Did Justice Roberts Pull One Over on the Liberals?

To all my friends, particularly those conservatives who are despondent over the searing betrayal by Chief Justice John Roberts and the pending demise of our beloved country, I offer this perspective to convey some profound hope and evidence of the Almighty’s hand in the affairs of men in relation to the Supreme Court’s decision on Obamacare.

I initially thought we had cause for despondency when I only heard the results of the decision and not the reason or the make-up of the sides. I have now read a large portion of the decision and I believe that it was precisely the result that Scalia, Alito, Thomas, Roberts and even Kennedy wanted and not a defeat for conservatism or the rule of law. I believe the conservatives on the court have run circles around the liberals and demonstrated that the libs are patently unqualified to be on the Supreme Court. Let me explain.

First let me assure you that John Roberts is a conservative and he is not dumb, mentally unstable, diabolical, a turncoat, a Souter or even just trying to be too nice. He is a genius along with the members of the Court in the dissent. The more of the decision I read the more remarkable it became. It is not obvious and it requires a passable understanding of Constitutional law but if it is explained anyone can see the beauty of it.

The decision was going to be a 5–4 decision no matter what, so the allegation that the decision was a partisan political decision was going to be made by the losing side and their supporters. If the bill was struck down completely with Roberts on the other side there would have been a national and media backlash against conservatives and probably strong motivation for Obama supporters to come out and vote in November. With today’s decision that dynamic is reversed and there is a groundswell of support for Romney and Republicans, even for people who were formerly lukewarm toward Romney before today, additionally Romney raised more than 4 million dollars today.

Next, merely striking the law without the support of Democrats and libs would have left the fight over the commerce clause and the “necessary and proper” clause and the federal government’s role in general festering and heading the wrong way as it has since 1942. As a result of the decision the libs are saying great things about Roberts; how wise, fair and reasonable he is. They would never have said that without this decision even after the Arizona immigration decision on Monday. In the future when Roberts rules conservatively it will be harder for the left and the media to complain about the Robert’s Court’s fairness. That’s why he as Chief Justice went to the other side for this decision not Scalia, Alito, Thomas or Kennedy, all of whom I believe would have been willing to do it.

Next let’s look at the decision itself. Thankfully Roberts got to write it as Chief Justice and it is a masterpiece. (As I write this the libs don’t even know what has happened; they just think Roberts is great and that they won and we are all going to have free, unlimited healthcare services and we are all going to live happily ever after.)

He first emphatically states that Obamacare is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause saying you cannot make people buy stuff. Then he emphatically states that it is unconstitutional under the “necessary and proper” clause which only applies to “enumerated powers” in the US Constitution.  Justices Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan all went along with these statements. They never would have gone along with that sentiment if that was the basis for striking the law in total. This is huge because this means that the Court ruled 9-0 that Obamacare was unconstitutional under the Commerce clause which was Obama’s whole defense of the bill. They also ruled 9–0 on the “necessary and proper” clause. Even better, both of these rulings were unnecessary to the decision so it is gravy that we got the libs to concede this and it will make it easier to pare away at both theories in the future, which we must do. Well done.

Roberts, through very tortured reasoning, goes on to find that the taxing law provides the Constitutionality for the law. Virtually everyone agrees that the Federal government has the power to do this as it does with the mortgage deduction for federal income taxes. This too is huge because Obama assiduously avoided using the term “tax” and now he has to admit this law is a tax and it is on everyone, even the poor. That will hurt him hugely in the polls and will help Romney. More importantly though is the fact that this makes this a budgetary issue that can be voted on in the Senate by a mere majority instead of 60 votes needed to stop a filibuster. That means that if the Republicans can gain a majority in the Senate, it can vote to repeal Obamacare in total.

Finally the Court voted 7–2 to strike down the punitive rules that take away money from states that do not expand Medicare as required in Obamacare. This too is huge because we got Kagan and Breyer to join this decision and it can easily be applied to many other cases of extortion the Federal government uses to force states to do things they don’t want to. This is also amazing because Obamacare has no severability clause so by striking the Medicaid mandate portion as unconstitutional the whole bill should have been struck. If that happened none of these other benefits would have been accomplished. I haven’t read far enough to know how he did it but I am sure it is brilliant.

So to recap the Roberts court through a brilliant tactical maneuver has: strengthened the limitations of the commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause by a unanimous decision, made Obama raise taxes on the poor and middle classes, converted Obamacare into a tax program repealable with 51 votes in the Senate, enhanced Romney’s and Republican’s fundraising and likelihood of being elected in November, weakened federal extortion and got the left to love Roberts and sing his praises all without anyone even noticing. Even Obama is now espousing the rule of law just 2 weeks after violating it with his deportation executive order.

That is why I have decided this was a genius decision and that I did in fact get a great birthday present today not to mention U. S. Attorney General Eric Holder being held in contempt. What a day.

The Bolen Law Firm

Lexington, South Carolina



  • Screeminmeeme

    May be a reasonable argument to some ...but I heartedly disagree.

    I think this ''genius'' made a profoundly stupid, cockeyed, convoluted and gutless judgment that will be catastrophic in its consequences. Seems to me that Robert's defender, Richard Bolen, is like the little boy who is digging like crazy trying to find a pony in a mountain of manure.

    To have thrown out Obamacare like the other conservatives wanted would have remedied the extensive damage already done by this bill.....and the incalculable harm which will be created as different parts are implemented over the next few years. This POS bill will be funded on the backs of the middle class and senior citizens whose lives will be permanently altered, and the economic and cultural landscape of America forever changed.

    Concern for their reputation ought never be a motivation for the Supremes.......SCOTUS is supposed to be, by definition, a neutral party, nonpartisan and autonomous, in our governmental process and therefore, by its very function will always have those who are angered by judgments that are made. Being thin-skinned is rarely a good thing....but especially if you're a Supreme Court judge.

    This 'brilliant' decision was a real punch in the gut.

    • nonpartisan Valerie

      My sentiments exactly; what will they do next if they manipulate laws to fit their agenda? They are supposed to be completely impartial supporters of our laws. If this law was unconstitional than it should have been shot down and SCOTOS could have simply said "If this were written as a tax we can support it, otherwise it is unconstitutional and we cannot". Wouldn't that have accomplished the same goal without the risk of America getting stuck with this monstrocity!

  • ordman

    Who was it that said that elections have consequences? Who? That's right President Elect Obama on 11/5/2008. Chief Justice John Roberts said “It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices." Justice Roberts may have just done for the Romney campaign what it couldn’t do for itself. Energize the base and to remind the independent moderate voter that just because you don’t vote for a Liberal Progressive for President that, that in its self doesn’t make you a racist.
    Nothing wakes you up faster than cool bucket of water in the face. I’m willing to bet that when the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America votes on 6th November 2012 that it won’t be for President Obama.

    • Karen

      Regarding what Roberts said about the courts job of not protecting people from their political choices is absolutely wrong. Especially when we have fraudulent voters who elect liberals in office. The Supreme Court is the only recourse we have from tyrants who don't want to be subject to laws. I think the name Benedict Arnold is more appropiate for describing Roberts.

      • MORedneck

        Karen, please read the article slowly to understand the implications behind Judge Roberts decision!!

        • http://www.facebook.com/saaronco Sharon Brooks

          Yes Karen do reread the article...if you want to out smart someone you need to think like that person(s) ,understand them....play to their vanities and so forth.

        • http://twitter.com/jude83268949 jude

          People still do not understand what Judge Roberts did. They are reading between the lines and the lies of the media, and the potus, the mandate was unconstitutional, but could have been brought back alive using different wording, now it is DEAD.
          A tax can be repealed by the voters if they will vote against it, and by voting obama out of office.

        • http://www.facebook.com/Cindy9965 Cindy Sims Hickerson

          You got it!!

        • Sarah417

          No, you don't understand. Chief Justice Roberts did, in fact, make a brilliant move. BUT the Obama administration is the most corrupt administration in history. There is no way Obama is goint to lose. Ever hear of voter fraud?

        • Bob2002

          You are correct on the voter fraud part, but can not agree that Roberts did a brilliant move. The correct move would have been to declare the mandate unconstitutional and this alone would have killed ObamaCare. All Roberts did was to ensure most parts of this bad legislature gets implemented. Especially if Obama keeps the Senate and he is re-elected. Bad decision on Roberts' part because as you probably know, it is nearly impossible to oust an incumbent president. We will pay dearly for this bad decision. If Roberts wanted to stop or curtail using the commerce clause to enact bad legislature, he should have used another venue. He is a coward for changing his vote, then immediately leaving the country.

        • Revere1

          I've heard of voter fraud ,mostly bruited & perpetrated by republicans(You can look it up) but as a general matter not dispositive of a problem.

        • mwl

          Yes, and again obama is made out a liar and thief. Stupid pelosi jumped right on the Titanic and was so happy to be aboard. This is not over. IT is a TAX people will find this out quick and in a hurry. When they come up and say we want in your bank account.
          Bill Highlights


          Page 50/section 152: The bill will provide insurance to ALL" NON
          -U.S." residents, even if they are here "ILLEGALLY".


          Page 58 and 59: The government will have real-time access to an individual's
          bank account and will have ...the authority to make electronic fund transfers from
          those accounts.


          Page 65/section 164: The plan will be subsidized
          (by the government) for all union members, union retirees and for community
          organizations (such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform
          Now - ACORN). ** Page 203/line 14-15: The tax imposed under this section will
          not be treated as a tax. (How could anybody in their right mind come up with
          that?) ** Page 241 and 253: Doctors will all be paid the same regardless of
          specialty, and the government will set all doctors' fees. ** Page 272. section
          1145: Cancer hospital will ration care according to the patient's age. ** Page
          317 and 321: The government will impose a prohibition on hospital expansion;
          however, communities may petition for an exception. ** Page 425, line 4-12: The
          government mandates advance-care planning consultations. Those on Social
          Security will be required to attend an "end-of-life planning" seminar
          every five years. (Death counseling..) ** Page 429, line 13-25: The government
          will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order.

          ** Finally, it is specifically stated that this
          bill will not apply to members of Congress.
          It coming like a freight train.
          Mike in Afghanistan
          Read Fast and Furious by Katie Pavlich

        • Bob2002

          Voting Obama out of office sounds nice, but with all the crooked community organizers registering illegals, and dead people; then busing them to the polls at various places on voting day it will be nearly impossible to oust him. Then you have the youth, homosexuals, trial lawyers, muslins, hispanics, blacks, jewish people, hollywood crowd, food stamp and welfare people, Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, large banks, fund managers, environmentalists, and many billionaires who will do everything they can to ensure their gravy train stays afloat.

        • Bob2002

          Voting Obama out of office sounds nice, but with all the crooked community organizers registering illegals, homeless, and dead people; then busing them to the polls at various places on voting day it will be nearly impossible to oust him. Then you have the youth, homosexuals, trial lawyers, muslins, hispanics, blacks, jewish people, hollywood crowd, food stamp and welfare people, Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, large banks, fund managers, environmentalists, and many billionaires who will do everything they can to ensure their gravy train stays afloat. Does the Republican leadership have the nerve to write and pass legislature to repeal this tax?

        • Swampfox

          MO That is still taking an awful big gamble with our life.

      • http://christiancitizenshipforum.blogspot.com/ OneCitizenOfTheRepublic

        Chief Justice John Roberts said “It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices." It's tough when you called on your own mistakes. This article is dead on correct as far as it goes...but also wrong in the statement that the justices have no obligation to protect the nation from abuses of power by the other legs of government. In what possible way is it right that the justices should have tortured the case to rewrite what the defense presented in its arguments to the extent that they were able to make a clearly unconstitutional law...constitutional?

        Yes, there are benefits that we can gain IF things go as we hope...that the people awaken, and the so-called sleeping giant one again roars in defense of the best interests of all Americans...But what if...we the people do not win this election...then, just like a failed parachute actually increases the rate of descent...we will crash all the harder into an unrestrained dictatorship...

        A fire brake is only good...if the flames don't jump the break.

        "In the last resort a remedy must be obtained from the people who can,
        by the elections of more faithful representatives, annul the acts of the usurpers." James Madison, 1788

      • http://www.facebook.com/DaveandJeanette DaveandJeanette Clark

        I do not agree with your reasoning, but let me shed some light on recent Presidential History. While many of us, including me were despondent over the ruling by the SCOTUS, it is actually a blessing is disguise. Let me explain...Do you remember what Bush Senior said as President......He said "I Will Not Raise Taxes" ... and what did he do ... He raised Taxes in an election year and what happened...He got VOTED OUT OF OFFICE for lying to the American People. Now we have Obama still trying to say this is not a tax (when in reality it really is as stated by the SCOTUS in a 9-0 Vote) and what is this year ... An Election Year. What you need to do is on 6 November 2012 go and vote to make sure Obama is removed from office once and for all....and if your state is one where the Senator(s) are up for re-election, make sure you vote to remove any Senator who supported Obamacare. And finally, the Benedict Arnold you mentioned is not Justice Roberts, it is none other than Barack Obama who is illegally residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue even after his party states that he is not qualified to serve as President.

        • fort9erdon

          You think Obama will be gone after the November 2012 election? You grossly underestimate the power of voter fraud. It is voter fraud that will keep Obama in power, and nothing else. That is why the Attorney General is fighting so hard against states that try to implement voter ID laws!

        • http://www.facebook.com/kehoejan Jan Kehoe

          I lived in Illinois for 17 years and moved to Florida in ;89. I am still registered to vote in Illinois and could simply request a absentee ballot and have it sent to me in Florida. But in Florida you have to show your id with a correct address on it to vote even to get a absentee ballot you have to submit a proof of address to a notary and send it with your request to obtain an absentee ballot. What does that say about Illinois where the saying has been for as long as I can remember " vote early and vote often!"

        • fort9erdon

          If and when we ever get a republican president and a republican controled House and Senate, the first thing they need to do is implement a national voter ID law, which would be the same in all 50 states, (57 states for Obama supporters). I know the voting proces is the purvue of each individual state, BUT, I believe it to be perfectly legal for the feds to say to the states, "If any state is holding an election, and appearing on that states ballot, any public office to be filled for a federal position, that person who is voting for such federal position, MUST show a government issued photo ID, AND in the case of voter registration for a voter to be able to vote for ANY federal position, one must be registered to vote at least 40 days in advance of the election". Also in the case of an absentee ballot, when the ballot is returned, it MUST include a picture of the voters government issued photo ID. The persons name would then be entered into a record as "voted", and shall then be prohibited from voting in person, as some absentee ballot voters do.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jeffery-Scism/1132815760 Jeffery Scism

          The VERY first thing is repeal the Motor Voter Law, which allows persons sight unseen to register and vote on the mere promise that they are eligible. The laws which make it illegal to properly identify a voter should be next, because if you are registered, you vote, ONLY if you state your name and in some places, address. NO PROOF required or asked for.

          1. repeal Motor Voter
          2. repeal "no ID" laws
          3. National Voter ID.
          4 Mandate voter registration in person with proof of citizenship.
          5. Restrict early voting to the physically handicapped and true absentees.
          6. Require re-registration within 6 months of EVERY national election.

        • imom6i

          I agree and I always vote, and show my I.D. when I went to a polling place. I have no polling place where I currently live, but I vote by mail. Just require me to send a copy of my I.D. in with my ballot. I don't mind. All who vote at polling stations should insist the poll workers check their I.D.'s. As a former Polling Captain, it is requred I know. I was always asked to verify my address and I did. We also have the option of dropping them at the County Registrars office or at a box setup in the County office parking lot if we vote absentee.

        • Revere1

          HMMM....that sounds like an individual mandate under the commerce clause . We already know that's un constitutional.

        • fort9erdon

          Individual mandate, under the commerce clause??? Just what the hell are you talking about? We are talking about a new republican presidnt, on day one of his administration, issuing an executive order to grant everyone a waiver from Obamacare. Now, WHAT does that have anything to do with the commerce clause. Are you smokin something funny today or something? Get on subject!

        • http://www.facebook.com/Cindy9965 Cindy Sims Hickerson

          Illinois is the most corrupt state in the United States!!

