I can’t believe it…the Left was actually right about something! The Supreme Court is indeed politicized and activist.
And this is now a face I’d really like to punch:
It’s theoretically possible that things might actually work out better this way. I doubt they will, but it’s theoretically possible. Obama repeatedly claimed that the mandate isn’t a tax, the Supremes just called him a liar. Romney should be able to do something with that.
And so what? Consider that no matter what happens in November, the next SCOTUS vacancies will be filled by either Barack or Mitt. So what if Romney follows through on his promise to eliminate ObamaCare, if the Supreme Court continues to justify every federal power-grab?
UPDATE—my brief surge of anger at Chief Justice Roberts has been replaced by…wary appreciation. A quote from his opinion:
“It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”
Did Roberts remember that this “tax” originated as a Senate bill? The Senate has no authority to raise revenue, which may raise entirely new legal challenges. Did he know that motions to repeal taxes cannot be filibustered? In theory, ObamaCare can now be overturned by 218 Representatives, 50 Senators, and Vice President Rubio. Not just defunded; repealed.
Chess grandmasters don’t flinch from sacrificing their queen if it brings victory. Is Roberts some sort of judicial Bobby Fischer? I prefer the upfront federalism of Justice Thomas, of course. But from now til November the Presidential campaign is going to be even funnier than expected.
That they would bow to Obama is not unexpected. Those 9 folks are part of the problem, as expected. Too many lawyers around.
But what really pisses me off is that Stolen Valor is apparently unconstitutional, because, according to the SCOTUS it violates the First Amendment?!
WHAT KIND OF *CENSORED* IS THIS?!
Claiming to have won a medal, while not really having done so, isn’t free speech. Those 9 buggers are just as bad as the rest on the Hill.
Oh yeah, I’d forgotten about that one. But I would be willing to (very reluctantly) accept that argument…as long as there were absolutely no restrictions on political speech, including campaign contributions.
And even then, if “impersonating a police officer” is illegal, why isn’t impersonating a soldier? How about impersonating a federal judge?
I should impersonate Obama.
Thanks for the update. After hearing the details a few hours ago, I was going to reply to you with that same quote you used and I heard but couldn’t find it (being lazy). That being: “It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”
Thus, congress can tax, please can replace congress.
Yes, if Roberts deliberately put everyone’s attention on their political choices, it might work out better than if he’d sided with the four dissenters.
But I still can’t approve of his methods, because the dissent was right.
1. Thank you for illustrating my judicial activism means something different to the right and left. You, being a proper righty, think he acted legislatively by calling it a tax when Congress refused to –he redefined the nature of the legislation.
2. A bust on the procedural issue probably. Once whatever officer certifies to Pres that bill to sign is duly passed by Congress, court won’t second guess. Old tenant. Used in Bush v. Gore about FL SecState.
3. Roberts was too clever by half. Should have gone with Thomas. But still, as a piece of political strategy, masterful. The left is still to busy gloating to realize that Commerce Clause jurisprudence and the federal spending power took significant hits.
I don’t know what “righty” means. My only political axiom is “maximize liberty”. Depending on the issue you choose, I could be “left” of most progressives or “right” of most conservatives.
But I do tend to agree that Roberts was a judicial activist by calling the mandate a tax, and that he should have gone with Thomas. Even if that was politically less effective (and it almost certainly would have been) it was philosophically flawed.
Speaking of taxes, I wonder when they will change the tax system in the States so that everyone with an income has to pay income tax.
This is normal here. Even for people making what you’d call “minimum wage”.
I remember when I first failed at vet-med university I had to get a job. I made roughly 13,000 Schilling per month, that is about 1,000 Euro, give or take (it’s actually less than that, about 950), pretty much minimum wage in the States (coming out with about 80 Schilling per hour in a 160 hour work month, which were about 8 Dollars back then, about 5-6 Euro.) After tax I was left with roughly 800 Euro (780 or so; which made it into about 6 Dollars per hour, about 4-5 Euro.) That’s about 25% income tax, give or take, yep, for not really a lot of money, for basically minimum wage. It’s okay if you’re single. You can live from it, you can save some of it if you’re not wasting it all on crap, but I wouldn’t want to feed a family from it. Mind you, it’s still possible, especially since you’d get all kinds of government support (that’s the really amazing part, they take money from you as taxes, and then give it back to you as support, so why not lower the taxes in stead and remove the back and forth transfers, oh wait, that would make sense and we can’t have that!)
Up until a few years ago I made enough money to pay 50% income tax. That starts at making 60k Euro per year. Now mind you, that is 14 salaries. Our system is a bit weird. So, turning this into US or even German ways, aka 12 salaries, that’s 50% income tax starting at roughly 51k Euro, which are about 65k Dollars per year.
This will come to the US eventually, because they’ll realize that “taxing the rich” won’t get enough money, the middle class can only be taxed to a certain point, so that leaves the rest, the 50+% who don’t pay any income taxes in tax paradise US.
And that’s why I call the US a tax paradise, cause all the whiners in the States, who cry hysterically about the “evil rich” ™ have no clue how bad taxation can get.
Oh, and let’s not forget fuel prices where more than 50% of the money you pay at the gas station are actual taxes, plus 20% VAT of course. Our fuel price is completely through the roof these days. It effectively doubled over the past roughly 15 years.
But really funny thing here is this: even with this massive amount of taxes, the system can’t be financed. Our national debt is going up, our deficit is going up, and so is our spending, yep. The Austrian national debt went from 70% of the GDP in 2010 to 80% of it in 2011. Whooooops.
Working as planned? I guess so.
It’s funny how debt always seems to rise with taxes. Almost as if feeding parasites is a bad idea.
““It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”
It’s their effing job to decide ‘Constitutional, or not”, NOT to rewrite legistation to suit; that Roberts did this… chess player my ass. ‘Oathbreaker’ is the term I’d use.
After further reading, I must acknowledge your wisdom. I’m trying to put my sense of optimism to death, but it still emits faint squeaks. Right now it’s murmuring, “maybe this incident has scared Justice Kennedy straight.” Screw you, optimism!
Pingback: J.R. went “left”; he won’t be turning back. | World's Only Rational Man
Pingback: Jesse Jackson is truly progressive. | World's Only Rational Man