|
|
| For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side (953358) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > OTChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Thu Jun 28 15:58:40 2012 In the process of siding with the Liberals on the court in casting the decisive vote upholding Obamacare, we need to remember that the entire Law wasn't up for review, just two provisions: (1) was the Individual Mandate constitutional and (2) could the Law withhold ALL Medicaid funds from states that refused to adopt the expanded Medicaid rules.To take the easy one first, he established that the Federal Government could not coerce the states in that fashion. Any state that refuses to expand Medicaid still gets its Medicaid money, just not ADDITIONAL money. But the Individual Mandate is the most interesting. Overthrowing the mandate would NOT have overthrown the Law, but it would have made the operation of its nearly impossible. Roberts bought the third-place argument that the Solicitor General advanced, that the penalty for disobeying the mandate was Constitutional because it was really a TAX, and the Federal Government can do that. BUT--- he put in a severe new limitation to the Commerce Clause, saying it isn't the Federal Government's prerogative to manipulate people's lives however they [they = liberals] like. Under the Commerce Clause the Individual Mandate would have been unconstitutional. This is what the court liberals signed on to. So now Obama is in an interesting position: OBAMACARE lives, but now he has to defend OBAMATAX. Don't Take My Word or the Talking Heads Analysts Spin, Read the Decision [PDF] |
|
|
|