Thursday, June 28, 2012

Obamacare is %&@*ing Constitutional?

Well, the unimaginable has happened.  The Supreme Court of the United States has declared that the patently unconstitutional Obamacare law does indeed pass constitutional muster.   I am still trying to wrap my mind around the contorted adjudication that rendered THAT decision. 

I fully expected Breyer, Kagan, Sotomayor, and Ginsburg to ignore the Constitution and put their politics above that of our supreme law of the land.  Hell, Kagan was advocating for the law personally and as solicitor general prior to being appointed by Obama to the Supreme Court, so that certainly comes as no surprise, even though she should have recused herself from the decision for that very reason. 

As for Ruth Vader Ginsburg, well her seeming disdain, if not outright loathing, of the Constitution is well known.  After all, she was the one that suggested to the newly elected Egyptian government to NOT use the United States Constitution as a model for their own.  She has long been inclined to look at international law when rendering Supreme Court decisions.  That alone strikes me as a violation of her oath and reason for impeachment from the bench, but I digress.

It is ironic that the “swing voter” Justice Kennedy wrote the dissenting opinion in this thoroughly baffling and asinine 5 to 4 decision and correctly stated that the entire law was absolutely un-constitutional. 

It was George W. Bush appointee Chief Justice John Roberts that appeared to lose all control of his mental faculties and refused to actually apply constitutional law in his decision and thus voted with the “liberal” members of the court in upholding this travesty of a law.  Whereas Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan are all about as useful as football bats, one had hoped that Roberts would have actually perused the Constitution and related law in reaching his decision.  Evidently that hope was misplaced like Miley Cyrus’ virtue.

What I find fascinating is the fact that Roberts and the progressive justices ruled that Obamacare was able to proceed in tact because the federal government could indeed levy such taxes (penalties) for those that did not acquire health insurance in accordance with the law.  Why that is interesting is because during the debate prior to its passage, all the players in support of the law including then-Speaker Pelosi and President Obama insisted that this was not to be considered as a tax, as that would constitutionally invalidate the bill.  Of course we were also told that the law would lower our health care costs and that the entire process would be transparent and debated on C-Span too.

Well now that the left has spoken, there is only one more firewall left to prevent this egregious freedom-stealing, life-destroying, cost-raising law from being fully implemented.  America MUST elect Romney to the presidency and ensure that he has solid majorities in the House of Representatives and the Senate so that this monstrosity can be fully repealed.  If we fail to do this as a nation, the law will be fully implemented in 2014.  I fear our nation as we currently know it will not survive if full repeal does not come to pass.

Once people become dependent upon this new program, it will be nearly impossible to repeal.  Never mind the fact that this law has already proven to make the costs for small businesses go up and thus reduced their ability to hire new employees.  Never mind the fact that there are indeed pro-abortion mandates within the law.  Never mind the fact that conscience clauses and religious exemptions are null and void for this law.  Never mind that rationing of critical medical services will indeed occur.  Never mind that medical devices stocks are already plunging today in light of this news.  Never mind that the death panels that Sarah Palin warned us about and was summarily laughed at accordingly will come to pass, albeit under the gentler euphemism of “end of life counseling”.  Never mind that we have created one more entitlement program that is so gargantuan in its scope that it encompasses 1/6 of the nation’s economy.  Never mind that the added costs of this law will add to the already $16 TRILLION debt we currently have as a country and are unable to pay right now.  Yep, never mind.  Instead of being the rugged individuals that fought for and supported liberty in this greatest country on earth, we will have become a nation of progressive victims that look to our nanny government to solve every problem we encounter in our lives.  Those that would proudly take care of themselves and their kin will be looked at as a kind of odd and slightly amusing anachronism to the left.

One wonders, now that the Supreme Court has stated that the federal government can mandate that private citizens must purchase whatever goods or services that the government deems as necessary for the "common good", just where that might take us?  I wonder just how loudly the progressives would scream and whine and gnash their teeth if some future congress and president mandated that every citizen must purchase a firearm, as part of a citizen militia, or face penalties.  There certainly seems to be more constitutional standing for that mandate than there is for Obamacare, not that we are using the Constitution as our standard any more apparently.

