Chief Justice Roberts saves Obamacare!

[dannubis]

individual mandate is related to the individual insurance ?

[notyoueither]

Many Americans who were upset at the Supreme Court decision took to Twitter to voice their anger. Weirdly enough, many Americans tweeted about 'moving to Canada' to escape socialized medicine.

"I'm moving to Canada, the United States is entirely too socialist," tweets @wallyweldon.

[Jaguar]

Well they did gut the expansion of Medicaid, Guy.

Proposal: moratorium on "gut" as a political verb. It's a perfectly legitimate metaphor, but it has been used too frequently and has become tired.

[Guynemer]

Also not particular applicable in this case.

[Wiglaf]

It was a law years ago. What this means is the supreme court doesn't find it to be unconstitutional and the law is here to stay.

Until Romney takes office.

This ruling proves Obama's pledge to not raise taxes on middle-class Americans was false. Very false. This is his "No new taxes" moment, combined with his Challenger explosion moment.

What's worse, anyone who reads the majority opinion knows how embarrassing this decision is. It is like Ben Shapiro and Justice Kennedy said, a dramatic and fundamental change to the meaning of liberty and a drastic expansion of the power to tax. It will provide a great platform for Republicans to further decimate Democrats in November and vote in a repeal by January. People are now very fearful of further judicial and legislative overreach into their lives.

The dissent has numerous typos referring to itself as the "majority," leading me to believe Roberts changed his mind and wrote his opinion at the last minute, perhaps after receiving a call from his orange oompa loompa puppetmasters. Which makes sense because of how terribly incoherent it is.

Not one line of Roberts' opinion addresses the notion that it's excessive overreach for the government to impose a tax for inaction. He fails to resolve that fundamental question and instead compares Obamacare to tax incentives for home purchasers, which are constitutional. He spends an inordinate amount of time talking about how the tax is not so high as to constitute a penalty, which is both irrelevant to the core question at hand and bewildering, since this tax is high enough that it transforms the entire health care industry. He then concludes the taxing power isn't that intrusive as compared to alternatives, which again avoids the point.

Liberals who would be whining about a 5-4 overturn are of course elated anyway, they will not read the opinion, they do not care about Obama's massive tax increases that are bankrupting this nation, they probably think Roberts' corporate puppetmaster check bounced this week, and they will continue their war on capitalism and the economy. Mitt Romney needed a platform. Returning these uncaged raccoons and reanimated dinosaurs to their slums and garbage heaps is it. This is Mitt Romney's Night at the Museum moment.

[Guynemer]

FREE WIGLAF!

[giblets]

He fails to resolve that fundamental question and instead compares Obamacare to tax incentives for home purchasers, which are constitutional.

Yes. Since a tax on inaction isn't any different from a tax incentive for action, it's incoherent to claim one is constitutional while the other is not.

[Ben Kenobi]

Who is that? The rational response to this ruling from conservatives should be: Romney 2012! It would be more productive than *****ing like a bunch of liberals.

Goddamn. Romney's been pushing this crap since day 1. He won't gut O-Care.

[Ben Kenobi]

Worst Supreme Court ruling since Dred Scott. Slavery apparently is ok when you're forcing people to buy stuff that you want.

Mother of God

Shapiro's right on that. What's next, invading states that refuse to tax their own citizens into slavery?

[Wiglaf]

FREE WIGLAF!

Plomp and Ming's fetishistic obsession with their arcane rules and their juvenile attraction to the repulsive, detestable serial killer Ed Beach was no match for free thinking Apolytoners. The staff, including the really dumb tubby one who shills for Firaxis all the time and overuses smilies, are now trying to reclaim their tattered dignity by attacking me and jerking each other off in the voyeuristic zoo that is the community forum

Yes. Since a tax on inaction isn't any different from a tax incentive for action, it's incoherent to claim one is constitutional while the other is not.

There is one benefit to philosophy classes, namely that they would fail out anyone who wrote a stupid sentence like this.

[Jaguar]

Also not particular applicable in this case.

Another example from today. Ruling that Congress can't demand for new commerce to take place is "gutting" the Commerce Clause. Never mind that it still justifies the Social Security Administration, the EPA, the FDIC, the SEC, the NLRB, the FDA, Medicare, Medicaid. No, because it has suffered a single setback, it has been "gutted."

That's simply not what the word means. I appreciate good writing, and using strong, descriptive verbs. But this is like describing the Queen of England "devouring" an hors d'oeuvre at teatime. Devour is a great verb, and I approve of its usage, but it is not just a synonym for "eat."

[Jaguar]

"Intrigue," by the way, was indeed a very gay name for what I presume is a very gay gameplay mechanic.

[giblets]

There is one benefit to philosophy classes, namely that they would fail out anyone who wrote a stupid sentence like this.

One of the many benefits of not being a conservative is that I don't have to pretend that the supreme court saying "taxing a failure to buy broccoli is unconstitutional, but tax breaks for people who buy broccoli are constitutional" would be anything other than sophistry.

[Wiglaf]

"Intrigue," by the way, was indeed a very gay name for what I presume is a very gay gameplay mechanic.

Look at that gay mechanic. It's properly gay.

The moderators and tubby retards who run this forum are all from foreign countries, where insults and homophobia get you put in jail for a year. Explains a lot.

One of the many benefits of not being a conservative is that I don't have to pretend that the supreme court saying "taxing a failure to buy broccoli is unconstitutional, but tax breaks for people who buy broccoli are constitutional" would be anything other than sophistry.

Providing bonuses to people for doing something is not the same as penalizing them for not doing something, simply on its face. I don't see what more explanation you need.

[MrFun]

I'm very happy with this ruling. Children with preexisting conditions can no longer be denied healthcare coverage. People won't have to choose between living with bankruptcy or dying.