        • Bob2002

          Yea, as proof look at the current illegal alien we have in our White House. He use Illinois as his base to start his political career.

        • Bob2002

          Yea, as proof look at the current illegal alien we have in our White House. He used Illinois as his base to start his political career.

        • Elly

          And that is how we got JFK for our president -- voter fraud in Illinois.
          What is it about Illinois that there is so much corruption? I asked this before I saw what Jan Kehoe wrote below, but that doesn't tell me why there is so much corruption in Illinois. And how do they get away with it? Money? But there is lots of money in other places that aren't as corrupt.

        • priceless22

          And yet there was still much fraud in Florida in Allen West's district and he lost.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Curtis-Bratcher/1391444053 Curtis Bratcher

          Don't forget that George Soros owns the company that makes the voting machines.

        • Jeff

          Then you will see a revolution!

        • http://www.facebook.com/Cindy9965 Cindy Sims Hickerson

          Obama will be gone...I have it on HIGH authority. Have faith!!

        • Revere1

          You talking to your stoner friends again?

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Curtis-Bratcher/1391444053 Curtis Bratcher

          Don't forget that George Soros owns the company that makes the voting machines.

        • brycee

          how and where did you learn this? I have never head this before but am very interested in learning more, presuming this information isn't just rhetoric against the evil puppet master.

        • mikey

          Look up DIEBOLD voting machines.

        • slight of hand

          Just like the voter fraud that got Bush into office with Florida.

        • fort9erdon

          There was not voter fraud in Florida, that put Bush "over the top" in Florida. That election was counted 4 times, and Bush won every so called recount. Then finally the Supreme court realized that there would continue to be recount after recount until the Gore boys got their desired result. So They put an end to it. A year after Bush was sworn in, the New York Times, (the most liberal of all liberal rags) went to Florida, and did a recount, giving Gore the benefit of the doubt on every "hanging, dimpled, or whatever chad", and guess what, .... Bush still won. That is not voter fraud, no, that is sour apples to a bunch of lib dems.

        • Revere1

          & your empirical evidence for voter fraud is...?

        • fort9erdon

          You're kidding right? With ACORN, the O'keefe tapes, multible convictions in multible states, the dems fighting Voter ID Laws under the guise of "Protecting minority voting rights, (stats prove minority voting goes UP with voter ID laws.... look it up) actually obtaining ATTY GENERAL HOLDER ballot, to cast a vote, .... I repeat, .... you're kidding, right? And, guess what, the VAST majority of convictions, there has been many, for voter fraud, is generally a democrat. Google "DIEBOLD voting machine error", and then consider it wil be (as it was in Nevada in 2010, when Harry Reid pulled off a 7 point upset in one day, the SEIU Union members will be "maintaining" the vast majority of voting machines in this election. Remember the complaint in Nevada was "As I entered the voting booth, Harry Reid's name was pre-selected. And, Reid won, in some districts, by margins bigger than there were registered voters in the district. So, I repeat, ...... you're kidding, ...right???

        • priceless22

          And you were correct...Fraud everywhere...and they didn't care if everyone knew!!

        • jackel

          70% of many businesses have said they will drop their employees health insurance and pay the penalty.Now what we have to do is get the word to the voters.i think it was a clever move !

        • Irma

          Justice Roberts DID put one over on the Lefties. If he had stayed with the Conservatives, the Left would be yelling and screaming all sorts of bilge not only about the Court but ALL Conservatives, and those that are weak in the mind would believe the idiocy of the Left, BUT with the Left now praising Roberts, the weak of mind will be more accepting of the "Conservative" court. Meanwhile, Roberts has stirred up the Right and the Independents to VOTE in November to get rid of Obama and ObamaCare, and the red meat Roberts offered to the public was the fact that ObamaCare ultimately NECESSITATES higher TAXES for EVERYONE, and the voters can control Congress by voting for those who WILL NOT RAISE TAXES. Roberts is quite the fox!

        • Bob2002

          Irma, Roberts did not put one over on the Lefties. He could have just as easily ruled the mandate unconstitutional. Who cares whether lefties yell and scream because they are going to do that anyway. It is not the duty of the Supreme Court to get the conservatives riled up. The Court acted political in this case where it should have simply looked at the law and whether it violated our constitution. It does. Roberts is a turncoat.

        • mbpalapa

          kudos for your analysis Irma

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Barbara-Paolucci/100001333695075 Barbara Paolucci

        The supreme court WAS the only recourse we had from tyrants who not only don't want to be subject to our laws, but want to turn America into a Marxist/Socialist nation!

        • Mark Paquette

          The only PEACEFUL means, if November fails us.

        • http://www.facebook.com/Cindy9965 Cindy Sims Hickerson

          Have faith!!! Pray!

      • http://www.facebook.com/Cindy9965 Cindy Sims Hickerson

        It isn't the Supreme Courts job to right the American peoples WRONG choices. That is our job as The American people to choose leaders wisely.

        • Elly

          But how do you get people who are more interested inthe latest "hit" program and what the movie stars are doing than what is going on in this country. Or interested only in what they can get from "the government" -- never realizing that "the government" only has pockets that are as deep as the amount of money the taxpayers have. Once the taxpayers pockets are empty there is nothing left for anyone.

      • mbpalapa

        as some sage person once opined, "We can't prevent stupid". Remember the separation of powers, the court determines constitutionality the congress passes laws and imposes taxes, the executive looks out for the safety of the country. If there is fraudulent voting the executive , using the Department of Justice is responsible to correct it as well as "We the People" the fourth and ultimate repository of power

    • jack342

      I agree,i saw a Basketball coach walk out on the floor during a game,his team down 22 pts.Refs called a tech.A while later he did again,they ejected him.His team was down 15 pts.it energized the team so much,they came back and won by 7 pts.

      • Patty

        My husband did the very same thing to a girl's bb team he was coaching. And yes it fired up the team and they won!!!! Gooooo Roberts!

    • ConservaDave

      It might not be Roberts' job to "protect the people from the consequences of their political choices," but it is his job to rule on the Constituionality of the laws and cases that come before him, which he failed to do twice (Obamacare and Arizona) last week.

      • Bob2002

        I agree with you. For some conservatives to look at ObamaCare being ruled constitutional disturbs me because this type of rationale is not rational. The Roberts Court has opened a bucket of worms because it allows future Democrat controlled House and Senate to tax us for any reason which will result in big government being able to make us buy anything or making us do anything through the tax code. Roberts was intimidated by Obama and his minions and that is the bottom line. He could have very easily ruled it unconstitutional by saying the government can not force us to purchase anything. Overall, a very bad decision by our highest court; a travesty. Roberts needs to retire.

        • mbpalapa

          I do believe you need to play chess like Roberts has

        • Bob2002

          Roberts did not play chess. He was intimidated by Obama into changing his vote. He is not qualified to be the Chief Justice because when one caves to political pressure it means that person is no longer qualified to be on the Supreme Court. Either he caved or he wants to be just like the Warren Court; an ultra liberal court that did much damage to the rule of law. To make matters worse, he left to teach a course overseas as soon as the vote came out. He is too much of a coward to stay and take the heat from his actions. Roberts forgot the role of the Supreme Court. It is not to savor favors, but it is to rule on issues using our constitution as a guide. He did not rule on the constitutionality of the case, but he actually made law. Making laws is the responsibility of the congress - not the Supreme Court.

        • Bob2002

          Roberts did not play chess. He was intimidated by Obama into changing his vote. He is not qualified to be the Chief Justice because when one caves to political pressure it means that person is no longer qualified to be on the Supreme Court. Either he caved or he wants to be just like the Warren Court; an ultra liberal court that did much damage to the rule of law. To make matters worse, he left to teach a course overseas as soon as the vote came out. He is too much of a coward to stay and take the heat from his actions. Roberts forgot the role of the Supreme Court. It is not to savor favors, but it is to rule on issues using our constitution as a guide. He did not rule on the constitutionality of the case, but he actually made law. Making laws is the responsibility of the congress - not the Supreme Court.

        • Bob2002

          Roberts did not play chess. He was intimidated by Obama into changing his vote. He is not qualified to be the Chief Justice because when one caves to political pressure it means that person is no longer qualified to be on the Supreme Court. Either he caved or he wants to be just like the Warren Court; an ultra liberal court that did much damage to the rule of law. To make matters worse, he left to teach a course overseas as soon as the vote came out. He is too much of a coward to stay and take the heat from his actions. Roberts forgot the role of the Supreme Court. It is not to savor favors, but it is to rule on issues using our constitution as a guide. He did not rule on the constitutionality of the case, but he actually made law. Making laws is the responsibility of the congress - not the
          Supreme Court. This is why Supreme Court justices should NOT be appointed for life. Supposedly, the way the system is supposed to work is they are appointed for life so they can be independent and not subject to political pressure. Roberts proved this theory wrong. Obama and his minions from Chicago are experts at intimidation. Look at all the court rulings on his eligibility to be president. All judges have caved and used stupid rationale for declaring Obama was born in Hawaii. Even though no birth certificate has surfaced proving he was born in Hawaii or anywhere. What a farce?

        • ggswede

          So what happens now when someone has to pay the so-called penalty,which now falls under the tax guidelines ? And then files suit ? Bam Bam care ENDS !

        • Bob2002

          Who knows what new guidelines will be written now that the supreme court has ruled ObamaCare's mandate is a tax. The IRS will make that decision. Perhaps they will confiscate material things, but if the individual has no money or property they might jail the person for not paying the tax. Another reason to repeal this bad legislature.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Lori-Covert-Newton/100001551112957 Lori Covert Newton

          They get to go to jail ?

        • Bloodstock

          All tax bills are to originate in the House. This bill originated in the Senate. On that premise alone, the bill should be null and void.

        • Bob202

          Who is going to contest this bill because it should have originated in the House? It can not be sent to the Supreme Court to rule whether it is null or void. They have already ruled positively on it.

      • http://www.bcsig.org/ Aric

        I could not disagree with the author of this article more. While I agree that it was important to acknowledge the limits of the Commerce clause and the Necessary and Proper clauses, Roberts violated the Constitution by not acknowledging the limits of the tax power as being also limited by the enumerated powers of the U.S. Constitution.

        This was pointed out early in our history by Joseph Story - Supreme Court Justice and Founder of Harvard Law School - in his commentaries of the Constitution (section 946-994). The idea being that tax power allows: 1. revenue 2. uses for regulation. When the tax power is used for regulation (such as taxing someone based on an action), it must be in line with the enumerated power it is being used to enforce. No revenue tax, which is not being used to regulate, is attached to non-action. Yet, even if it was, once it was used to compel you to buy something or to do something, it would be recognized as being a regulatory tax which must be used in accordance with the enumerated powers of the U.S. Constitution in order to be used by the Federal Govt. In other words, a tax used to enforce an action is invalid if the action is a violation of the commerce and necessary and proper clauses. As Chancellor Kent in his commentaries on the Constitution point out; that it is a rule of law that to penalize someone in fact (no matter what name you give it) shows that the act is being construed as illegal (this is explained in the minority dissenting opinion).

        Further Roberts uses one argument to show the mandate is not a tax under the taxing power in order to show the Anti Injunction Tax Act does not apply, and then rules the penalty as a tax (which would have then brought it back under the Anti Injunction Tax Act - which means standing would have been an issue). Roberts uses two arguments to justify his conclusion which contradicted one another in subtle points.

        Further Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito dissenting opinion point out their disappointment with Roberts in actually constructing the penalty as a tax when the law specifically framed it as a penalty - thereby engaging in judicial activism by changing the law.

        The fact that Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito came together on their opinion is a strong statement in itself. Anyone who reads their dissent would realize how far fetched it is to think they were somehow complicit in Roberts vote and opinion (and reasoning). To wit, read their conclusion (adobe page 190-191) in the opinion found at: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf . Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito correctly recognized their jobs as expounding the Constitution from its context and from historical explanations of the framers themselves, and protecting State rights and individual liberty, over trying to defer to congress (which in the end Roberts ended up changing Congress' law rather that to defer to Congress). Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito believed the PPACA should have been found unconstitutional and should have been struck down in its entirety (non-severable).

        Again, as someone who followed the oral arguments through to the decision, I can not see this as anything more than a very serious mistake in interpretation on Robert's part by focusing too close on trying to make an unconstitutional provision somehow be constitutional (and in his mind defer to Congress - which again he failed to do by changing their law through judicial activism).

        As the minority pointed out that once the mandate was going to be considered under the tax power as legitimate - "once respondents raised the issue, the Government devoted a mere 21 lines of its reply brief to the issue.... At oral argument, the most prolonged statement about the issue was just over 50 words.... One would expect this Court to demand more than fly-by-night briefing and argument before deciding a difficult constitutional question of first impression." (adobe pages 151-152) page 25-26 of minority opinion.

    • The Truth

      Possibly but that is not the job of a Supreme Court Justice. He is to rule according to the Constitution, which does not say the government may tax us based on our not purchasing a specific service or item. Nor are Supreme Court Justices supposed to rewrite a law to accommodate one side's argument. Roberts did us no favors based on the long term effect this ruling will have and he is a traitor.

      • mbpalapa

        remember that the Administration argued in front of the court that this was a tax, Roberts just agreed with them to their dismay

        • Bob2002

          Obama's lawyers argued this point which was against everything the Democrat controlled Senate and House, plus Obama ever said about the mandate. They all said the tax was not a tax but was a penalty. Roberts stretched this point to savor favor with Obama and the liberal media.

    • Against Roberts

      I would not bet that Roberts will not vote for Obama. He has clearly been intimidated or threatened somehow to change his vote for ObamaCare. Anyone in his position that can be threatened or intimidated to change their vote on legislature does not need to be a Supreme Court Justice. He needs to go.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1402412076 Dawn Tighe

    I disagree. Now this is law the out of control government has a new avenue to tax the people. A tax for just being alive is not justice. Roberts played politics on an important ruling is just shameful. The law needs to be repealed! But let's not forget both parties voted for this bill and NDAA the replirats are just as bad as the democrats.

    • Steve

      Not one Repub voted for this bill.

  • Dajake

    Yes, a brilliant win if the GOP can capitalize on it, which I doubt. The big government GOP and its progressive wing is the reason Obama is president. Losing a key battle doesn't mean you're going to win the war.

  • http://www.facebook.com/john.bahn John Bahn

    I have been saying this from day one of the decision...it was pure genius on Justice Roberts part by doing this. I'm not disparaging anyone for feeling the opposite about this...just think about it! What better way to fire up a base than to have a decision go against them and that's EXACTLY what started happening that first day.
    Like it or not, Justice Roberts did the right thing by reeling in the libs and setting loose the wild horses of the conservative party.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Barbara-Paolucci/100001333695075 Barbara Paolucci

      Its not his job to play politics. The ruling should have gone against Obamacare on all 3 issues - if its a tax, it can't go before the supreme court until someone has paid it, and if its a tax and Roberts says congress can tax whatever they want, he should have ruled against it because they can't tax inactivity! Now the only thing we have left is taking the senate and the white house + jholding our own in the house. That's a risk he has no right to take for America/Americans!

      • vicki

        "Roberts says congress can tax whatever they want, he should have ruled against it because they can't tax inactivity!"

        But they CAN tax you for breathing (an activity). Google "direct tax".

    • Screeminmeeme

      John Bahn.......Where have you been? The conservatives were ALREADY fired up and anticipating a fair judgment from the Supremes but iInstead, they got Roberts'' inexplicable opinion. He was dead wrong.

      Just imagine......had he done what was right, Obamacare would be history right now.....all the machinery that was put into motion would be halted...and righting the wrong could have begun.

      This one man's decision has cost America. The implementation will continue until and if the conservatives are able to repeal the bill. That's means for at least another year or longer, Obamacare will continue reeking havoc.....and you say it was pure genius.

      • Pete0097

        I think that if the Supremes had struck down obamacaresless then that would have energized the liberals. Hopefully, the people that PAY taxes can retake the elected portion of the government

        • Screeminmeeme

          Pete0097...the left HAS been energized by the victory for Obama. Those who were disenchanted by his first term are now gung-ho to see him re-elected.

