Chief Justice John Roberts amazingly saved the Dear Leader, President Obama's, bacon by contorting that the mandate that Americans have to buy health insurance is not cool. But hey, if you call it a tax and I think it is, then its cool and you get to keep the thrust of the abomination known formally as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and move on. And hell, I will join with the four libs to make it happen and it will be a 5-4 decision.
WHOA! Wait a minite! A tax?! But, but, did not our Dear Leader, President Obama, tell former Bill Clinton hack George Stephanopolus not once, not twice, not three but four times the PPACA mandate was NOT a tax? If ye don't believe me, go to this link and see for yourself. And note when Mr. Stephanopolus has to whip out the dictionary to define the word tax, the Dear Leader, President Obama, mocks him.
The Democrat congress that passed this abomination kept saying the same thing. The mandate was not a tax at all.
But when push came to shove in argueing this case before the supreme court, well then the mandate suddendly became. . .a tax.
Again, if ye don't believe me, here it is in the leftywhore media Holy Bible, The New York Times regarding the arguement made before the supreme court in the at the time desperate attempt to save the PPACA.
I guess it turns out it was not so desperate after all.
So let's get to the way Chief
3.CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III–B that the individual mandate must be construed as imposing a tax on those who do not have health insurance, if such a construction is reasonable.
The most straightforward reading of the individual mandate is thatit commands individuals to purchase insurance. But, for the reasons explained, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power.It is therefore necessary to turn to the Government’s alternative argument: that the mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s power to "lay and collect Taxes." Art. I, §8, cl. 1. In pressing its taxingpower argument, the Government asks the Court to view the mandate as imposing a tax on those who do not buy that product. Because "every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order tosave a statute from unconstitutionality,"
Hooper v. California, 155
That is directly from the 193 page decision written by Chief
Now why I am calling this dude a douchebrain?
Because he simply did not judge on the merits of the bill, which was 2,700 pages, on the merits as written and passed by congress and signed by the Dear Leader, President Obama. No where in the legislation was the word tax mentioned. Thus, it is how the Democrats kept saying that no, it would not lead to a tax increase on anyone let alone the middle class.
But he simply divined that oh, what is really meant by a penalty is a tax and thus, I'll just make that correction.
Which is not his job.
It is judge on the merits if said legislation is constitutional or not. Not whether the political class lied about some wording.
It was a bad decision by a court that did not want to be seen as blocking the largest government over reach since the New Deal era.
But there is a silver political lining and that is the next post.