Chief Justice Roberts: Wrong About Obamacare, Sinks GOP Hopes

Congress, Supreme Court, and/or Executive branches cannot tax, penalize, or regulate inactivity.

I am more than a little annoyed at conservative political pundits trying to put a positive spin on the disastrous Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare. Make no mistake: CJ Roberts made it much more likely that Barack Hussein Obama will win a second term. Barry and friends have spiked the football and will be doing an end-zone dance clear to November.

Democratic Talking Points Thanks To CJ Roberts

• Obama was right all along
• he will make sure that even us poor will get medical care and the medicines we need
• he will give all us poor people free healthcare
• rich people and corporations will pay for it
• we will all get better, cheaper medical care
• we will all be healthier
• even poor people will be able to buy health insurance
• Obama is helping poor people to be healthier
• our medical bills will be affordable
• even poor people can afford quality healthcare
• he has given free health insurance to children
• he will make sure everyone can afford to be healthy
• healthcare and health insurance is a constitutional right
• even really sick people with preexisting conditions can get affordable health insurance
• I can keep my current doctor and health insurance policy
• I will not have to make changes to my health insurance
• My taxes will not go up
• Taxes will not go up by $1,000,000,000,000.00 (trillion, if you have lost count of the how many zeroes there are)

These are all demonstrably false, but that is irrelevant. Obamacare violates every tenant expressed in the Federalist Papers, but some undecided voters will believe that they are getting something important for nothing a la Tocqueville vol. 1 vol. 2 .

Whistling Past The Graveyard

Anyone who thinks that the GOP will benefit from this disaster should consult:

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/whistle_past_the_graveyard

The public perception might be just enough to push the swing states (Ohio, North Carolina, Virginia, Florida) decisively into blue territory. The question of political impact has nothing to do with the conservative base, but rather undecideds: how will this affect 'Reagan Democrats'? Public opinion on Obamacare is mixed, but is sure to improve now that it has Supreme Court imprimatur.

For Whom the Bells Do NOT Toll – Obamacare

The Supreme Court's decision on Obamacare was unexpected, not to mention peculiar. Let this be a lesson to you young 'uns with a political bent: elections and Supreme Court decisions are never sure things. The fact that the ruling was a surprise should not be surprising.

The government's case was poorly presented, and an impressive array of opponents where lined up against it. Kennedy did some hard questioning, and the consensus of political pundits was that just the individual mandate would be struck down 5-4. That is not what happened: the Chief Justice joined the Liberal side to uphold the entire law (including the individual mandate), but striking down the state Medicaid provisions. 4 justices, including Kennedy, voted to strike down the entire law; we came that close to killing Obamacare.

Read the Supreme Court Decision For Yourself

It is a 193 page PDF file, and you can download it here:

(page numbers refer to the PDF file, not the pagination within each document)

www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

• the summary is p. 1-6
• the majority decision written by Roberts is p. 7-65
• separate opinion by liberal justices is p. 66-126
• minority opinion by conservative justices p.127-191
• interesting dissent by Thomas p. 192-193

A Tax?

I am not a Constitutional lawyer, and I do not play one on TV, and will leave analysis to others. Nevertheless, I read the entire decision, paying special attention to the part where Roberts upholds the individual mandate: he holds that it is indeed unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause, but is allowable anyway because it can be construed as a tax, and Congress is allowed to tax to their little hearts' content.

Huh?

On page 37:

...if a statute has two possible meanings, one of which violates the Constitution, courts should adopt the meaning that does not do so.

So, because it might be a tax, it is still constitutional?

In response, on page 144 of the minority opinion:

...we cannot rewrite the statute to be what it is not.

The Chief Justice's rejoinder can be found on page 45:

The joint dissenters ... contend that even if the Constitution permits Congress to do exactly what we interpret this statute to do, the law must be struck down because Congress used the wrong labels.

Wait a second: is not the 'label' used by Congress prima facie evidence of their intent? Is not congressional intent a key consideration in determining the constitutionality of a law?

Houston, We Have a Problem...

Under this logic, yes: the federal government can constitutionally force us to do or buy anything (including broccoli) as long as it is couched as a 'tax'. Now that this principle has Supreme Court precedent, Congress can invoke it whenever and as often as they like. Yes, if Romney gets elected President, he and both legislative houses under Republican control can repeal Obamacare, but any subsequent President/Senate/House combo can exercise this power, since it is now written in stone.

When Should We Send Our Military Overseas?

The United States might be a hegemonic power, but her foreign policy is an unpredictable mess. No, I am not referring just the to current administration, but to the past several ones. On what basis does she decide to use military intervention overseas? Everyone, friend and foe alike, must be continually puzzled. What motivates US action: protecting her citizens, national self-interest, national security, defending another country's sovereignty, moral indignation? It has been a long time since our country has articulated a coherent foreign policy.