          Thanks Chief Roberts for forever changing America.

        • http://www.facebook.com/Cindy9965 Cindy Sims Hickerson

          Not according to polls. Dems believe they got it in the bag...they have always been so clueless...can't see the truth can't see anything beyond their nose. You give them too much credit. Have faith!!

        • Screeminmeeme

          Cindy Sims Hickerson.........
          1.The polls are wrong. I know too many liberals who are celebrating.
          2. Never underestimate your enemy.
          3. By faith, I live.

        • Screeminmeeme

          Cindy Sims Hickerson.........

          1.The polls are wrong. I know too many liberals who are now celebrating.

          2. Never underestimate your enemy.

          3. By faith, I live.

    • MadmaxUSA

      Your logic is as tortured as Justice Roberts'

    • http://www.facebook.com/Cindy9965 Cindy Sims Hickerson

      Me too. I bet you are a Spirit Filled believer in Jesus Christ...right?

  • Mike Fesler

    My thinking is simply . . . brilliantly done!!

    The ball has been firmly placed back in our court. . . the
    court of We the people.

    Chief Justice. . .

    Remember the sequence and rules for the chief Justice?

    The Chief and only the chief rules over the president if
    brought before the court. (we will see)

    You simply do not place a wanabe layer or community
    organizer in the Chief Justice position.
    . . Chief Justice Roberts is no slouch. . . we have been blessed by his
    placement in our most high court.

    Please see Bio:



    Mike Fesler

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Carol-Williams/100003395294295 Carol Williams

      Mr. Fesler,
      I heartily endorse your remarks in favor of Chief Justice Roberts' decision. I heard someone say that while the dems are playing checkers, Roberts is playing chess. He's a pretty sharp cookie! Thanks for the link.

    • Sapient1


      The problem with the "he is playing chess while everyone is playing checkers" is that the game is checkers not chess. The rules are also different. The liberals are playing checkers and so is the GOP and so is the nation. The rules are the Constitution. I know the point, but there is also planning and strategy in checkers too.

      You don't win by violating the Constitution so you might gain in the long term. YOu defend it NOW!!! and then again, again.

      There are other ways to make advances without losing. That is the conservative creed and the liberal's advice: "don't win the battle and lose the war." BUNK!!!

      Friend, you cannot lose every battle and keep waiting for a one punch haymaker.so you can win. You win by winning.

      Nothing would rev up the GOP base like victory rather than continued betrayal.

      God bless

      • http://www.facebook.com/michael.hilton.773 Michael Hilton

        Well stated. Playing the game to their rules is a sure-fire loss, eventually. Washington and HIS troops found a way to defeat the British by playing their own game, not the game as dictated by Cornwallis.

        • Sapient1

          Hi Mike

          Lets not miss the point. I am NOT talking about being a genius at a game. I am talking about losing a game because one is too cowardly to participate.

          There is only one game: protect and defend the Constitution to assure the fruits of liberty for us and our posterity. There are those among us who would be our masters and thus insist the Constitution doesn't matter and they use a variety of ways to undermine it and exert power. They must be thwarted at every turn. We are either becoming more free or more enslaved. Period. Law of Excluded Middle.

          Roberts, who has sworn to protect it, and us, has literally said "Well, you can abuse it (and them) if you call it 'this.' Here, I'll make the change for you."

          Treachery and / or cowardice by any other name, is the same.

          God bless

          "The preservation of a free Government requires not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be
          invariably maintained; but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves.

          "We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The free men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the
          consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much soon to forget it." --James Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance (1785)

        • Patriot Lady

          I never read this before....it gave me goose bumps. James Madison was right in every bit of what he wrote here. Our earlier countrymen rose much more quickly to action after they understood the potential negative consequences of allowing a posture that reeked of seeming indifference. They made sure their postures were not ones of indifference, but of challenge, of fighting back immediately when shoved. We need to rise up and march on DC. We need to do this as a country, not as a member of a certain group. We need to go to DC en mass and stand there to let Obama know we are very much aware of his actions and we won't allow it to go on. He needs to see hundreds of thousands of us from every state standing shoulder to shoulder against traitors such as him.

        • Sapient1

          Patriot Lady

          The simple fact is, we have forgotten what it means to be free, and I certainly don't mean that blasphemous idea of liberty that was earlier known as debauchery and licentiousness. Republics run on personal virtue.

          We have also forgotten what it means to be good fathers and mothers. We are much too willing to sacrifice our children's future for ourselves, rather than the other way around.

          Shame on us.

          I am not convinced it is too late to think of them, but if not now, then when? If we do, then we will do what is required to secure their future at our expense. No, not do our best to do so, we will do what is necessary. and, if there be trouble and sacrifice, let it be in our day that those innocent ones may have peace. And yes, we have every right to demand the same from those who represent us.

          God bless

          "Let us contemplate our forefathers and posterity and resolve to maintain the rights bequeathed to us from the former, for the sake of the latter. The necessity of the times, more than ever, calls for our utmost circumspection, deliberation, fortitude, and perseverance. Let us remember that 'if we suffer tamely a lawless attack upon our liberty, we encourage it, and involve others in our doom.' It is a very serious consideration that millions yet unborn may be the miserable sharers of the event." --Samuel Adams speech, 1771

        • Elly Korf

          I wrote on another blog that we need to make our presence felt -- perhaps by everyone opposing what our government is doing stand in our streets at the same time on a certain day all over the country, or perhaps several days (polite signs invited). The question is how do we go about doing this? The message has to get out to all patriots. Perhaps the internet -- e-mail everyone you know and have THEM e-mail everyone they know. But what day and what time? And how do we get the media to cover it?

      • Greg O

        Remember the quote from General George Pattan
        "You don’t win a war by dying for your country. You win a war by making the other son-of-a-bitch die for his."

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_SV35DH3NPTSGGNREYTATTKMBHY del

    Since when can the court change the terms like Roberts did calling the bill a tax and not included in the commerce clause. Cant make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Other than that the fat commie slob kagan should never have been allowed to have a decision in this crap bill she helped design!

  • Marsalek

    Captain Kangaroo Roberts flung wide open the cage of a diabolical beast with an insatiable appetite for
    new sources of revenues. The Congress has and had perfectly legal taxing authority. The administration denied that the individual mandate was a tax while Obamacare was pending legislation and still now that Obamacare has been upheld by SCOTUS, Roberts' vote could have been a brilliant strategy had Elena Kagan been recused from the process. With Kagan's participation, the appearance of a fair and impartial, non-prejudicial decision vanished and along with it went all respect for Kangaroo Roberts and confidence in future SCOTUS decisions. Brilliant ????????


    I have heard from others who I know to be trained "Legal" experts that the "UNCONSTITUTIONALITY" of "COMMERCE CLAUSE" and . the "NECESSARY AND PROPER" CLAUSE" is not binding precedent from this order.
    If that is true only the "POLITICAL" benefit of rallying the" OPPONENTS" to vote in November remains as a good thing.
    Repeal will require the defeat of OBAMA and the Democrats in the Senate that can defeat repeal legislation.
    Complacent US citizens who have not voted had better wake up and realize they may lose the power to vote if they allow "EXECUTIVE POWER" overwhelm the "Seperate but Equal" form of the Republic founded by our "CONSTITUTION".
    If Obama and his Democrat ccohorts remain in Office they will be uncontrollable in his second term. I would fully expect this young President to refuse to accept the concept of the limit to two terms. He will somehow move tro remain in power.
    TAX TAX TAX!! SPEND SPEND SPEND!!! Government control to redistribute "wealth"
    The Democrat Party ideal.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_BBO2Q2QDRBPJHAL65X2E3YA5KA GregoryP

      You have to get the borrow and spend RINOs out too. We have a spending crisis.

  • luciteehee

    Attorney Bolen! I already KNEW that, but the way YOU explained it filled in the "GAPS"! By spelling out your COMMON SENSE approach so clearly, you have given HOPE to Conservatives like US, and the "REASONING" behind Judge Roberts deciding VOTE! In PLAIN ENGLISH, Roberts "called 0'B's bluff"! He can no longer call it a "penalty"! The LAST thing he wanted was for the penalty to be called a TAX! But HE is STILL patting himself on the BACK, patting US on the HEAD, and gloating that his "THREAT" to the SCOTUS WORKED! MEANWHILE Conservatives are "harvesting the wheat", leaving the "tares" for THEM! POETIC "Justices"! Pun intended!

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NLORN6B3ZNGCAJTFHWWFUUEY4Q jong

    After I got over the shock I looked at it to. Roberts is playing dice however I think we all will agree to that. We must win in order to implement our plans and take down this insult to the American People.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1073709217 Joanne Lewey Levy

    Thank you for this extremely informative article. I agree it has energized the voters that were fence sitting.

    • Screeminmeeme

      Joanne Lewey Levy...Its sure a heck of a way to motivate people.Those of us who have been opposing Obamacare from day one needed no motivation. Imagine the relief to our economy/businesses had the bill been thrown out....and it would have put a halt to everything that has already been implemented. This decision was criminal.

  • Robert Courtney

    This "premise' only works if the voters are smart enough to elect only fiscally responsible people (that won't use this to tax us to hades), and throw out the Socialists in our Government.
    It's NOT going to happen.
    Robert's "brilliance" has just cost America... AMERICA!!
    Simple as that.
    And to spin this like it was some great strategy is insane, and is as bad as the liberals spinning today. Not one bit of difference.
    This Country is GONE!!

  • Paul

    For those below and any others that are upset about Roberts decision, if it angers you, it is apparently doing it's job. Now remember the anger you felt on NON. 6 and go vote. If you fail to go vote, you have no right to complain.

    • Screeminmeeme

      Paul...I was already very pissed off. I've been an activist for 50 years and never missed an election. I didn't need this nincompoop to stir me up.

  • Paul

    should be NOV 6, not NON 6

  • mlenz9

    All I can say to the conservatives praising inJustice Roberts' 'brilliant strategy' - you better hope to hell we keep the House, take the Senate, AND take the White House come this November, or all of inJustice Roberts' brilliance is for nothing.

    • hunter

      Win or lose...it is not for nothing. WE WILL DECIDE what America will be going forward after waking up from decades of complacency! The citizen voter will have the last word as long as the Republic stands. What Justice Roberts did was to reinvest the power of self-governance in the PEOPLE!
      Patriot defined: Those who signed the Declaration of Independence. Ouote: " And for support of the Delcaration, with a firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred honor."

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IBPI63ABT264USBDALCN4F7UKY billy2

      this is way the Chief said election have consequences, he all but came right out and said go to the polls and vote REPULICAN..............who ever said " WHILE WE WERE PLAYING CHECKERS.............THE CHIEF WAS PLAYING CHESS," NOW THAT'S BRILLIANT and if people choose not to vote or not to vote the correct way............hey what can you say, this is the last chance to get drop TWO BIRDS WITH ONE STONE.

      • Screeminmeeme

        billy2......Baloney. People who play chess when the game IS checkers...lose.

        His decision was not merely a disappointment...but I believe it was catastrophic in its consequences.

        He should resign the bench and go right brilliant books about his brilliant career.

  • SeeCwriter

    This is sophistry. Roberts had to re-write the law and redefine the penalty the law called for to be a tax in order to find the law as constitutional. That is judicial activism. Something true conservatives rail against.
    And it is not Robert's job to protect the court's reputation or the office of the President. Now we have precedent for congress to tax inactivity. With this ruling, there are now no limits on what congress can do. Just call it a tax. Don't own a hybrid? Tax please. Don't insulate your house? Tax. Don't buy broccoli? Tax! And this doesn't change even if the law gets repealed. The precedent is set. And the country is lost. All thanks to a "genius."
    Ever notice that it's never the liberal judges that change their philosophy once they get on bench? You never a liberal judge start ruling as originalist conservative once on the bench. But how many times have we seen supposedly conservative judges, nominated by Republican presidents, turn into activists and start ruling based their feelings, and legacy desires, and whatever else, and not the law?

    • Screeminmeeme

      SeeCwriter.....Totally agree.

    • Brock Townsend

      This is sophistry. Roberts had to re-write the law and redefine the
      penalty the law called for to be a tax in order to find the law as

      Agreed. On the first day there were some who took this view, but has deteriorated since then. Here is one of many from Liberty Legal

      Playing Politics with the Constitutionhttp://freenorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2012/07/playing-politics-with-constitution.html

  • Alec Baldwin

    Wow, that's a stretch. Isn't it the job of the supremes to interpret the legality of lower court rulings based on the Constitution . This law should have been judged as written. Who's to say that shooting the ACA down wouldn't have shown just another failed policy and waste of time by an ineffective and fiscally irresponsible ruler. I for one would find it just another great reason to get rid of him. My feeling is that the court wanted to show its legitimacy by providing a judgement that wasn't divided down party lines, instead of actually doing his job. The legislative, judicial and executive branches of government have all failed us, it's time to make a serious change in November.

  • parent, grandparent

    I read it and I understand..and I still think it's shameful. The fat lady doesn't sing until Nov., the results are not guaranteed and I'm not convinced that we win due to the fact that I think the election will be a fraud..they will pull every dirty trick they can think of to make sure they win...think about not needing an ID to vote when you can't do anything without one.....and then how brillant will you think Roberts was.
    I can't believe this is happening in the United States of America, God help us.

    • Screeminmeeme

      parent, grandparent..........I agree.

      I cant believe this is happening in the USA either.

      I pray God helps us......the Supreme court isn't.

  • Screeminmeeme

    People.......this is NOTHING but spin.

  • MichaelH

    We'll see, won't we? My wife and I visited the local Republican party office the other day, and all was sadness and woe. They looked at me like I was crazy (or a dem in disguise) for stating that I wasn't at all dismayed by the Roberts vote. I think there's a good possibility that the vote really IS a blessing for us.

    Keep the faith, friends.

    • MichaelH

      Oh, and PS...

      I haven't seen much gloating on the part of democrats. I think they're whistling in the dark a bit...and many of them are nervous about what happened.

      They have a right to be nervous...

    • Jack W

      I* thought that it was brilliant when he said it is up to the voters, although he didn't say in the next election


    I think most of us, if not all of us, including myself, had a knee jerk reaction to the Ruling at first. So after all the smoke and dust clears we have a beautiful assessment of what Roberts did.
    OK, I'm over my anger now. I certainly appreciate someone taking the time to read the decision and give a full analysis and evaluation.
    Thank you for the clarity and direction!!

    • CandleNTheDark

      Amen to that. The day of the decision, I was furious, in a foul mood all day, and was extremely disappoined in what Judge Roberts did. Now, there appears to be hope on the horizon. I sure hope Atty. Richard Bolen is right.

  • Cliffystones

    Bravo! I'm a pretty good judge of facial expressions, and Roberts struck me as a sly fox from the get go.

    • Screeminmeeme

      Cliffystones.....Ya gotta be kidding.

  • hunter

    Justice Roberts found a way to give American a fighting chance at maintaining the checks and balances necessary to our Republic! In upholding the Affordable Care Act via the tax and spend power of the Congress, the Court effectivly gives the citizens of America the opportunity to reject this farce of a law. A law that was obtained by all that is corrupt in Washington and passed in the dark of night over the objections of the American people!
    God Bless Cheif Justice Roberts!

    • Susan

      We also remember that this bill was passed by the Senate on Christmas Eve. I agree with Hunter's comments. Mr. Bolen has given us a clear assessment of Chief Justice Robert's rationale. We the people must not let up on our call to repeal this blight
      on our country. May God bless our country once again!

  • StephenM

    I very much appreciate this analysis and insight. Takes away some of the gloom. The problem, however, with the list of limitations (e.g., on the commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause) is that they are not necessary for the decision, as the author points out, and therefore, are classified as obiter dicta. Therefore they do not carry the same weight as arguments necessary for the decision. Do you think for a moment that liberals on the court would consider themselves bound by any decision they may have joined in for purposes of expediency? Much less obiter dicta in a decision they joined in? Moreover, if this was the grand strategy of Roberts, it strongly suggests game-playing with the future of this country, and I find that dangerous.

