard, and several military bases. We don’t have an Army, but since everybody down here has at least six rifles and a pile of ammo, we can raise an Army in 24 hours if we need one. If the situation really gets bad, we can always call the Department of Public Safety and ask them to send over the Texas Rangers.

    12. We are totally self-sufficient in beef, poultry, hogs, and several types of grain, fruit and vegetables, and let’s not forget seafood from the Gulf. Also, everybody down here knows how to cook them so that they taste good. Don’t need any food.

    13. Three of the ten largest cities in the United States , and twenty- three of the 100 largest cities in the United States , are located inTexas. And Texas also has more land than California , New York , New Jersey , Connecticut , Delaware , Hawaii , Massachusetts , Maryland , Rhode Island and Vermont combined.

    14. Trade: Three of the ten largest ports in the United States are located in Texas .

    15. We also manufacture cars down here, but we don’t need to. You see, nothing rusts in
    Texas, so our vehicles stay beautiful and run well for decades.

    This just names a few of the items that will keep the Republic of Texas in good shape. There isn’t a thing out there that we need and don’t have.

    Now to the rest of the United States under President Obama: Since you won’t have the refineries to get gas for your cars, only President Obama will be able to drive around in his big 5 mpg SUV.The rest of the United States will have to walk or ride bikes.

    You won’t have any TV as the Space Center in Houston will cut off satellite communications. You won’t have any natural gas to heat your homes, but since Mr. Obama has predicted global warming, you will not need the gas as long as you survive the 2000 years it will take to get enough
    heat from Global Warming.

    Signed,
    The People of Texas

    P.S. This is not a threatening letter – just a note to give you something to think about!
    SLEEP WELL TONIGHT – THE EYES OF TEXAS ARE UPON YOU!!
    ________________________________________________________
    That second post has become an active little Civics and history lesson. And someone posted this:

    Comment: Alaskan Islands Being Given To Russia By Obama | Franklin County Va. Patriots – Fighting For Freedom
    http://www.franklincountyvapatriots.c​om

    Comment: Obama’s giveaway: Oil-rich islands to Russia
    http://www.wnd.com
    A Free Press For A Free People Since 1997

  308. My first post was just a share of a photo of a cute little girl with a sandwich board on that read: I am already $38,375 in debt and I only own a dollhouse. She is dressed in pink and has a pacifier in her mouth.

    It is nearly the Fourth of July, so let the fireworks begin.

  309. moononpluto
    June 29th, 2012 at 10:20 pm

    I’m so happy, the new series of Dallas has just been handed a 2nd series straight away by TNT because its been such a ratings success. It is fabulous.
    &&&&&

    I never watched “Dallas” back in the day. But a few weeks ago, we started watching the new series, and man, it is excellent. It’s cool watching “Major Nelson” be such a nasty hard-ass.

    I’ll tell my wife about the renewal you mentioned.

  310. This was a political move by Roberts. By ignoring the ACA as written and passed and rewriting it so it would be constitutional he deprived the people of their proper congressional representation because many congress critters would NOT have signed on to the bill had it been couched in language indicating it was a tax.

    The congress was LIED to, deliberately, by BO, Pelosi, Reid and others. In 2010 they called the funding mechanism a penalty. They did everything possible not to call it a tax because they wanted to avoid political fallout. The definitions of penalty and tax are different. Congress agreed to the bill with, no republicans signing on to it, plenty of backroom deals like the Cornhusker Kickback and a Christmas Eve vote during which the dims were assured by the congressional leadership and BO that it was a penalty.

    THEN, two years later, when it seemed the penalty was not constitutional, the administration argued that never mind, the penalty was really a tax.
    This is pure unadulterated BS. It is lies, obfuscation and approaches the level of the WH security leaks – a deliberate withholding of info to solidify power. It is contemptible. And the SCOTUS enabled this horrible tactic.

    I don’t doubt many dems will now be on the ropes if they’re up for reelection but it’s too late for the people to have a real say in the decision.

    Had the court ruled the (former) mandate unconstitutional as written and thrown it back to congress for reconsideration that would have been one thing.

    But to simply gut the law’s original foundation to transform it (to BO’s advantage) into something that was then constitutionally palatable is another.

    It is judicial activism on steroids and it is a horrible blow to the constitution.

    Semantics matters

Comments are closed.