Oh, and by the way, I don’t EVER again want to hear the foolish meme from Rachel Maddow and the rest of the useful idiot progressive talking heads on TV and the radio whine about the “right wing Supreme Court”.  That dog simply won’t hunt anymore.  In fact that dog is road kill, along with one more of our essential liberties.

8 comments:

The Heathen Republican said...

I can't explain Roberts's decision to uphold the law. I'm naturally disappointed in the result.

Unlike those on the left, I can at least comprehend the argument, even if I disagree with it. I found that discussing ObamaCare with a lefty was pointless because they dismissed any argument of unconstitutionality out of hand. Not even an acknowledgement that the argument was valid and that they simply disagreed... As I recall, that includes our mutual friend Mr. Myste.

Here is the only silver lining I've seen so far: The Chief Justice's Gambit.

T. Paine said...

Hmmm... we shall see if this does turn out to be a silver lining in the future.

As of right now though, I am exceptionally angry that the SCOTUS said that the federal government does indeed have the power to make me buy a good or service, whether I want to or not by penalty of a fine otherwise(oops, I meant "tax").

John Myste said...

Heathen,

I found that discussing ObamaCare with a lefty was pointless because they dismissed any argument of unconstitutionality out of hand. Not even an acknowledgement that the argument was valid and that they simply disagreed... As I recall, that includes our mutual friend Mr. Myste.

I argued that the case for Constitutionality was a justification by the left. I also argued that you could justify either argument and then I blatantly stated that the Right’s argument was stronger than the left’s argument because the justification was less transparent.

I do not remember where I made this argument, but I am sure it was either on your site or on Contra O’Reilly or Major Conflict.

I made a lot of arguments and I do believe that the question of Constitutionality is primarily a justification. Both supporters and haters of the law feel as they do for ideological reasons, not for legal reasons. I think you know this already.

John Myste said...

I fear our nation as we currently know it will not survive if full repeal does not come to pass.

Drama Queen.

there are indeed pro-abortion mandates within the law.

Drama Queen.

Never mind that medical devices stocks are already plunging today in light of this news.

Is that why it is unconstitutional, or is that just an irrelevant detail?

Never mind that we have created one more entitlement program that is so gargantuan in its scope that it encompasses 1/6 of the nation’s economy.

Drama Queen.

Never mind that the added costs of this law will add to the already $16 TRILLION debt we currently have as a country and are unable to pay right now.

Stop watching FOX fiction.

Oh, and by the way, I don’t EVER again want to hear the foolish meme from Rachel Maddow and the rest of the useful idiot progressive talking heads on TV and the radio whine about the “right wing Supreme Court”.

The Supreme Court is very right wing. I am still trying to figure out what motivated Roberts to vote as he did (and it certainly was not the Constitution because his explanation had me rolling on the floor laughing). I think maybe it was that he could only justify overturning the Individual Mandate, which was simply unworkable. Perhaps he is a practical man. None of the justices arbitrate without ideology. They all look for Constitutional Justification to do what is necessary (I wish I could find the quote where Sandra Day O’Connor all but admitted this, but it eludes me at the moment). However, just reviewing the decisions by the Court would convince most rational people of this, I think.

The Supreme Court is a right wing body. There is more to John Roberts than meets the eye. He made the right decision, but with an absurd explanation for it.

By the way, as a proud liberal, I just want to say that today: WE WIN!!!!

Obama 2012!

John Myste said...

That article Heathen pointed to, which is very good, seems to ultimately suggest that Roberts' decision was purely political.

It gives him freedom to act on other upcoming (and extremely important) issues without charges of partisanship and at once still invalidates the liberal interpretation of the Commerce Clause.

While Roberts may have acted, not out of judicial integrity and not out of respect for the problem of only invalidating the Individual Mandate, for example, this would not say anything good about Roberts. It would mean that we have a politician on the court making decisions almost solely based on politics.