  • A Lil Wacked

    I think time will tell .....

  • PPTA

    Roberts now has the reputaion, of being a lackey for Obama. Hope he is happy wih his switch. Hope he will be happy with his new reputation. Take a look at the vote Regarding AZ immigration laws. Same thing, caved to Obama. He is deffinatly Obama's Lackey. I wonder what they have on him? Notice how he immediately left the counry for the summer? No intervews to explain why? And by the time he comes back, he hopes the heat will have died down.He is not a judge anymore, he is Lacky for Obama. Don't like my opinion based on his votes? Tough.

    • MichaelH

      You may be right...
      Don't get all pissy with us, though. We're on the same side.

  • deeme

    If we weren't dealing with a dangerous administration that if you give them an inch they take a mile I would be happy..I will have to trust the states and congress to figure out how to make this work...Some of the AGS give me a lot of hope , but I think they have misjudged the kind of people they are deaing with, who have no respect for laws or the Constitution..

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Timothy-Thompson/1506583107 Timothy Thompson

    There is only one problem with your analysis, what if Obama is reelected, the Senate remains spit possibly by a vote or two and we lose the house? Hate to think in those terms but Obama isn't going to go down easily with Acorn and his many law breakers who want the USA to fail.

  • Saltporkdoc

    Thank you, sir, for a clear and conscise expaination to this mere mortal (NO sarcasm intended) of an, at first very disappointing decision. My tears have dried and I smile anew!
    (I'm not convinced the Founding Fathers aren't still experiencing a few palpitations, however.)

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Wayne-Bauer/100000780337244 Wayne Bauer

    Frustratin when there is such limited reasoning ability. How clear does judge roberts have to make it to you?? He gave you the total way out to bury this abortion. This can end this month. Will some of you please get away from mthe propaganda media and find the ACTUAL news organizations?? House will definitely vote to repeal,Jul 11, think there is not enough attention to demand senate VOTE on it?? Really think dems can sit there and dream of getting reelected if they support the largest tax plan in history? You only have to watch about 22 and with proper ads they could be destroyed.. Roberts also assured congress cannot use "commerce clause" to hove their idiocies down your throat. )Please people read BEYOND the propaganda headlines, you're missing so much.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1052034058 Pete Bruno

    The day he handed down his decision, I declared him, "Crazy like a fox!” The more i read about that decision, the more sure I am!

    • Screeminmeeme

      Pete Bruno.......Right......he's crazy like a rabid fox.

      The decision was convoluted, irrational and unconscionable. One man has determined yours and my future. One delusional man.

      And you feel good about it?

      Go figure.

    • booker t

      Roberts is on medication for epileptic seizures, research the mind altering affects, it explains all.

  • ed357

    Agree.....as a tax......0BAMACARE can be repealed, defunded, and/or unenforced easier. Sometimes when you win.......you really lose..........AB02012.

    • http://twitter.com/jude83268949 jude

      25 /27 states are not endorsing obamacare, it will be defunded, and voted out in November if not before. No One n their sane mind will vote for a 22% tax hike to cover healthcare.

      • Joyce

        Except for the cradle-to-grave welfare cheats, because they're not paying for it so it doesn't matter to them if the honest working citizens get taxed 110% as long as the freebies keep rolling in. They get everything they want and more than they need, yet they continue to bite the hands that feed them.

  • Abouthadit

    A groundswell support for Willard??? I hardly think so except for those sheeple who still believe in the tooth fairy and that the two parties are different. .

  • icemancold

    Roberts turned PUSSY and caved either to threats or to a very large sum of money. This should be grounds for removal from the bench stripped of his Judicial Robe ,whipped,Tarred Feathered and ran out of Town.!!!

    • MichaelH

      Icy, you're full of it, right up to your eyebrows. If you have any proof whatever that he was threatened or given money, present it.

      • CommonSense

        the proof is how he voted

        • MichaelH

          For a man citing his common sense, you seem to have little of it. His vote proves no such thing.

        • CommonSense

          And your Proof to the contrary is... what?
          Proof, we can now be taxed to even buy the Chevy volt, if they want to.
          Our state is even putting water meters on private country household wells, not for irrigation, so the state can tax us on usage.
          What can't they tax?

      • icemancold

        MichaelH:: Prove otherwise. Roberts at first was going to vote for the people. Then OBAMA said Unelected people couldn't throw out his plan Later Roberts votes in favor of OBAMA CARE. Take the Blinders off and see the real world

  • CommonSense

    Could it be that the Dems have some 'compromising thing' on Roberts or a very close family member and they blackmailed him into voting for ObamaCare? What would/could be so bad that you would betray 'the people' or even worse, yourself. Whatever it is the people r screwed!

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_BBO2Q2QDRBPJHAL65X2E3YA5KA GregoryP

    The obvious solution is vote out the socialist taxers.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/XXM376MXK5L7QAL3H752WB7WQU arlo

    Absolutely Genius, a rallying cry for the conservatives..........

  • The_American_Way

    Roberts didn't put one over on Obama. He put one over on the American people.

    He has given the socialist regime of Obama the ability to tax us on ANYTHING. Only a delusional person could try to spin this as positive. Fellow American conservatives, we need to get out of denial. Roberts sold us out.

  • phrowt

    We must pray that the media and libs do not figure out tat they have been had before election day.

  • http://www.facebook.com/kevin.true.52 Kevin True

    I agree without first exposing obamaqueer as a TAX a dhiminitute islamnification of USA at that, it would seem as if the lower classes were being deprived of a benefit from the court and obscama already demonstrated with withdrawing 287 from the Arizona Law largely nulifying nad insulting The USSSCJ decision. obamaqueer is set up for a proper burial in the US Senate after GOP gain just 4 more seats.

  • Redneck Golfer

    Look up the word "dicta" which is what much of Robert's opinion is.... it cannot be used as precedent if it is not necessary for the decision!!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Charles-Ivie/821714719 Charles Ivie

    I want to believe that the Roberts decision was a masterpiece of Machiavellian subterfuge, and it may well be. If so, it has been brilliantly executed. It may well turn out that Roberts put forth a sweet flavored poison pill that liberals greedily devoured and it will be a while before they realize that they have been had. The longer it takes for them to discover they have been duped the less time they will have to develop an effective counter strategy before the November election. By forcing the mandate to be recognized as a tax major liberal talking points have been neutralized and conservatives have been given a powerful weapon. The real question is "will they be clever enough to use it?"

  • agbjr

    With no intention of sounding smug I saw this, too. Within one hour of releasing the ruling I read it - and read it again to be certain I was reading it correctly. Yup. There it was. Chief Justice Roberts is brilliant and as I posted on other comment boards a master chessman. Checkmate.

  • Madhatter 46

    Even if the Republicans take over the White House, and the Senate, I have doubts that Obamacare will be overturned or changed significantly. I really don't think there is much differences between the Progressive Democratic Party and the Progressive Republican Party. They may wear different jersies but are actually on the same power-hungry, dishonest team. They both are milking the cow dry for their personal wealth and power, while we, the people, lust over the leftovers, being bought off with little trinkets and beads. Shame on the majority of politicians, and the greedy, lazy populace.
    Whatever happened to virtue and character? America's is being destroyed from within!!!

    • Screeminmeeme

      Madhatter 46.....I agree with your comments.

      Whatever happen to virtue and character?

      It went out the window with God in the 60s when some Americans decided that they had no need for a moral compass.

  • Ridge

    This is the old story of "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush." The bird in the hand was to overthrow Obamacare and be done with it. The two in the bush is the wish that the Republicans get a majority in the House and Senate, that Obama is not re-elected, that the voters will be energized, etc. If this is Roberts' rationale, he's guilty of wishful thinking. I hope that he's made a good decision, but it could be a disaster, particularly if Obama is re-elected, if the Democrats hold onto the Senate or re-take the House, all of which are realistic possibilities. Even if Obama is not re-elected and the Republicans take over the Senate and keep control of the House, we are still facing the possibility that that bunch of politicians won't keep their word and Obamacare stays with us forever -- kinda like Social Security and/or Medicare. Roberts should have killed the "bird in the hand" and be done with it.

    • Screeminmeeme

      Ridge...Couldn't agree more. This Obama victory has fired up his apathetic base.

  • i2luvmyusa

    If I may, I like to
    give Roberts ruling a little different spin. First if he had ruled to
    kill the HC Bill, it would have given the Dems an edge in their lies and double
    talk on how the Republicans don't care about the health of old, young and the
    sick, if Roberts approved the HC bill, knowing it was unconstitutional, would
    have been a disaster for the Republicans... . As it is without his ruling that
    it is a tax, we would have not known the real truth about the financial cost
    and threats to the states if they did not participate in the HC. I believe
    Roberts did two things, that benefit the election of Romney. First by stating
    the states do not have to participate in Health Care without penalty, that is a
    big one, Second it brought to light the real truth about HC, and that to pay
    for it you will be TAXED .showing Obama to be a liar, when he said, "This is not
    a tax! Also Roberts gave us an opening, if we are successful in taking
    control of the House and Senate, along with the White House in November. Our
    eyes are now open to what is really going on and the cost of Healthcare
    insurance that is going to cost this country millions of dollars to implement,
    and the possible loss of our choice of doctors, treatment, privacy of our
    medical records and jobs . I think the more we find out about this Healthcare,
    we are going to be saying, Thank you Judge Roberts for bringing the real truth
    about Healthcare to light and given us the ability to repeal it via our
    success in November! I believe Judge Roberts ruling is a big contribution in Obama's defeat in 2012. You
    ask why? My thoughts are that most of us to not pay attention to politics
    unless it hits our pocketbook. This HC tax will hit everyone one way or

    • CommonSense

      If what you say is 'true', why did the other conservative judges try to get him to vote against the HC Bill and with them? Why could not Roberts, brilliant as some folks are saying, convince the others justices to vote with him? Since the deluded folks seem to think this is brilliant, I want to hear them again in Nov when BHO wins by a landslide.

  • Blair

    Yes, he did. The liberals are still denying Obamacare's a tax.

  • http://www.facebook.com/marlonsmailbag Marlon Schroeder

    This is the most twisted unethical rhetorical arrogantly evil manipulation of the truth on this matter, that I have seen yet....give me a fricken break!!!

    • Screeminmeeme

      Marlon Schroeder.........I couldn't agree more. It cant believe the number here on GP who are thrilled with his ''brilliant move''.

  • http://www.facebook.com/saaronco Sharon Brooks

    Yep...just what I was thinking, the libs are so full of themselves! How does the foxhound out smart the fox?( The animal not the tv kind) He thinks like the fox and CJ Roberts is one smart Cookie...

  • http://twitter.com/jude83268949 jude

    Do you want the Government to control your healthcare?
    Then vote NO for {ACA} obamacare.

  • Charlie

    Although my reasons were slightly different and not as detailed, I concur with the statements of this case brief. I think Mr. Roberts is a genuine American who is just as horrified as most of us are at the direction we're going in.

    He put the ball back in the people's court, if you'll pardon the turn of phrase, and we have to hit 15-love to get this bill and the rest of trash thrown out.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1433003812 Tim Eggert

    I don't see how giving the government massively more power can be a brilliant or good thing.

    • charles17121

      Tim Eggert , Read the article again . Roberts did not give the government more power . What he did was to deceive the liberal judges on the court into thinking they won when they really did not . Plus he got some concessions from the liberal judges he would not have gotten if he struck down the health care law . In any case the law for all intention purposes is gone if they try to tax people to support it . No one is going for a 22% tax .

      • Screeminmeeme

        charles17121....Deceiving the liberal judges is not his job. His job is to interpret the law....and make judgments as to their constitutionality. His job is NOT to win friends and influence people....or ''guard'' the reputation of the Supremes.

        His job is well circumscribed..is to be non partisan and autonomous...and insensitive to the emotional temperature of the country.

        His decision gave Obama a major victory which may very well propel him into another 4 years.

        THAT's what Roberts did.

  • Meryann

    I only hope what you are saying is true, BECAUSE I can not take another 4 years of Obama! I don't think the majority can either.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Lynn-Storch/100003362400343 Lynn Storch

    What got to me was the look on Robert's face-like he could hardly contain his laughter-he was about to crack up! I told my husband yesterday that something was up, and now we know! When this finally comes out, talk about egg on their faces-the libs are going to throw a tantrum!

    • Screeminmeeme

      Lynn Storch....You're kidding, right?

      Egg on their faces? Tantrum? The left just got one of the biggest victories in American jurisprudence and you think Roberts was clever in screwing us all.

      He gave a go-ahead to Obamacare which will continue to spread like a cancer throughout our government in ways never imagined.

      Did you read the bill? I have and continue to read it as more of it is being written. Do you know that right now, its up to 10,000 pages? The bill was basically an outline of intent with authority given to certain people to flesh out the details. We dont even KNOW all the details yet...but what we do know is horrifying.

      Just one little note: Your doctor will be given just 6 minutes to spend with you. And he must ASK certain boards (22 of them so far) whether or not he can order a test or give you a particular treatment. If your a senior citizen, take your vitamins and pray for good health.

      You are clueless as to what Roberts just did to us all. It was within his power to do what was right....and he sided with an evil which will forever be entangled in our lives.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Lynn-Storch/100003362400343 Lynn Storch

        A lot will happen before all of this is implemented-the world is going to go through mind-boggling changes-you need the peace that only Christ Jesus can give. I don't fear what's coming because my citizenship is already in Heaven-I'm just passing through on my way to see the King of kings!

  • dempsey coleman

    that may be good but being 62 i am doomed to death by the supreem court

  • Jack W

    I agree with you 100% Roberts has pulled a fast one on them, that is for sure. He also gave the gop a big push o take back control of government, I just love th fact that he really got "slick the magic negro" to shout his support for Roberts, he who is supposed to be so smart or intelligent, "done got took" by someone who is so superior in intelligence it obviously is like night & day with obama the clown "with the lights on but nobody home". Now if the rest of the gop takes notes that this is how you deal with dems as they devote 200% of hteir time coming up with ways to make the gop look bad

    • Screeminmeeme

      Jack W....Roberts pulled a fast one, for sure....on the American people. We all got screwed. HIs decision was a political one which the conservatives passionately disagreed with. Their dissenting arguments were brilliant....NOT HIS.

      Get a grip.What Roberts did was reprehensible and will affect us all forever.
      Its a shame.

  • TransplantedTexan

    Chief Justice Robert's opinion was a disaster for Conservatives, the people of the United States and the US Constitution. Any attempt to spin it as anything else is trying to put lipstick on a pig. The supporters of Obama care argued that the individual mandate was valid under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. In essence saying that the Government can regulate commercial inactivity (the failure to purchase health insurance) as well as commercial activity under the Commerce Clause. Robert's said "no"; however, the individual mandate was a valid exercise of the authority of the Federal Government to levy taxes (by the way, Robert's analysis was so flawed that had a first year law student written it on an exam they would have received a failing grade). So now Roberts has established the legal principle that under the US Constitution, the Federal Government can tax inactivity. It has been well recognized that the power to tax is the power to destroy. Now Roberts has expanded that to the power to tax is the power to compel action a person would not otherwise take. Robert's opinion is a distinction without a difference - in either case the Federal Government can compel a person to purchase insurance and punish them for not doing so. And that precedent is governing in all future tax cases unless it is overturned. Any attempt to spin Roberts' opinion is simply that, spin, and ignores the plain meaning of the opinion.

    • Screeminmeeme

      Transplanted Texan......I wholeheartedly agree. How any conservative can call his decision, brilliant, is beyond me.

      Basically, because of Roberts', the American people MUST OBEY the federal government or be fined....just like Cuba...just like China......and one can imagine worse like ultimately being imprisoned disobeying Big Brother Obama.

      People are spinning like crazy and not thinking of the consequences of his maneuver.

      What a shame.

  • Lee B.