Why Iraq But Not Iran?

The reason we invaded Iraq was because Saddam might have nuclear and/or biological weapons (so-called 'weapons of mass destruction'), but had none. We know for a fact that Iran actually is enriching uranium, and only time stands between her and a functioning nuclear weapon, perhaps even mounted atop a ballistic missile (Shahab-3, anyone?). Using the same logic, ought not the US armed forces be invading Iran at this very moment? The current administration actually sabotaged a possible Israeli air attack to take out the nuclear program. Worse, Saddam might have been deterrable, but the mullahs controlling Iran are probably much less so.

Why Lybia But Not Syria?

Both Gaddafi and al-Assad count as despotic dictators. The US aided the rebels fighting the former, but is profoundly reluctant to do the same for the latter. Why? The stated reason for intervening in Lybia was to prevent a humanitarian disaster, yet one is occurring right now (just ask Jordan and Turkey, who are considering closing their borders) in Syria. Both leaders fought the rebels, but only one of them is also slaughtering wholesale her own citizens (guess which one).

Why Bosnia But Not Rwanda?

The stated reason for putting American boots on the ground in Bosnia was ethnic cleansing (read: wholesale murder). The same thing happened in Rwanda, but the death toll among the Hutus and Tutsis was much greater, with nary an American soldier in sight.

How Long Are We Going To Remain Feckless?

I want someone to explain to me the logic behind the above decisions.

If United States foreign policy is to become more effective and globally influential, it has to stop being seemingly random. She must have principles; simply acting ad hoc or putting out fires as they flare-up is not the same thing. The United States needs to have a predictable foreign policy, so the rest of the world can act accordingly. This way, we can actually influence the actions of foreign countries, both friend and foe.

Why Russia and China Act The Way They Do

A STRATEGIC TRUTH

USA = global hegemon (Look it up, people).

THEY HAVE THE WHOLE WORLD IN THEIR HANDS

Thanks to the often wrong-headed philosophical/economic musings of Karl Marx, and the retail political application of Vladimir Lenin, Communists firmly believe that, just as the sun rises in the East and sets in the West, they are the rightful heirs of the future of humanity. They believe that Capitalism and Democracy will, variously: rot from the inside out, collapse of its own weight, become an empty shell, or (insert your cliche here).

ABOUT RUSSIAN BEHAVOIR

They are great supporters of Iran and Syria. They want Iran to be on a slow march to a nuclear weapon, and Syria to continue to promote instability and terrorism in the Middle East.

Why?

Because they tie American foreign policy into knots, in a way that Khrushchev and Brezhnev never could.

ABOUT CHINESE BEHAVOIR

China has a similar relationship to North Korea: the CCP wants her little sister to have a cartoon character for a dictator, tossing around nuclear-tipped ballistic weapons on a whim. They are not about to withdraw support.

USA HEGEMONY – THE NEXT GENERATION

There is no chance that we will be successful dealing with just the pawns. It is high time to deal with the Borg Queen(s) directly, and bypass her minions.

Jerry Sandusky – May Your Soul Rot In Hell

Well, OK, I am Buddhist and do not believe in Gehenna. If Purgatory is real, it is of one's own making.

Nevertheless, I was a juror in a P/I case: it took us almost 2 full days of deliberation for a reasonably straightforward case. The fact the jury here judged guilty 45 of 48 charges in about the same time, should tell us something about the obvious veracity of the charges.

To answer your next question, I hold JoPa (who knew of the sexual violations and even participated in the cover up), Priests who performed sex with minors, and anyone in the Catholic hierarchy (can you say 'Paracletes'? Arizona?) who protected same, in equal contempt. Y' know, it takes much to tick-off a Buddhist; this is one of those cases.  

Fast 'n Furious – Obama's Waterloo?

OUR STORY SO FAR

Mexican drug gangs have become so powerful, that they control many Mexican states along the border with the US, where the drug routes run, out-muscling Mexican police and military. Even cruise ships have stopped visiting some ports 'o call along the Mexican Riviera that the gangs control. So, the Obama administration got the bright idea of allowing guns to illegally run south across the border, with the intent of tracking and identifying the drug gangs, calling the initiative 'Fast and Furious' (FAF).

So far, from my seat in the peanut gallery, I am with them.

Then, the doggie-doo hit the fan: they lost track of the guns. Not only was a US border agent killed by a gun traceable to FAF, but Mexican authorities have stated that dozens or perhaps hundreds of Mexicans have been killed by guns that can be so traced.

Oops...

WATERGATE

I need to explain this to you young 'uns who have never heard of CREEP (Committee to Re-Elect the President), or AG John Mitchell. In 1972, some low level political operatives working for the Nixon campaign broke into a Democratic campaign office and stole a few documents. They were caught, but this was a simple misdemeanor about as serious as jay-walking.