This to me is much less respectable than a justice who makes his decisions based on ideology.

T. Paine said...

I fear our nation as we currently know it will not survive if full repeal does not come to pass.

Drama Queen.

>for the common good shouldn’t have a negative impact on our freedoms. Oh, and the fact that EVERY damned government entitlement program currently in existence is either costing more money than we can afford and/or are pushing the nation further towards bankruptcy shouldn’t also cause any reason for concern. You’re right. Sorry for my histrionics.


there are indeed pro-abortion mandates within the law.

Drama Queen.

>Read the link I included for the specific example of this. No drama; just facts.


Never mind that medical devices stocks are already plunging today in light of this news.

Is that why it is unconstitutional, or is that just an irrelevant detail?

>I thought one of the primary purposes of Obamacare was to lower medical costs. While that has already proven to be a load of horse-puckey, now we are seeing critical life-saving medical devices being negatively impacted by this flipping asinine law. Hardly an irrelevant detail.


Never mind that we have created one more entitlement program that is so gargantuan in its scope that it encompasses 1/6 of the nation’s economy.

Drama Queen.

>So putting our grossly inefficient government in charge of our health care system which contributes mightily to our national economy is not a concern to you? One wonders what would make you concerned then, my friend?

T. Paine said...

Never mind that the added costs of this law will add to the already $16 TRILLION debt we currently have as a country and are unable to pay right now.

Stop watching FOX fiction.

>Not fiction: if anything, with all of the unfunded governmental debts and mandates, that number is closer to $76 Trillion. See the link at the top of my blog for specifics and try to refute the “fictional” numbers then.


Oh, and by the way, I don’t EVER again want to hear the foolish meme from Rachel Maddow and the rest of the useful idiot progressive talking heads on TV and the radio whine about the “right wing Supreme Court”.

The Supreme Court is very right wing. I am still trying to figure out what motivated Roberts to vote as he did (and it certainly was not the Constitution because his explanation had me rolling on the floor laughing). I think maybe it was that he could only justify overturning the Individual Mandate, which was simply unworkable. Perhaps he is a practical man. None of the justices arbitrate without ideology. They all look for Constitutional Justification to do what is necessary (I wish I could find the quote where Sandra Day O’Connor all but admitted this, but it eludes me at the moment). However, just reviewing the decisions by the Court would convince most rational people of this, I think.

>Only in a world gone mad and down the rabbit hole would we now consider the SCOTUS as right-wing. The Overton window has indeed shifted so far to the left that previously moderate or slightly left of center policies are now seen as right wing. That said, I whole-heartedly agree with you regarding Robert’s vote. It was absolutely not constitutionally based. I further agree that all of the justices typically don’t arbitrate without ideology. I simply had assumed that the conservative justices had an ideology that was constitutionally-based. John Roberts evidently is the exception to that rule. Robert’s decision strikes me as institutionally based instead of constitutionally based. He said the other day while quoting Oliver Wendell Holmes that it was the court’s obligation to try and find a way to save this legislative act. I am not sure where that is in the constitution or why he didn’t use that same justification in upholding all parts of Arizona’s immigration law.


By the way, as a proud liberal, I just want to say that today: WE WIN!!!!

>As a proud conservative, I just want to cry and say that today: America and freedom LOST!!

Obama 2012!

>I’d vote to put Obama in the big house, but certainly not back in the White House. He came to the White House with a resume unworthy of running a 7-11. He certainly has not grown in office and will hopefully be sent packing along with his abhorrent wife in a little more than 200 days. Perhaps he can issue a pardon to his perjorous and incompetent Attorney General on his way out the door.

T. Paine said...

“While Roberts may have acted, not out of judicial integrity and not out of respect for the problem of only invalidating the Individual Mandate, for example, this would not say anything good about Roberts. It would mean that we have a politician on the court making decisions almost solely based on politics.

This to me is much less respectable than a justice who makes his decisions based on ideology.”

John, on this I am in total agreement with your observations, sir.