    Regardless of whether or not Roberts has accomplished a brilliant maneuver, one thing is being overlooked here. Whatever else may be the case, this decision has likely pre-empted what would have surely happened had the ruling struck down Obamacare, namely the tendency to use executive orders to accomplish something that wouldn't pass otherwise. Checkmate! (I hope.)

  • Jamie

    If this is true then it was stupid to post this article. Should have let it alone.
    If the dem leaders see what they're up to they won't fall for the next steps.
    Now the libs can & will accuse the right of deception & manipulation. But I guess they do that anyway.

  • happyhunter81

    That logic may and I emphasize "may" work if and only if Obama does not win this election. If he does win it become a difference without a distinction. We will be stuck with until it does it's part to collapse our economy.

  • Jack W

    The bad thing is now they have been alerted. Does anyone think they don't have people monitoring every web site & looking for comments specially comments that do not sing the praise of the clown obama. Hopefully it doesn't sink in until maybe Nov 7th or later, jan 22nd when they are standing on the outside looking in wondering what happened, & the clown obama drug the whole party down except for a few spots around the country that are just plain stupid or dems

  • MichaelH

    "These are the times that try men's souls"...Thomas Paine...

    It's time for us to be calm and to take in stride adversity. The left is wrong on virtually every issue of any importance. We need to rely on facts...not wild-eyed rhetoric. Chief Justice Roberts wasn't threatened...he wasn't bought off. He made a call. We need to be sure that the call isn't a death-knell for us.

    We're friends, here, and HONEST ones.

  • CommonSense

    So this is what the last 65 yrs of bi-partisan, cross-the asile, McCainery have brought us to, faded shades of red-white & blue instead of brilliant colours on a flag with '57 stars'. Middle of the road, Mediocrity. Land of the once Free, home of the abundantly taxed!
    What was it again that caused our break with England... oh yeah taxes and sevitude!


    I agree with you 100+%.....the "+" means that I think Roberts planned it this way from the beginning....he pulled off the slickest "MAC THE KNIFE" in the history of the world....he takes a little heat now in exchange for killing his worst tormentor. and OUR COUNTRY'S greatest evil, ever...all right out in the open...in all innocence.The next face on Mt. Rushmore is JOHN ROBERTS.
    it this way from the beginning....he pulled off the slickest "MAC THE KNIFE" in the history of the world....he takes a little heat now in exchange for killing his worst tormentor. and OUR COUNTRY'S greatest evil, ever...all right out in the open...in all innocence.
    The next face on Mt. Rushmore is JOHN ROBERTS.

    • Screeminmeeme

      Big Bob..........gag. His face ought to be in the history books as the man who could have saved America from Obama's long-reaching grab for every facet of our lives....and DIDN'T.

      Had he sided (and rightly so) with the conservatives, Obamacare would be history....as I type. Instead, he handed the victory to an already egomaniacal dictator-wanna-be and allowed the juggernaut of Obamacare to proceed full speed ahead.

      It's a travesty of justice.

  • Albert M Bryson

    While some people think this is a brilliant decision on Chief Justice Roberts part. It also expanded the power to tax where Congress can tax anything such as gun ownership and soda pop. It might even allowed to create a national sales tax or a Valued Added tax program to raise the necessary revenue they need because so far Congress lacks the courage to cut spending.

  • Ron

    If this is a tax, How can Obama have exclusions for unions,etc.?

  • Eileen

    I don't care how brilliant it is, I wanted Obamacare to be found unconstitutional. Now we have to be afraid of being taxed to death on everything and forced to buy things we don't want if the president and congress are in agreement. Ithink we have lost our freedom.

  • PrinceCharIes

    Great logic Bolen: that means that when HitIer killed the Jews and Christians, it allowed people all over the world to feel compassion and sympathy for the remaining Jews, and helped us rally to win the war, so it all worked out in the end, what a brilliant idea.
    Get a life Bolen.

  • David Msg ret

    SEEE! It PAYS to READ what is written before you knee jerk a reaction ...OH! If congress had READ and understood the 2700 page debacle.."got to pass it BEFORE you undetstand it" maybe they would have included a severability clauses .. VOTE! To get the PROPER representatives in Congress

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Barbara-Paolucci/100001333695075 Barbara Paolucci

    Roberts is a disgrace, no its much worse than that. I can't write the words I'm thinking of.
    If he believed that congress has the right to tax, well fine, but then the Supreme Court doesn't get the case until someone pays the tax and that is how he should have ruled. Since he ruled that the other two elements of the law are unconstitutional, what he's said in the end is that congress can tax unconstitutional things, as in - if you don't buy something you pay a tax.
    If he was so sure of his point of view he wouldn't have tried to pressure Kennedy to go along with him so he'd have some cover. Per CBS news, Kennedy isn't speaking to him anymore. Smart move for Kennedy.
    Roberts announced that this was his court and it sure is now. I hope he's learned a valuable lesson - let Scalia write the opinions and sit down and shut up. His playing politics is not what the supreme court is supposed to be about - he's supposed to uphold the law and our constitution/bill of rights.
    So in the end, I do not believe Roberts was being clever - I do however wonder how he earned the reputation he HAD (& just lost) as the nation's best conservative judge.

    • Screeminmeeme

      Barbara Paolucci....Amen to your comments.

      People are spinning like crazy trying to make a silk purse from a sow's ear....but it's very clear what the man did.....and it was not the move of a genius. Certainly the other intelligent men on the court had great reservations about his judgment.

      SOMETHING happened and we will probably never know what it was that motivated him to change sides and construct this convoluted and confusing opinion.

      All I know is that Roberts'...in one act.....has harmed America terribly. I hope he's happy that he ''guarded the reputation of the court'' and gave the federal government expanded power. What a major disappointment.....disgusting.

  • Mary

    I think it was a genius move on the part of Justice Roberts. It forces people to get out and vote. Do they want Obamacare & tyranny or the Republic. On top of that those sitting on the fence will be forced to choose. Had Justice Roberts voted against it the court would have been heckled the whole Summer by the Progressive Libs. This put's it in it's proper perspective as a tax.
    The Alex Jones show on 6/28 say's that several new IRS agents have been hired to implicate it. And the globalist progressives are pushing it to make us slaves of the NWO. It's hidden agenda is genocide of the sick & the elderly. Alex Jones show 6/28/2012: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBTXv820HAQ&feature=related Yes Obama is providing more jobs by growing government but not in the private corporate sector.
    Any one who can't see this for what it is; just another new tax with several hidden agendas is a dimwit. I hope the American people aren't stupid enough to buy into the propaganda.

    • Screeminmeeme

      Mary......I disagree. Just about every constitutional scholar has said that the rationale for his decision was tortured, and inexplicable. The opinion read like the majority opinion instead of the minority one and the language from the 4 conservative judges was critical of Roberts' ( rarely happens) for changing sides at the last minute and they signed the opinion together (which is unusual but showed their unity)

      As for heckling from the progressives..... that ought not ever enter into their judgments whatsoever....they are by definition to be nonpartisan and autonomous. If Robert's can't take the heat for following his conscience and making good legal decisions, he needs to hang up his robes and quit.

      The left is thrilled with the decision because in their little minds, Obamacare is wonderful....free....and a good thing that their hero Obama provided them. They are fired up as well. All the conservatives that I know were already fired up..and didn't need Robert's idiotic ideas to stir them into action.

      Had Obamacare been thrown out, RIGHT NOW there would be no forward movement of the agenda...all would have been halted and the conservatives could have begun taking steps to reverse the damage.

      Now...because of one man's manipulation of the law, it will likely take at least a year or two to repeal the bill and by then all kinds of things will have been added. Because of Roberts', the juggernaut, Obamacare is full steam ahead.

      Thanks Chief for screwing us all.

  • Gary

    This should, in no way, be ruled based on politics! That is not the Supreme Court's job or duty! This is absolutely an incorrect ruling and totally against the people. The political parties and Romney's campaign, BE DAMNED!!!
    If you think things would get better under Romney and the Republicans, you'd better think again. They are not on the side of "The People."

  • jack342

    how in heck do u login?

  • http://www.facebook.com/danny.strunk.50 Danny Strunk

    The simplist way to have helped us out of Ocare would have been to declare it unconstitutional ,thus energizing the left's globalist money machine.Robert' s instead is playing Stratego, not chess.He realizes that to get rid of this monstrosity he had to play this word game calling it a tax,which is political poison for Obamacare.Considering that over 60% wanted this steaming pile of manure repealed( that has to include persons of all political affiliations),Roberts has poisoned the chance for any one who voted for the bill or touted this as fair and just governmental over reaching.The overreaching hand is now perceived as a withered,gnarled claw with long dirty nails bent on grabbing into every American working man' s pockets.
    Roberts has by appearing impartial from his bench,looked at us and said
    its constitutional (wink,wink), here's the football now you decide what you want to do with it.The Dems are spiking it in mid field ,only realizing after doing so ,that is a fumble,we now have ball,the blocking is forming ,how far we run with it is up to us.

  • Silas_Longshot

    Indeed, Judge Roberts plays 3 dimensional chess while the lib judges play checkers, thinking all the while 'they' are winning and 0bamacare stands. As he said, it's now up to angry Americans to finally get around to flushing the stinking load in the toilet known as Washington, DC that plied this onto our backs to begin with. From 0bama to the doorman, every democrat and RINO has to GO!
    Thanks to Roberts brilliant work, we can now easily throw this 0bamanation OUT. But only if the people get out and vote conservatively MORE than the zombie and illegals voting democrat.
    surviving urban crisis . com

  • Bobnews

    This is
    a very thoughtful article and follows a line of thinking that we conservatives
    like to hear. Too bad Mr. Bolen left out the part about a Supreme Court
    decision that gives Obama and the left a free hand to shred the rest of the
    Constitution with little or no limitations as long as he calls it a tax or penalty.

  • charles17121

    Not being a lawyer I can only hope the lawyer from The Bolen Law Firm is correct in his evaluation of Supreme Court Justice Roberts decision to rule as he did . But it's good to hear such positive vibes . Maybe now the Chief Justice will hear a case brought against the fraud obama for not being US Constitutionally qualified to hold office.

  • cleanwater2

    What Roberts did was run the Obama campaign into a box canyon with well armed Conservatives and patriots guarding the exit and controlling the rim. The ammunition is that Obamauncare is a tax on all the people,men women and children. Young and old.

  • ConservaDave

    I hope you are right but do not share your rose colored glasses optimism. I understand that Roberts' opinion on the unconstitutionality of Obamacare at the commerce clause level was his own personal and not an opinion that is binding. Nevertheless, the status quo maintenance of the abuse of the commerce clause remains. I believe that your two stated 9 to 0 rulings are more implied than actual. Obamacare could have been struck down last week and wasn't. It is still alive and now declared "Constitutional." Even if you are right about "David Souter" Roberts (he was also wrong on Arizona) the court and especially the Chief Justice should be above such machinations. In the end it is going to be power vs. power; liberal liars and deceivers with their willing accomplices in the main stream media vs. the forces of good in this nation, all hinging on one election. God help America, unless He has determined it is time for her judgment.

  • OldRobertHere

    No Justice Roberts DID NOT pull one one the Liberals-he folded like a wet towel. Why I do not know but it was for no honorable reason. To "Defend the Court" or "Hold the Line on the Commerce Clause" is wishful thinking. It will take more than elections to defend the Rights of a Free People.

  • TheGizmo51

    Yes, he sure did! Why not have all the republinos pull one over on the liberals by joining with them? That would sure show 'em who's boss.

  • Undettered

    IANAL But reading through the Supreme Court decision I kind of figured the above happened nice to know that the Bolen Law Firm confirms my suspicious.

  • Bobnews

    This is
    a very thoughtful article and follows a line of thinking that we conservatives
    like to hear. Too bad Mr. Bolen left out the part about a Supreme Court
    decision gives Obama and the left a free hand to shred the rest of the
    Constitution with little or no limitations as long as he calls it a tax or penalty.

  • Sol of Texas

    More numbing and bad precedent - SOTUS redefining terms, whether for political gain or not. Believers in liberty and the rule of law will caution that such tactics might be used against us in the future.

    Had the 16th Amendment (income tax) never passed, all of this would be moot. Shame on our ancestors for approving such a monstrous amendment - clearly against the intentions of the framers.

    I understand there is contention that the 16th amendment was not properly ratified.

  • joepotato

    Roberts pulled one on the "constitution" thereby screwing all of the USA by granting/legalizing tyranny. There is no other way to read it.

  • libssukkalot

    After having been hit port side by an “economy mine” and listing badly for weeks now, I just heard another torpedo hit the U.S.S. Obama and created a big "Tax Hole" in its starboard side, while "albatrosses were circling overhead picking at Democrat body parts"!
    = )

  • EastSideHunky

    Your entire assumption hinges on conservatives going out Nov 6th, hold their nose and vote for Romney AND that he and a GOP congress will overturn Obamacare, not likely now that it has been legitimized by SCOTUS...that's a lot of confidence we'll be the electotral majority AND that the election will not be stolen oh, say, in places like Philadelphia, NYC, Chicago, and other places where dead Dems and illegals can vote without consequences.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Dan-Cooper/100003767256816 Dan Cooper

    as the rapee i don't feel like i got anything positive out of this decision . . . the raper still gets my taxes . . . and, i suspect, i will also end up paying the tax for the same 49% who pay no federal income taxes now. freedom has left the building . . . we're doomed.

  • bud

    I am sure that what you said is right. However, what will be the impact on other cases before a liberal court? If you, who have a whole mind and some logical thinking ability, think this is "torturous" what do you think the simple minded liberals who will be on this court, will do with this decision? Unfortunately I have discovered that you cannot explain algebra to a 2 year old. So this decision is similar - it goes over the liberal heads at the speed of light and they never even know something went over their head.
    To be honest I think my dog would understand this reasoning better than any liberal I have ever talked with. For one thing the dog LISTENS. While he may not have the mental capacity to understand what I am saying he tries so hard that I love him for it. He is not trying to remember his liberal phrase book for a proper retort as liberals always do.

  • Blair

    Yes, he did.

  • http://twitter.com/jmsramsey John Schaeffer

    It simply means that the Conservatives may have lost this battle but have a much better chance of winning the war in November! John Roberts is a genius as the article stated.

    • http://twitter.com/rovibe71 rob b

      I don't like the logic that claims sparing ourselves 4 years of Obama is better than spring ourselves a lifetime of Obamacare. There is no guarantee whatsoever of a successful repeal. I'd rather endure 4 more years of Obama (with the hopes he'd be largely neutralized by GOP majorities in Congress) then get rid of Obama now but be stuck with Obamacare for the rest of my life. Unless and until it is fully repealed, I don't trust Roberts or any of the wishful analysis being done on his ruling.

  • Jennie Walsh

    So Obama forges ahead with creating more expen$ive bureaucracies, agencies, paper pushing, NONproductive jobs to further rob and enslave the American taxpayers. I hope this action can be undone ASAP before Obaminationcare gets cemented into America.

  • dean29685

    Bull. Roberts sold out for what reason only he knows. The injustice served up was nothing more than astounding but it only shows that The America I grew up with and loved is done
    we have a RINO running for president and from all I can tell just more of the same coming down the pike.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_YQQR5H3GGKFU3GVBT3GUG5KS5Y roger

    Roberts move was extremely wise; I agree with your assessment, Richard. Please notice that Obama and the Executive Branch have been publicly and desperately defending their position that this is not a tax in reaction to the Supreme Court's decision. But "not a tax" is now going to cost everyone across the board IN AN ELECTION YEAR, anathema to politicians. "Free benefits" now will be assessed against the entire electorate to include the freeloaders. Recent assessments by independent analysts are showing that the majority of the increased taxes will fall on the middle class. The VOTERS now have the final decision in November on whether Obamacare goes into effect. Conservatives and Independents are energized and angry. Liberals are just beginning to understand they have been outsmarted. The bottom line is that Obama was counting on this decision to project himself into a second term to the detrement of the nation. He no longer has the arrogant upper hand. Checkmate!

