As friends keeping in touch daily about important political events and their implications, Jane and I decided to wait for a day or so before commenting on what has become a remarkable and bewildering Thursday, June 28, 2012, Supreme Court Obamacare decision. We were not only interested in hearing more analysis from both sides; we also wanted to cool down as we were in a state of fury.
Screening though our emails the day of the decision, we kept getting messages forwarding commentaries from various conservatives around the country saying.....Maybe this wasn't such a bad thing. Maybe there's some good in it. Maybe we can work it to our advantage.
Such was expressed in a Weekly Standard article published on Thursday, June 28, which indicated that 1) the Roberts Court restricted the limits of the Commerce Clause and 2) the Roberts Court also threw out a portion of the Medicaid expansion.
Finally, after a day or so of contemplation, we can conclude how we had four strong votes to strike down Obamacare completely and needed only one more vote to end the issue. The Chief Justice, however, went over to the liberal side and committed a fraud on the American people.
Not only that, but Justice Roberts, in writing the majority opinion, bypassed the 'Commerce Clause' segment of the argument and came up with a completely NEW argument that hadn't even been presented in the Court's hearings - TAXES! This was after Obama and his team and his lawyers had argued over and over again that a penalty was not a tax!
We have further concluded that there is no way that Obamacare approaches constitutionality.
Rush Limbaugh had this to say in a quite lengthy commentary on June 28, "I Am Literally Sick Over This Obamacare Travesty":
"All I know is that we were defrauded in front of our eyes, wide open. We were taunted, defrauded, mocked, laughed at. I guess 5-4 court decisions are perfectly fine now. Oh yeah, hey, we'll take whatever we can get, we'll take it however we can get it. Even if they have to invent law, even if they have to rewrite a statute that was so poorly written, it wouldn't have gotten past a first grader who understood the Constitution."
According to radio talk show host, Mark Levin, during his Thursday night radio show, 6/28, he branded the opinion of Chief Justice Roberts as the deciding swing vote in the Supreme Court 5-4 decision as illogical and incoherent.
Levin went on to say that the decision represented no win whatsoever for conservatives or for the American people. Further, that Obamacare should not have been upheld under any clauses, save for one Justice who changed everything and by so doing allowed the federal government to have more power over the individual.
To Mark Levin the tax argument didn't even make any sense. It was never part of the issue. Levin further clarified that even Justice Kennedy saw Obamacare for the unconstitutional bill that it was!
One of the finest opinion pieces written about the 5-4 Supreme Court decision appeared in the Wall Street Journal on Friday, June 29, The Robert's Rule. The article called the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) a remarkable decision shot through with confusion.
How so? "The mandate that's really a tax, except when it isn't, and the government whose powers are limited and enumerated, except when they aren't. One thing is clear: This was a one-man show, and that man is John Roberts."
Regarding the Commerce Clause and any restriction of its limitations, the Wall Street Journal article reaches a different conclusion from that which was suggested in the before mentioned Weekly Standard article.
Although the Chief Justice ruled that the ObamaCare mandate didn't apply to the Commerce Clause (joined by the Court's conservative bloc), Roberts also said that the mandate fell within Congress' power (favored by the Court's liberal bloc). Accordingly, the Obamacare ruling placed a restraint on federal power without a real restraint. The only way Justice Roberts could salvage Obamacare was to rewrite the statute that was passed by Congress. And, that is not his job. That is Congress' job! The Supreme Court's responsibility is to interpret the law, not write it.
So, now we have a law that was written by only one political party in the Legislative branch. We have a President in the Executive branch who lied to the American people about what the law represented. And, we have a Judiciary branch which has rewritten the law.
Is it any wonder we find ourselves in such a state of confusion?