All Nixon had to do was plead mea culpa, and the matter would have simply disappeared forever. Dick Morris, in his book “2010: Take Back America: A Battle Plan”, calls this an up-and-over, the proper method of dealing with such political crises.

But that is not what Nixon and friends did: instead, they tried to cover up the affair, unsuccessfully. In the end, the cover-up involved Presidential counsels, staffers, and cabinet secretaries. In the shadows of a certain Impeachment conviction vote in the Senate, Nixon resigned in disgrace in 1974.

OBAMA'S WATERGATE?

OK, so far, which road map is Obama following:

• the Dick Morris plan, or
• the Richard Milhous Nixon plan?

(hint: both Nixon and Obama have invoked 'executive privilege', refusing to turn over key documents to Congress).

ABOUT THE BATTLE OF WATERLOO

Occurred in 1815, where the Emperor Napoleon was finally defeated by Coalition forces led by Blucher and Wellington, paving the way for Louis XVIII to be restored to the French throne. I acknowledge that some of you military buffs argue that Napoleon really lost his military campaign a couple of days earlier at Quatre Bras, where he had the chance, but failed, to defeat Coalition forces piecemeal.  

Thank Allah for the Egyptian Military

Ahem: I need to explain to you about the Egyptian military. They have always been a major political force in Egypt. No, this is a good thing. They are the moderating force that keeps Egyptian politics from veering too far from orthodoxy. Thus it is this week.

See, they dissolved parliament yesterday, on the grounds that some of the members thereof were not elected legitimately. For us in the West, this is fortunate since many are members in the Muslim Brotherhood, a think tank that gave birth to both Hamas and Hezbollah. When Mubarak fell from power, many wondered where the military would stand if the MB gained prominence.

Well, we now have our answer.
(relax: 'Allah' is simply the Arabic word for 'God').  

The Private Sector is Doing Fine - Obama Credo, Not a Misstatement

When Obama made this statement in an unscripted press conference, it was widely viewed as a gaffe or a mistake. He was obligated to do a follow up where he walked back that comment, but not really. He took the opportunity to, as always, blame everyone else.

Unforced presidential error? Au contraire, mon ami. This off-handed remark accurately reflects how he thinks about Capitalism. In Barry's World, free-enterprise and Capitalism is largely irrelevant at best, to be scorned and controlled at worst. True happiness and human fulfillment is in direct proportion to how many work for government, controlling, protecting and safeguarding the human race.

When Obama spent his political capital on passing Obamacare, some opined that he made a tactical mistake by not focusing on the economy, thereby reassuring his reelection. Not a mistake or miscalculation at all. It was never his intent to improve the economy. His intent was an historic increase in the power, scope, and control of the government, akin to FDR (social security) and Lyndon Johnson (medicare, medicaid, food stamps), over our lives. In his calculus, this effort will bring more happiness and righteousness than a robust economy where everyone has a job. Such an important goal simply cannot be trusted to Adam Smith's invisible hand.

Make no mistake: Barry knows exactly what he is doing. He thinks that he is doing us all a great favor.

The Smart Grid Really Isn't

When people hear the phrase 'smart grid', they usually think of a supercomputer in an impregnable, concrete, air-conditioned bunker that is continually adjusting and tweaking the electric grid for maximum efficiency, or perhaps an army of MacBook Airs connected to the tops of electric poles all networked together giving our electric supply a brain.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

The key to the 'smart grid' are smart chips embedded in all of your appliances that are heavy users of electricity: refrigerator, dishwasher, clothes dryer, air conditioner, plasma TVs, and heaven only knows what else. If the energy police decide that you are using more than your fair share of electricity, they can cut back or even turn off your appliances. See, these smart chips will be in radio contact with headquarters, and they will be monitored and controlled by the energy police from there, and you will have no say.

You might already have a 'smart' electric meter installed in your home. Yes, this means that your utility can read your meter remotely via data link in real time, but it also means that they can cut off your electricity with just a mouse click at headquarters during power shortages. With the old mechanical meters, they had to send out a technician to manually turn off the juice to your house.

Advocates will admit that without these chips in all of your appliances, the 'smart' grid is largely meaningless. Upgrading the infrastructure so it can carry larger amounts of electricity and to connect to 'green' power sources is irrelevant: these improvements can be done today, without the 'smart' grid.

The 'smart' grid is a very, very bad idea. Already, the knowledge police are telling you what type of light bulbs you can use, what kind of toilet you can sit on, and how much sugary soda and salt you can have. Now, they will be telling you that you are watching too much TV or that you are using your air conditioner too much. Are you sure that this is the type of country you wish to live in? To put it another way: do the ends justify the means?