  • http://www.facebook.com/fat.christopher Christopher Newman

    Nope, he pulled one over on the conservatives and the American people by setting precedence through this supreme court judgment that the federal government can coerce the American people into buying or doing whatever the federal government wants us to under the threat of a tax. Now that he ruled this fine as a tax, they can also fine each and every gun owning American for each gun they have and get away with it by calling it a tax. This precedent that was set by the supreme courts ruling will be used to grab more power than just the healthcare law grabs. Just wait and see.

  • jim28threg

    The only disappointment I have with the Holder conviction is he's still walking around and running his garbage filled mouth .

  • phxrcf

    Unfortunately, this sounds like a lot of wishful thinking to me. I'd rather have a bird in the hand, then two in the bush anyway. What the hell do I care what liberals think of the court? Let them say it's all political. Just make the right decisions based on the Constitution, not bad precedent or political calculations.

  • MadmaxUSA

    I hope the author of this article is correct in his assessment of Justice Roberts' decision. The fallacy, however is that Roberts must rule on the constitutionality of the law, and not on perceived political strategy that may serve to enhance Romney's chances come November. The fact that Roberts concluded that the revenues required to enact the Obamacare were taxes, and not interstate commerce gives me great pause since Obama's attorneys argued before the Court and the American People the exact opposite. In his written opinion, Roberts concluded that if the people don't like the law they should elect new representatives to Congress who will change it. What if Roberts had made a similar admonition following a capital punishment appeal from a condemned, and perhaps innocent man?
    The author of this article is way off base here, and the people know it.

  • Indiana_James

    Thanks for calming my nerves. I feel a LITTLE better about it but wont be relieved in toto until the ENTIRE obamatax is struck down. As to the Holder contempt vote,.it is pointless as the 'justice' dept declines to prosecute. (ie: REFUSES to uphold the LAW as is its D U T Y!)

  • vigilannie2

    This is such a laugh!! People running to support Romney?? Romney has supported abortion, gun control, the DHS, taxes, socialized healthcare (Romneycare in MA), bailouts, the Federal Reserve and a National ID card........and people think he is going to save them from obama...???? .....

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/6OZ7ERTPXYTPX7JGVNRH6L34KE M

    If the U.S. Senate receives a resolution from the House of Representatives, strips away all the language except the House printer's number, and attaches a new Senate Bill to it, does this Senate Bill become a House Bill strictly by virtue of having a House printer's number pasted to it?

  • TAPS

    Since it's political we should disregard the rule of law and limited authority of the federalies.
    Brilliant doesn't make it lawful. We've gone from a nation of law to laws rule; all one needs to do is stack the bus with one more than they have. It can't be sugarcoated and until property gets a seat at the table we will continue to be beholden to this single big government party that has an uncanny ability to talk out of both sides of its mouth.

  • Chris Marengo, Esq.

    You are wrong. The dissenting judges did NOT sign off on the CC limitation. The only one who did was the CJ. So it is merely dicta, which limits nothing and is NOT controlling law.

  • Gary Alan Adkins

    Some of you still don't get it. Judge Roberts helped the conservative cause in a unique way.
    Read the article over & over until you get it. No offense intended. I think once you understand you will see his decision as a stroke of genius.

  • VocalYokel

    You underestimate the 'gratitude' and the willingness to view Roberts in a new light by the Leftards.
    I have heard more than one set if liberal lips saying the only reason Roberts supported the constitutionality of Obamacare was to assure the continuation of the existence of the evil, greedy private insurance companies.

    The liars and the lies will never change.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_Q4PSRRLPLOEC3WGMVX5Z3ZVJXA Kem

    This decision by Roberts hands the biggest tax increase in history back to Obama. Now he promised he wasn't raising taxes so what's he going to do? This is bad for the dems. Hiring the IRS to take the money was a huge give away.



  • Patriot Lady

    If it is true that this is what was in Justice Roberts' thinking when he ruled the way he did, then we had ALL better hope that EVERYONE who loves America gets out to vote in November! If we lose this election, Justice Robert's strategy won't have saved us afterall, but will instead have put every one of us behind our own personal 8-ball. Now we need to make certain our neighbors and relatives get out and vote in order to save our country.

  • Jamie

    Nice spin attempt. The government can now tax us for anything are nothing at all. Roberts just gambled with our future in hopes that the conservatives would rally. In doing so, he had to rewrite the law which makes him an activist judge. We really need to get Romney elected so he can appoint some real conservative judges to the court because Roberts showed his true colors.

  • moberndorf

    Nonsense. Grasping at straws. Roberts is and always was a RINO. While some of the things you mention, like getting conservatives ginned up are real, it is HIGHLY unlikely that Roberts had this in mind. This whole episode was the worst example of an out-of-control Supreme Court we have seen since Roe v Wade...

  • Kukye

    You leave an impression the goverment has authority to tax. No IT DOES NOT.

    Income tax is not income because you barter hours of your time in EXCHANGE for monetary conisderation. IT IS NOT INCOME!

    Second, the Federal goverment can only tax on a federal level not domestics or state citizens. (Devvy KIdd).

    Third, the Supreme Court once RULED income tax is UNconstitutional! Why did the opinion change???

    IN 1913 with the Federal Reserve Act to start ripping off the citizens. Besides they don't need our money as they can print whatever they want anyway to fun-d themselves, anyway (Devvy Kidd).

    So, why are they taxing us??? A good excuse to keep records/tabs on its citizens and get their nose into every aspect of our lives and thereby keep their power and Ponzi Scheme going.

    • http://www.facebook.com/aemoreira81 Adam Moreira

      The change was because the 16th Amendment superseded Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust (1895), which challenged the Wilson-Gorman Act of 1894 (which had been allowed to become law without a Presidential signature) that set about income taxes with no Constitutional authorization at the time.

      Pollock. v. FL&T, BTW, was a 5-4 decision.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_TDSLCPZIADLPWE4SFOZNRWV3OE Mike Tanco

    This just proves one thing to me. The corruption in our government is in all three branches and the America I knew as young boy growing up is gone. This President has divided our people and corrupted most of Washington,D.C.. He will continue to do so if re-elected in 2012. Think about what I am writing on this email. The taxpaying public will soon get tired of supporting themselves and their families while others depend on the government for food, shelter, clothing and health care. People planting seeds in women with no intention of taking care of the child or mother. These people know the government will pay for the childs birth and fund it's development to adulthood. Illegals receive the same benefits while our elderly are helpless.
    This nation has become so corrupt it is shameful. Mike Tanco

  • irishdave33

    Ia John Boy the Rocket Man? ICBM is another way of saying Insurance Company Bag Man. Arise yea Tea Baggers...you have nothing to lose but your your Medicare!

  • jan

    I am a genius too. Because this is what I thought as well...although, not as detailed. The give away for me is that he wanted to protect and for people to realize that how important it is to know whom you are voting for. We are not taking voting seriously. By Roberts doing this he has everyone thinking and he has protected us in other way.

    • Screeminmeeme

      I think we know what the other smart people on the Supreme court think about Roberts' decision.....the 4 conservative judges think what he did was not very wise.

  • Thunderbob

    this article is a croak of garbage. the only thing this did was make us a subservient state. The only wool pulled over any bodies eyes was the below 35 year old crowd! unfortunately they vote too.

  • CajunPatriot

    From the moment of the SCOTUS rendering its verdict that Obamacare was a tax, all conscientious Constitutional Americans should now call it ObamaTax. Obama denied it was a tax to numerous interviewers. Reid denied it was a tax. The Wicked Witch of the West, Pelosi, denied it was a tax. They all are liars. It istax.
    Hopefully, Justice Roberts has energized the Romney campaign and Romney will now take the reigns and campaign against the largest tax increase in the history of civilization. My family and I are searching out candidates who have a track record of core conservatism and avow to do all they can to reverese ObamaTax. There are true conservatives at this time in Congress, and we need to add to their number. There are some true conservatives (not nearly as true or as many) in the Senate. We need to add to their number. We will be working for the election of one or more of these candidates this fall.
    We remain concerned that Romney may also be a statist and not a true conservative. Nagging concerns continue to be with us, but we will vote for him to overturn ObamaTax, if nothing else.

  • sfcpete

    It is truly amusing to see Obama, Wasserman-Schitz and company trying in vein to spin Justice Roberts identifying obarrycare as a tax.

  • a_priceblue

    As of 24 hours ago, I would've been apllauding everything in this artilce, and in fact made a similar observation, which goes like this, " A TAX?? A TAX?? ARE YA KIDDN' ME!!! THIS COUNTRY IS GONNA HAVE A MELT-DOWN"!!
    I too concluded Roberts was a 'genius'!
    However, as of today!! Did'ja catch the comment Romneys 'spokes-person' made today, about the fact that , 'yes, Virgina, it is a PENALTY, AND NOT A TAX!!!
    Good Lord!! Did we just 'snatch "defeat out of the jaws of 'victory"????

    • Hammer

      Yeah... whereas Roberts was brilliant, Romney... not so much. It's his election to lose, now.

  • Hammer

    Small-minded people think in small ways and are unable to see beyond their own nose. If you're determined to see only this one action, and not see its relationship to the whole, as is so clearly pointed out in this post, then you have to ask yourself if you truly are a champion of conservative ideals. Essentially, Roberts paved the way for a Romney win in November... At that point, none of the political posturing will matter because Romney will simply be able to wipe out Obamacare. Big picture, people: A dissenting vote from Roberts' and a reversed decision by SCOTUS would have resulted in the galvanization of Obama supporters and an Obama win in Nov. Brilliant, just brilliant.

    • Screeminmeeme

      Hammer...look beyond your own nose.

      The huge victory that Roberts gave Obama GALVANIZED his supporters like nothing else. They are euphoric...fired up and ready to give him another crack at playing dictator.


  • rocco1234

    all of the above is true but roberts had no right in making law.and that is what he did. he is in the judicial branch not the legislative. this was a slam dunk and he rolled the dice.

  • LoneStar

    Here they go again trying to twist and turn things and trying to make wrong seem right. Justice roberts was wrong, he voted what he belived, not what the majority of the people believed. Worst of all he betrayed his conservative beliefs and has lost the conservatives trust. [All is not well in the supreme court].

  • JJ

    The law is constitution as U.S. territorial law. Since the people are 14th Amendment citzens i.e. U.S. citizens through contract by excepting the social security number congress has the power to do many things that it could not require a citizen of one of the several states to do. The people don't realize that they are presumed U.S. citizens and have civil rights ( privleges and. Immunities ) not unalienable rights as such. Look at how Black's Law Dictionary has changed the definitions of terms over the years and you will see the the New Deal was a new Social contract. How do you pay your debt with Debt notes Fed notes? FDR transformed the country years ago but since it was done by deciet as time goes by and the legal memory fades the congress gets more and more bold.

  • David

    Great article Mr. Bolen!
    My first gut reaction to the mis-reported ruling was excitement then an immediate switch of emotions; a feeling of betrayal. It wasn't until I read and understood what Roberts was really saying that the Supreme Court has interpreted ObamaCare as a tax that I saw where he was going with his ruling.
    He remembered the tongue lashing he and the other conservative judges got at the State of the Union address by King Obama a few years ago. His retribution was to show the King what their branch of government was able to do. Roberts' ruling saved face the Supreme Court by giving the libtards what they wanted but in turn admonished the American voters that if you don't want this TAX all you have to do is vote out the libtards of the senate and the White House and the people will have THEIR voice heard and repeal ObamaCare with a new President and Senate controlled by conservatives.
    I now see what can and needs to happen in November that would basically neuter the Democratic party for good. They have NO good ideas anyway as to fix a problem in this economy, so they should ALL be expelled.
    KUDOS to you Justice Roberts for a brilliant strategy.

  • Abo2012

    Don't know if we can trust the republicans to repeal if they have control of house,senate and white house. We the people have been lied to and let down to many times by these deceitful people that are supposed to work for us, not control us.

  • David

    I hope you are right. Roberts is that smart.

  • http://www.facebook.com/karaoke60 Dennis M. Young

    I can only hope that this author, obviously much more learned than I, is spot on with this assessment of the ruling. It does allow for there to be a light at the end of the tunnel if "We the People" can prevail in November. I would so like to see at least 300 house seats, at least 65 Senate seats and the Oval Office occupied by very conservative and responsible representatives who will remember that, although we are a Republic, their first obligatrion of office is to represent the majority voice of "We the People" and to strickly uphold the Constitution of these United States of America to their utmost ability. I would also hope that any Supreme Court nominees from this point forward be extremely vetted with an eye to elliminate anyone with Marxist leanings. Good luck people...and keep your powder dry.

  • Robert

    Roberts is a coward and afraid of his own shadow. The administration put pressure on him and the press assistant and he couldn't take the pressure. Somewhere I would like to hope that he will gain a backbone and stand up like a man and not liken Obama worm.

  • jerry1944

    No roberts was bought off and is a trator to his country. And now he can never make a decsion without us wondering how much he made off of it. He is a trator to his country and with out princileps

  • jerry1944

    roberts sold out his country and is a trator to it Now ever time he makes decsion we will have to wonder how much he made off it . He is now a trator without morals

  • banjo kid

    There sure are a lot of if's there to play with our sovereignty of the states and the entire country . We could well wind up with this monstrosity hanging over every persons head for years to come . I do hope that the law is repealed but what is to go in its place ? we need reform and we must make sure it is the right kind or we will only be feeding the fat cats in the health care industry . Getting the hospitals off the stock exchange would be a great start in getting costs under control . What we have is stock holders demanding that cost go up , and they will go up as long as the public has a dime invested in hospitals . I don't expect to return to the days of 100 dollar a day stay but at least we could gain some ground in curtailing cost per Diem. The hospital is the one that is costing every one to much and the doctors sit on the side lines watching their bottom line disappear . Until the $10.00 aspirin is eradicated we will have cost soar . I will with hold saying it was brilliant and wait til we see the out come in and past November .

  • gander

    I still won't pay a tax for not giving my money to another private corporation (ins.). We'll see what happens.

  • CajunPatriot

    Dear Richard:
    I have shared your response with many friends and associates. The friends for the most part are conservative, the associates are not and include some strong Obama supporters. Some were encouaraged by your response (as I was) and others were agast. It was quite amusing to witness their reactions.
    We are working to expand (or maintain) the conservative nature of the US House of Representatives this fall, and to add to the Senate, where we can have a majority conservatives who want to overturn ObamaTax (which it should now accurately be called).
    Our governor, Bobby Jindal, was one of the first who came forth and said he would not implement any of the components of the legislation, but would work hard to see its revocation. Our present House member is a core conservative and is already working with other House members to overturn ObamaTax. One of our US Senators (Vitter-R) is working to overturn it, but our other Senator (Landrieu-D) supports it and would only vote for its revocation, defunding, or elimination, if she felt not doing so would cause her defeat. That may be case with many, or most elected Democrats to federal offices.
    For governor and US Senator, Zell Miller, said of this: "I did not leave the Democrat Party, but the Democrat Party left me!"

  • Mark

    Lunacy! Conservatives don't need to win the "next big one" - this one was it - the most Orwellian piece of legislation that could be imagined. Roberts snatched defeat from the jaws of victory ..

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=516859771 John Sweet

    I still want to know how Kagan did not recluse herself on this issue? the lack of ethics there alone should negate the opinion

  • Bubblegum199

    No he didn't. He listened to Obama and the media and professes himself
    to be the greatest so not to disappoint himself, Obama and the media he
    went with the liberals. Now there is a judge who deserves to be tossed
    out on his butt along with Obama ad the media

  • Nadine

    I hope Roberts knows what he did...regardless..he has opened a can of poison & all this could have been avoided. YET, if it went the other way...atleast we'd be able to start fresh, but now the libs LOVE him...where as before he was a traitor...I hope he is smart enough to know that this country is in a hell of a mess with Gov. takeover of healthcare. And, it's not ALL health care...it's taxes & power & big!! This is a HUGE MESS & we need to vote out the sitting JERK!! PRAY this can be overturned people...or Obummer will be telling ya gimme your $$...then take a pill!!

  • booker

    FACT: Roberts is a epileptic, he takes medication for that, research the effects from taking mind altering pharmaceutics drugs to help with his disease.

  • pointdan

    Mr Bolen - I have not read the decision but from what I have heard, you are incorrect. First, who cares about a media backlash IF you can win at the Supreme Court ? Judges don't run for office. The decision should have been 6-3, not 5-4 IF Roberts had voted like a constitutional conservative. His words about the Commerce Clause, while accurate, were not part of the decision but merely "dicta". The ruling will not have precedent in future cases. In fact, Ginsberg authored a 22 page dissent to Roberts' position concerning the Commerce Clause. Chief Justice Roberts took an oath to uphold the Constitution. It is not his job to worry about the public reaction, Mitt Romney's election strategy or NBC's opinion of him or The Court. The Constitution has been damaged by this decision and John Roberts.

  • Dave P. in St. Louis

    It's correct to say that Roberts conned the public but not all of us. He redefined the mandate as a tax (it's not) to give Republicans ammunition. He gave states the ability to opt out with no consequences, taking a large portion of the teeth out of the law. Absolutely Machiavellian. I have to applaud the man even as I weep for the country he betrayed.

  • doctorlivingstone

    Obama care isn't going anywhere unless the GOP retains the Congress, wins the Senate and the White House. ONLY THEN can it be repealed. Certainly can be done, but it's a long shot at best, so you better get used to government mandated health care. Remember 49% of America is on the government gravy train - who do you think they're voting for in November??

  • MCJ5060

    Roberts, in order to out Obama for the liar he is, gave him a feather to put in his cap...and the funny part is Obama and all his liberal lap dogs STILL HAVEN'T FIGURED OUT THEY'RE THE OBJECT OF THE JOKE!!! They're doing victory laps while the rest of the world is taking notice that he's lied the whole time...and continues to lie about the taxation. He's dingbat....must be a liberal thang.

  • cajun318

    why isn't Charles Kruthammer credited for writing this?

  • Freedom4

    I appreciate the effort to want to still believe in Roberts but disagree with the conclusion. It appears that he is nothing more than a media hound who was influenced by the pressure from the "drive-by's." If that's true, he caved like so many other spineless people who call themselves leaders "of the people, by the people, for the people." Robers took a mess and made it bigger by giving the government power to now tax inaction. He betrayed the constitution. His ego and insecurities stood in the way of doing what was right. It's that simple.

  • James

    Decisions on most everything is always 5 to 4. They draw their weekly assignments out of a hat. Roberts forgot he was supposed to say "NO" this week.

  • jcrawdad

    Well !! I and the Nation truly hope The Bolen Law Firm are right in their thinking, Because he truly set us up for a long ride to Hell. I myself think he did a very miss call of Justis for the American people, and we will pay very dearly even if Obama is removed from office.

  • shagstar

    has anyone noticed how the left-tard's are not celebrating in the streets over this decision?
    it should give you some pause in any declaration you might be having. if this was truly as important as those commie's made it out to be then,,how come all of a sudden they have become abnormaly quiet with their history,making victory? ( have you ever seen the left so restrained with any win they have?) i never have!

  • Ray Harrison

    I sure hope you reading of this is accurate. Sounds great!

  • medivac

    I agree with this article. It has unified the conservatives. Hopefully it will lull the liberals into a sense of victory thus thinking that they have already won and being such people that they are will forget when November 6th is and allow us to get the U.S back on the right track.

  • bmcdona

    This is all well and good, but what if by hook or crook or whatever means necessary, Obama gets a second term? We will be royally screwed, that's what!

  • edward

    t is extremely pitiful that the general american public does not know how our government works (other than the graft etc). SCOTUS declared the Odamacare bill legal as a TAX! In Congress when they vote to repal they will need only 51 vote (a simple majority) to cancel this piece of garbage, NOT the 60 needed before. Justice Roberts may or may not have handed the republicans a gift from God......................................

  • JamesB

    Finally!! Someone else who "gets it"! The race is now Romney's to lose (which he might if he can't articulate that Massachusetts doesn't have a Commerce Clause, so the mandate at the state level CAN be a penalty rather than a tax, unlike at the Federal level). On it's face though, this was Judicial Activism and after Obama is voted out he should resign.


    • JamesB

      'He' in the last sentence being Justice Roberts.

  • DaveR

    Sorry, Mr. Bolen, but I must respectfully disagree. The bottom line is that that Roberts joined 4 liberals to issue a ruling under which nothing in the future is exempt from imposition of a federal taxation and penalties scheme to force behavior of individual citizens of USA to do the bidding of Washington DC elites, aka "our representatives", and there is zero certainty of a repeal by Congress and the next president. Roberts should have tossed it back to Congress by striking all of the law down as an improper expansion of the Commerce Clause and should have left it to the wiles of Congress to re-pass it under some taxing authority that could more easily be challenged if deemed appropriate.

    • http://www.facebook.com/aemoreira81 Adam Moreira

      Actually, what Roberts did is say that it's a tax...in essence, saying that a tax is a tax no matter how you try to frame it. Republicans can now run against this saying that they want to reduce taxes, and that this is the biggest tax increase since the early 1990s.

  • defendingfreedom

    It is hard to trust anything in this article when it grossly misrepresents the court's decision, and it is even worse when it comes from a law firm. The decision under the Commerce Clause was NOT unanimous. The syllabus specifically states that the opinion of Chief Justice Roberts represents the opinion of the court with respect to Parts I, II, and III-C. Furthermore, as you read through the Chief Justice's opinion, the page header reads "Opinion of the Court" during Parts I, II, and III-C, but then switches to reading "Opinion of Roberts, C.J." during Parts III-A and III-B. Not even the conservative side of the bench was willing to join with his Commerce Clause opinion. Although this outcome means that the mandate is ruled unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause, Roberts' opinion has the same weight as a dissent because it was not joined by a majority of the justices.

  • rlcummings

    I'm not convinced that this was planned by Roberts or in our best interest long-term. The positive rationale assumes that conservatives will get fired up and vote Obama out. In my opinion, the conservatives are angry, the independents have mixed feelings, and the liberals have something to fight to keep. The real test will be if the independents get fired up and choose the right side. Yes, there are sides in this election. It might have been much better for Roberts to have voted to "can" Obamacare now, and then let the liberals fight in this election to try and get Obamacare back by voting Obama in (an unlikely and discouraging scenario, because they are unlikely to have both houses and the presidency again to have a chance to vote it back in as a tax). Putting all of our marbles into the election may not have been the wisest thing to do given the fact that there is such a major divide in this country with so many folks liking getting things for free, 40M on foodstamps, now "free healthcare," and division of the people being a full-time job of Obama and his liberal supporting press, I would have felt a whole lot more comfortable having taken our "winnings" when we could, rather than hoping that this "loss" will fire Americans up to do what is right. Sometimes, the balancing entities of government need to do what the people can't or won't do themselves (i.e. do what is right). Regardless of what happens in November, from here on out, everything is going to look like a "tax" to those in Washington. Given our national debt and Congress's desire to keep spending (and Obama's goal of turning us into Greece), four more years of Obama will seal our fate. Let's all hope that Karen is right and we should take faith because God is still on the throne, and will make sure that our prayers are answered.

  • gamburch

    Suppose Roberts concluded all that he did, except for the final flip. He then would have achieved all of the good discussed above,but none of the bad associated with his rewriting "tax* into the healthcare legislation. How can this alternative not be better than playing cutsie with the Constitution? We the people are having enough trouble with fanciful interpretations of the Constitutuon by the liberal elite, We don't need any of our boys deciding on his own that we shouldn't hurt their feelings!

  • PrinceCharIes

    Roberts made it clear it was a sales tax on health care so it is already lIIegaI in 5 states were sales tax is lIIegaI: Oregon, Montana, Alaska, New Hampshire, and Delaware.

    • Xman3

      I have a problem with this being a "tax". A tax is supposed to be fair and equitable and is based on the value of something: Tax on income, tax on value of real estate, tax on the value of personal property, tax on dividends and interest, utility tax, sales tax on pruchases, meal tax on value of meal, etc. This is a 'penalty' (or tax?) on doing nothing (not buying health insurance). It can not be a 'sales tax on health care' as no health care was pruchased. Can anyone shed any light on this "tax" ?

      • http://www.facebook.com/aemoreira81 Adam Moreira

        Not sure that it's even needed. Reason: it is a tax increase and Republicans could simply say that they want to undo tax increases.

  • kegan05

    I am withholding judgement on Chief Justice Roberts until after the November election. This may just be a blessing in disguise. I hope Justice Roberts will not feel compelled to side with the Liberal Whackjobs again. His job is just to interpret the Constitution, in my opinion, and he should not be involved in politics, pressure from the Media or the President, OR political correctness!

    Lets dump the Tin Pot Dictator in the White House and hire a REAL LEADER!
    Romney 2012! Repeal and Replace!

  • BrianTX

    Another video is out questioning if this ruling makes the entire law illegal. Now that it's a tax - the constitution says all revenue bills must come from the house - because they pushed this as a commerce clause bill it was a senate bill not a house bill that was approved!

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2IASVDBUIJDAPOJTY5QEJLZ64I Hatski

    i agree, and when all this sinks in, obama will be booted, ....that is if he isnt booted for not being Natural Born first...

  • USAForever48

    Last Thursday morning, as the ruling was announced, initially I was extremely disheartened. I felt that the final blow to liberty had been struck and we were done with as a liberty-loving republic. Then as the afternoon wore on, and I thought about what Chief Justice Roberts had done, it suddenly dawned on me that he had hung a great big albatross around Obama's neck! As I thought about it more, I realized that he had done what only someone with a brilliant legal mind and a solid thorough understanding of Constitutional law could have achieved. Chief Justice Roberts had essentially hung Obama with his own rope! The smartest man in the world, this Constitutional scholar who sits in our White House prentending to be our president, got out-maneuvered by someone who knows just a little bit more than he does, certainly about Constitutional law!!! Now I understand Chief Justice Roberts' little smile. He knows and understands things we don't know. He achieved Mission Impossible and the left still has no idea what hit them!!! Oh, November is going to be fun!!! Keep believing, folks. Let's keep working hard. We are going to keep the House of Representatives, pick up the overwhelming majority in the Senate and put simple decency back in our White House. God bless the U.S.A. and God save the U.S.A.!!!! Happy 4th of July, everyone!!!!! Carry our flag high and proud!!! We are Americans!!!!

  • TS

    And there's still Ben Swann's point that the bill originated in the senate. (they rejected the House's bill and originated their own). Their problem is that tax bills must originate with the House, so the whole thing may be invalidated anyway.

  • Guest

    We'll see; won't we?

  • Blair

    Contrary to what Mark Levin says, yes, he did. Let's bring one of the liberal Justices to the
    "Dark Side."

  • Beel

    "Pull one over..."? Can't even speak English? It's "PUT one over...". And, NO, he did not.

  • red nig

    I will be a good Native American (a living one, not like the liberals would like, dead), watch, look, and listen (as the late, great Cherokee use to sing :) As such, we all do, then vote with our breains, not as neolibs would like, our (backsides).

  • Sooz22

    This man is smart as a whip and sly as a fox! He has bamboozled the libs and they don't even know it. Ya' gotta' wrap your head around the concept. Brillliant!!

  • nvrpc

    I think it should have been shot down completely and the entire Obamacare bill set on fire and thrown into the Oval room with Obama in it.

  • gavinwca

    No Roberts pulled one over on the constitution. The Feds can now tax your jock strap.

  • jerry1944

    Sure he did but how much did they pay the trator. roberts turned his back on our country in a time of need. What for hummm maybe 30 peaces of gold he has no more itegerty with me anymore and with ever descion that he passes down now i will have to wonder how much he got paid for it. But trators like him dont care about our country. And we have no party to turn to with the gop being about like the dems We need a conservative party so we can have Honer which roberts doesnt have anymore

  • jerry1944

    I dont see how many ppl are fooled by a trator like roberts But i guess thats how we got obambo But now any time roberts makes a decsion i will have to ask how much he got for that Once you sell your morale you no longer have any so roberts word isnt much to me. But with so many voteing for obambo and getting screwed i can see where you hate to think you where fooled again. obambo stole romney care and scrwed the whole country and roberts ok it And we sure cant think the gop is going to fix it with so many of romneys pac makeing money off of it

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_7JJCQ6HFMLEJ4UVJNCERSDH36Q Bernardo

    Best part is,the Dummycrats have to defend a new tax and it's not a little two bit tax neither,it's the most massive in history. With Oboy's record of taxes , regs, unemployment, war on energy,failed green projects,et al, along with a sour grapes economy , then having to defend a new tax along with it all tells me there was a method to Roberts' madness. Roberts correctly interpreted the Constitution for the people showing them what they voted for in 2008. Now he's left it up to the people to get off their rusty butts and vote for what is right for themselves thereby reversing their stupidity in 2008. Voters either are going to have a lesson learned or they're going to stay stupid. The Dummycrats are going to talk all around Obamacare any way they can avoiding the use of the word tax and that includes Oboy on his campaign trail as the Great Prevaricator.

  • http://www.facebook.com/susan.miller.14 Susan Miller

    Yes Yes Yes....... If they ever make a movie out of all of
    this (and they will) this will be the pivot scene. Justice Roberts is the only
    one who could have done this. What a brilliant turning of the tables! He can’t
    talk about it......but for him to vote this way changes everything. Obama is
    left with egg all over his face by calling it a tax and upholding the fact that
    indeed Congress can level a tax upon the people while refusing to make the
    people buy something through the commerce clause. The American people have the
    opportunity to get back in the game and replace Congress and elect a new
    president to repeal and get rid of this health care bill. America, wake up! You
    have just been given the keys to open the prison door. If this is true only history will tell the
    brilliance of his action. Both parties are surprised - but the opportunity to
    take the country back is there.

  • MrChuckster007

    I don't care what the reasoning was behind Justice Roberts decision the law is unconstitutional and should not have been upheld under the commerce Clause, the necessary and proper clause or under the taxing authority of Congress. Supreme Court Justices have a duty to uphold the Constitution, but Roberts and the four liberal Justices did not do that.

  • Mary Clelland

    I saw the smile on that face and I knew he, Robert's, had not lost his mind! He just gained my respect for Supreme Court again! no matter if some of them are not worthy of a vote! Way to go Mr. Chief Justice Robert's! Thank God for your quick thinking and brilliant mind, given to you by God Himself! think about that!

  • quipster

    Sure don't take much to fool you rino's robert's is a commie !!!!!

  • GQ4U

    If Roberts did this for political reasons then he should be impeached and removed from the bench. ObamaCare violates the constitution by forcing me to purchase a product just for being alive. England did something similar several years ago with the "Head Tax." It is a judge's job to uphold the rule of law and any judge that does more than that is legislating from the bench. Roberts incorrectly changed the law to fit the ruling he desired when he changed the wording from mandate/penalty to tax. That is rewriting the law not evaluating it to make sure it is constitutional. When liberal judges do this we conservatives are ready with our torches and pitchforks. Roe v Wade & Kelo v New London both required distorting the case before the court to reach unconstitutional conclusions and conservatives were very upset.
    Roberts fails to keep his oath to uphold the the Constitution of the United States and we are looking for ways to praise his genius. What fools we are! We still have the most destructive portions of ObamaCare and now find ourselve relying on POLITICIANS do set things right.

    Remember when POLITICIANS repealed the Federal Reserve, the IRS, Social Security, Medicare, Department of Education, Medicare Drugs... ? Have they ever repealed any massive unconstitutional tax scheme or entitlement program? I hope liberal Romney can win, I hope he keeps his word, I hope conservatives take the Senate, I hope they keep their word, I hope we can hold onto the House, I hope they keep their word and I hope the repeal will not be overturned by an overly clever SCOTUS Justice who wants to "Pull One Over on" conservatives!!!

    In the mean time ObamaCare is a drag on the economy and hinders job creation.
    Roberts fiddles while Rome burns. Instead of doing the right thing, he did what he thought was right, that sounds very liberal minded to me.

  • Dorothy

    I hope you are right now we have to do our job vote the Dems. out of office

  • maxcap59

    Whether he planned these results or not, this is a huge risk to take by making this decision. If Obama somehow pulls out the election in November, and the dems hold onto the senate, all of the "genius" by Roberts, described in this article will be moot.
    Hopefully, it does energize conservatives to make a change in November. If not, Robert's gamble will fail, and it's the American people who will be paying the price.

  • ggswede

    ONE lawsuit against it as a tax,and NOT a penalty,and the walls come tumbling down !

  • imom6i

    Thank you. I have been saying the same thing. At my blogsite: http://imom6i.wordpress.com/ . I addressed it as the biggest Judicial coup in the history of jurisprudence. Now someone at the Bolin Law Firm has put it into real legal prospective.

  • Rick

    Flying bovine fecal matter. It is a bad precident!

  • ray

    The ObamaCare decision is proof that the democrats and republicans are the same party. The only one Roberts pulled one over on was you.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000207482939 Kzar Foster

    First off, Romney is Obama. The two party system is one party owned by corporate and foreign interests. Both are not working for the public welfare.
    Secondly, Romney is a loser, bf, and still a loser. He wants wars, wars, wars and loves banksters. In fact, he is one of them, not one of us.
    Obama is just a darker version of Bush. Neither will do anything but increase the taxes on the citizens. Neither admits that the FDIC is bankrupted, and that the real reason for the Obamacare was to increase the insurance sector's cash flow by at least 30Million forced customers. Proof was insurance rates rose immediately.
    Third, healthcare is worse than the middle ages, as it is. The cost is out of control. The profits are obscene. The actual care is horrible. No one cares. The nurses spend more time outside of the patient's room billing th, em on laptop terminals in the hall, than seeing to their needs. Hospitals bill for things never done or received. They load the bill.
    So, now the Republican party is going to try to use this to advance Romney? Please, we are not that stupid. Romney is a loser. We hated him the last time he ran, and we still do. He should have gone away already. Don't put that loser out there as a viable alternative to Obama, bc they are the same. When the Republicans decided to corrupt the system and push Ron Paul off the stage, they also pushed their own street cred out the window, with him. These party "leaders" should be under arrest for treason. They can peddle Roberts elsewhere. We already know Roberts is not brilliant or qualified to be Chief Justice. He got that job after he put Bush into office in 2000.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000207482939 Kzar Foster

      how many times are we going to be forced to endure another election between two horrible non-choices of cretins who lie to us and then take money to carry on the wishes of the corrupt? Then you pretend this guy Roberts is smart. You are dumber than those morons in the ruling party to say this.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1532913793 Felicia Wilson Fath

    did not change my view of Romney. He still will not get my vote.

  • ED SKI

    Romney is FOR Obamacare. his stance is the same as Obama's- and Romney will be as bad or worse as PUS. than Obama or Bush. And second: Libs? Does that make you a Con? or a Neo-Con?

  • bajajoes

    With this ruling it seems the ONLY way Obama can be re-elected is with a War on Iran that would force the Country to rally around him.
    Now I hope the voting population of the US recognizes this and does not vote in FEAR!

  • Katherine Friend

    What part of 'not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices' don't some of you understand? Since it has been found to be a tax, if the people don't want it, they can change who they vote for and get it repealed! Yes, I heard a Court watcher who knows a lot about Roberts say while everyone else is playing checkers, Roberts is playing chess - several jumps ahead of everyone else. I also think it was a brilliant move and the only way to get rid of it for good.

  • Marie

    Not so fast about the Roberts' Silver Lining. Read this article too:

    John Roberts'
    Travesty, Point by Point
    By Quin Hillyer
    Wednesday, July 4,
    through the Center for Individual Freedom

    There is a good reason why not even most liberal commentators
    are applauding the actual legal reasoning Chief Justice John Roberts used
    to avoid striking down the ObamaCare law: The "reasoning" is thinner than
    unleavened bread, and crumbles to dust not just upon gentle handling, but
    merely under the weight of a piercing gaze.
    Let us count the
    inanities, inconsistencies and constitutional/statutory infirmities of the
    key section of Roberts' decision, which ruled that the ObamaCare
    mandate-and-penalty is a "tax," and a constitutionally permissible tax at
    First, much has been
    made of Roberts' assertion that something that is not a tax for purposes of something
    called the Anti-Injunction Act (AIA) actually is a tax for constitutional
    purposes. In truth, this is the least indefensible of Roberts'
    intellectual apostasies. It is possible, as he demonstrated
    from precedent, to have two different standards for when something
    qualifies as a "tax." The problem is not with the theoretical (if
    exceedingly rare) concept of two different legal standards, but with
    Roberts' tendentious application of it.
    The very example he uses
    to prove his point that two standards can apply actually argues against calling it a "tax" in this
    particular case. Roberts cited the Drexel Furniture case from 1922 –
    but, to quote from that case, "[T]here comes a time in the extension of
    the penalizing features of the so-called tax when it loses its character
    as such and becomes a mere penalty with the characteristics of regulation
    and punishment. Such is the case in the law before us…. Congress does
    achieve the [effect of a penalty rather than a tax] by adopting the
    criteria of wrongdoing and imposing its principal consequence on those who
    transgress its standard."
    Obviously, that is
    exactly what happens in
    ObamaCare as well.
    Second, although Roberts
    went on to discuss other aspects of the Drexel Furniture case, one of which
    was something called a scienter requirement (meaning a
    conscious or knowing violation), he then blithely distinguished ObamaCare
    from it by saying the health-care law has no explicitly expressed
    scienter requirement.
    This is nonsense – because in short order, he explained another reason the
    mandate does not carry a "penalty" is specifically because it allows citizens a
    conscious choice to ignore the mandate (and pay the government fee
    instead). So which is it, a conscious violation or not? He can't have it
    both ways. Scienter
    existing de facto is
    still scienter, whether
    or not it is explicitly named.
    Third, Roberts says the
    penalty can be deemed a tax largely because the Internal Revenue Service –
    a tax-collecting agency – collects it. In Drexel, he explained, the fact that
    part of the enforcement came from the Department of Labor – a
    non-tax-collecting agency – made it therefore not a tax. Oh, really? In
    that case, why isn't it significant, as the four conservative dissenters
    note, that "the mandate and penalty are located in Title I of the Act, its
    operative core, rather than where a tax would be found—in Title IX,
    containing the Act's 'Revenue Provisions.'?"
    If Roberts cares so much
    about where a function is
    located, then why doesn't he care that the law itself locates the mandate
    in a Title not dedicated to revenues? After all, in another section,
    Roberts himself says that "the essential feature of any tax" is that it
    "produces at least some revenue for the government." This mandate,
    however, is meant to discourage revenue, because it is
    designed to impel everybody to buy health insurance and thus avoid paying
    any penalty at all.
    (For that matter, why
    isn't it significant that ObamaCare's mandate, like the Drexel penalty, is partially
    enforced by an agency other than the IRS? The Obama administration's own
    high court brief notes that the IRS and the Department of Health and Human
    Services are "the two
    agencies to which Congress assigned authority to administer" the
    Fourth, Roberts makes
    the extraordinary claim that "Neither the Act nor any other law attaches
    negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond
    requiring a payment to the IRS" – and that the IRS is forbidden from using
    criminal prosecution to penalize those who refuse the mandate. The problem
    here is that the IRS can
    withhold income tax refunds from those who refuse to pay the penalty, and
    it can choose to apply ordinary income taxes to the penalty first, before crediting the citizen
    with having paid his due income taxes – and then the IRS can impose a
    penalty for failing to pay those taxes, and then prosecute or
    garnish wages for failing to pay that penalty.
    In effect, just as funds
    are "fungible," so too are the enforcement mechanisms of the IRS fungible
    so that, in the long run, there are indeed some hugely "negative legal
    consequences to not buying health insurance."
    Fifth, Roberts posits a
    hypothetical situation involving the government requiring "that every
    taxpayer who owns a house without energy efficient windows must pay $50 to
    the IRS…. No one would doubt that this law imposed a tax, and was within
    Congress's power to tax." But that's not true at all. I know lots of
    people who would say this is a penalty, not a tax, and that it was wholly
    outside of Congress' powers. (More on Congress' powers in a moment.) Think
    about it: Have you, dear reader, ever
    in your life been assessed a tax specifically because of
    something you did not do?
    Of course not.
    Sixth, Roberts discusses
    the constitutionality of such a "tax" by rejecting the plaintiffs'
    complaints that the penalty would amount to an unconstitutional "direct
    tax" (if it were a tax at all) – but Roberts himself never takes the next
    step of identifying which sort of tax it actually is, if not a "direct"
    one. Nor does he bother explaining how it can be constitutional if it is
    another form of taxation. This is all rather abstruse, but the Wall Street Journal absolutely blew
    away Roberts' failure to identify what sort of tax it is, and his apparent
    belief that Congress' taxing power is infinitely elastic.

    Seventh – and this is a
    real howler – Roberts makes this absurd assertion: "First, and most
    importantly, it is abundantly clear the Constitution does not guarantee
    that individuals may avoid taxation through inactivity. A
    capitation, after all, is a tax that everyone must pay simply for
    existing, and capitations are expressly contemplated by the Constitution."
    This misses the point entirely. A capitation tax is one of the "direct
    taxes" discussed above, and is assessed equally per person. It is the
    person, not the inactivity that is being taxed.
    What is at issue with
    ObamaCare is not that
    individuals are trying to avoid taxation via inactivity, but that the
    government is "taxing" – actually, "penalizing" – only the inactivity. People
    avoiding the mandate aren't avoiding a tax through inactivity, they are
    avoiding a purchase of a
    private service (insurance) they do not desire to have. Government has
    never "taxed" the decision to remain inactive in any
    sphere, at any time.
    Eighth, as I have argued
    elsewhere, Roberts makes the dreadful mistake of wildly conflating tax
    breaks or incentives on ownership or activity with a new tax on inactivity
    (as if the two – a tax on the one hand, and a tax exemption on the other –
    are among the same species and breed of beast). He seems to think that
    just because Congress can offer a tax "incentive," such as a new
    home-owner's exemption from property taxes, this is in the same ballpark
    as taxing the refusal to buy a product. That's crazy. The property tax is
    generally applicable, and already in existence before the tax break. But
    there's no generally applicable "health insurance tax" from which
    purchasers of insurance are exempt.
    (In that light, let's go
    back to energy-efficient windows. In congressional testimony in
    March of this year, Carrie Severino, Chief Counsel and Policy Director of
    the Judicial Crisis Network, said this: "Historically Congress has induced
    purchases through tax incentives or by conditioning other government
    benefits on purchases. If the government's position is correct in this
    case, these workarounds were clumsy and inefficient solutions to a problem
    Congress could have more easily solved by directly compelling purchases….
    Instead of offering incentives like Cash for Clunkers or tax credits for
    energy-efficient home improvements, Congress could have required
    individuals owning non-energy-efficient vehicles or homes to exchange or
    upgrade them. If the government truly had this simple and direct way of
    achieving its goals, it would have exercised it long ago, and for
    emergencies far more pressing than health care reform.")
    Ninth, Roberts skates
    over what should be an absolute requirement to determine if the fee for
    non-purchase is intended
    to penalize a desired lack of behavior – which would make it invalid as a
    tax – by writing that "More often and more recently we have declined to
    closely examine the regulatory motive or effect of revenue-raising
    measures." That doesn't, of course, excuse him from examining the
    regulatory intent at all – and, as is almost incontrovertible, the
    mandate's penalty was intended by Congress far from primarily as a revenue
    measure, but rather as a way to compel behavior. Such an intention makes
    the penalty anything but a tax, and anything but an allowable use of
    Congress' enumerated powers.

    All of which is to say
    that Roberts has conjured up an unskilled magician's attempt at multiple
    sleights of hand. As has been well discussed elsewhere, Roberts himself
    has acknowledged that accepting the penalty as a tax is hardly the "most
    straightforward" or "most natural" reading of the law. Nonetheless, he
    explains (citing precedent), "every reasonable construction must be
    resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality." But
    here, again, he stretches precedent completely out of all reasonable
    The maxim to choose an
    interpretation of a law that would accept the law as constitutional, over
    an alternative interpretation that doesn't, is meant to apply in cases
    where the two interpretations are equally or near-equally reasonable.
    Here, though, as we have seen, Roberts had to strain and stretch and twist
    and skate and float and use misdirection in order to somehow, some way,
    pretend to impose a plausible interpretation on an assertion that is not
    even in the same logical solar system as interpretations that are
    "straightforward" and "natural."
    If Congress wanted to
    create a taxing system to fund ObamaCare or to incentivize insurance
    purchases, it could have done so. This isn't just a matter of changing
    labels; it would have required a significantly different scheme. As the
    conservative dissenters noted, "We have no doubt that Congress knew
    precisely what it was doing when it rejected an earlier version of this
    legislation that imposed a tax instead of a requirement-with-penalty….
    Imposing a tax through judicial legislation inverts the constitutional
    scheme, and places the power to tax in the branch of government least
    accountable to the citizenry."
    John Roberts didn't
    defer to Congress in the ObamaCare case; he just re-wrote the law (on the
    mandate and on Medicaid) by himself in order to save Congress' handiwork
    from its own infirmities. This isn't judicial minimalism; it's judicial
    meddling. It is both unsightly and unseemly. And it probably did lasting
    damage to the Constitution, the court itself, and to the free society both
    Constitution and court are meant to safeguard.

  • red state voter in blue state

    Nice article this day, considering the election is over and today is November 13. Why publish this article from July and say this will help Romney? Bad election result, bad healthcare bill, and bad reporting....

  • http://www.facebook.com/jerry.miller.37604 Jerry Miller

    Remind me not to ever hire "The Bolen Law Firm" as this article proves they would have a hard time planning how to cut fishing bait, let alone do an Analise's on any Supreme Court rulings.

  • Bill Tyner

    Doesn't sound so good now that Obama sneaked in under the tent. Do as I say, infidels. Like I said 4 years ago: : "I won so YOU get to the back of the bus". BOHICA everybody!

  • http://www.facebook.com/michael.michalak.98 Michael Michalak

    So now we can look back with 20/20 hindsight at the effect on the November elections. Reading this article today, the argument in favor of the Supreme Court decision seems more contrived than it did when this article was written.
    We can all say with certainty those of us who saw this decision as the disaster it's proving to be were right, and the country is going to continue to suffer the consequences of this debacle forever.

  • burkanuck

    "With today’s decision that dynamic is reversed and there is a groundswell of support for Romney and Republicans, even for people who were formerly lukewarm toward Romney before today..."

    How did that work out for you?

  • Sandra

    I personally think that the Obama Administration or those higher up threatened Roberts. While Roberts voted on the other side, he took revenge by making ObamaCare look like a bad law.

  • MyronJPoltroonian

    And today, December 1, 2012, I read the following from Newsmax: , "On Friday the Obama administration announced a heavy fine on states that do not create state health exchanges. Users of the federal health exchange will have to pay a 3.5% fine added to their insurance premiums." I certainly hope your line of reasoning is being followed by the various states attorney generals that this "Fine" will be levied upon.

  • rich

    Now that Obama has been re-elected in spite of ObamaCare, we can thank Justice Roberts brilliant reasoning for ensuring that it will be the law of the land. His brilliant reasoning also rewrote the law, magically changing "penalty" as stated in the law to "tax", which was not. So much for judicial restraint.

  • http://twitter.com/BillboTex BillboTex

    shame on ypu Roberts, you could have destroyed the implementation ObamaCare with JUST YOUR SINGLE VOTE.

    You had no "secret" motive, OTHER THAN THE IMPLEMENTION OF OBAMACARE, as the final result proves!

    Liberals ALWAYS get angry when caught in their crimes, and ruling illegally from the Chief Justice was not justice, nor DID IT MAKE the Unconstitutional ObamaCare any more legal.

  • priceless22

    Well Bolen Law Firm what do you think NOW that Obama was re-elected, which you should have known would happen through fraud.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002198081296 Right Way

    Well, all that fine verbage doesn't amount to a hill of wishful thinking at this point now does it "Bolen Firm"