Video: Krauthammer on Why Chief Justice Roberts Did It

A lot of people are speculating about what John Robert was up to with his ObamaCare decision, today.

Mark Levin is stunned, calling the decision “lawless”, and “a brutal assault on individual sovereignty….We had four justices, including Kennedy who wanted to throw the entire thing out. The Chief Justice saved it. We can repeal ObamaCare, but how do we fix the Constitution now that it’s been abused….again!”

Charles on Fox News’ Special Report with Bret Baier thinks he knows why Roberts did it:

He cranked out a lengthier explanation for his Washington Post column:

National health care has been a liberal dream for a hundred years. It is clearly the most significant piece of social legislation in decades. Roberts’s concern was that the court do everything it could to avoid being seen, rightly or wrongly, as high-handedly overturning sweeping legislation passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the president.

How to reconcile the two imperatives — one philosophical and the other institutional? Assign yourself the task of writing the majority opinion. Find the ultimate finesse that manages to uphold the law, but only on the most narrow of grounds — interpreting the individual mandate as merely a tax, something generally within the power of Congress.

Result? The law stands, thus obviating any charge that a partisan court overturned duly passed legislation. And yet at the same time the commerce clause is reined in. By denying that it could justify the imposition of an individual mandate, Roberts draws the line against the inexorable decades-old expansion of congressional power under the commerce clause fig leaf.

Law upheld, Supreme Court’s reputation for neutrality maintained. Commerce clause contained, constitutional principle of enumerated powers reaffirmed.

That’s not how I would have ruled. I think the “mandate is merely a tax” argument is a dodge, and a flimsy one at that. (The “tax” is obviously punitive, regulatory and intended to compel.) Perhaps that’s not how Roberts would have ruled had he been just an associate justice and not the chief. But that’s how he did rule.

Some other Roberts friendly musings here, here and here, and especially here.

Holder Held In Contempt, 255-67, 100 Dems Walk Out – Issa’s Speech, Pelosi’s Insane Rant, Holder’s Bitter and Cynical Statement (Video)

The House of Representatives voted to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress a short while ago. The vote was 255 ayes, 67 nays, and 1 present vote for Contempt Perjury Lied to House. Ouch. Seventeen Democrats joined the Republicans to vote for contempt – 100 did not vote at all, opting to dramatically walk out of the chamber in protest –  talk about “gamesmanship”.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, said on the House floor, “I never thought it would come to this.”

Pelosi, completely out of her mind, completely unable to deal with reality, said the contempt vote was “stunning”, and  “let’s just ignore the whole thing, and not dignify what they are doing and not be present on the floor when they do this heinous act…” Start at 7:00 for the best parts:

Eric Holder responded with a bitter and cynical statement that repeated the administration’s weak talking points, accusing the Republicans of advancing a “politically motivated” investigation during an election year  – in other words -accusing Republicans of  acting in bad faith, rather than in trying to get to the bottom of  what has been aptly dubbed “murdergate”. He patted himself on the back for taking action (only after whistleblowers had come forward), and only calling the Terry family to offer condolences after he had been shamed into it, and he decried what he called “reckless charges” and “truly absurd conspiracy theories”.

Uh huh. Alinsky would be proud.

This is a  tour de force of brazen corruption, dishonesty and incompetence:

Since this corrupt fool has no intention of stepping down, I hope the Republicans are ready for a protracted fight, and the Alinskite tactics that will be employed.

See Also:

Oversight and Reform: Issa Statement on Bipartisan Vote Holding Attorney General in Contempt over Refusal to Produce Fast and Furious Documents

Linked by Doug Ross, thanks!

Video: Obamatax

Obama’s candidacy in 2008, his presidency, his reelection – virtually everything he says –  is based on lies.  His biggest whopper of all?: “No taxes on the middle class.”

The great Jim Geraghty says: A Lot of Promises Reached Their Expiration Date Today.

Red State’s Ben Howe highlighted the duplicity in another excellent video:

This Supreme Court decision just gave Republicans their campaign theme.

UPDATE:

Via Weasel Zippers Romney’s new ad: “Day One, Job One, Repeal Obamacare”…

UPDATE II:

Weasel Zippers: White House Website Still Says Obamacare Individual Mandate Is Not A Tax…

 

Decision Day: Will ObamaCare Be Struck Down? Live Blog: UPDATE: Groan…

The Supreme Court will announce the ruling at 10:00 am ET.

On pins and needs, here. No predictions or “tea leaves” from me… I have no idea what they’re going to decide, and hate to speculate – we’ll hear soon enough.

The Scotusblog website will  the Obamacare ruling, during its Live Blog of the announcements. They expect the Obamacare decision to come up at about 10:15 am.

Keep in mind, Mitt Romney promised that if the Supreme Court upholds the law, he will work to repeal and replace it when he gets into office.

“We’ll all be waiting to see how the court will decide. One thing we already know… it’s bad policy that’s got to go,” Romney said. “And so if the court upholds it, if they say, ‘Look, it passes the Constitution,’ it still is bad policy, and that’ll mean if I’m elected, I’m going to repeal it and replace it. If on the other hand the court strikes it down, they’ll be doing some of my work for me.”

John Boehner said yesterday, “if the court does not strike down the entire law, the House will move to repeal what’s left of it.”

Meanwhile, some top GOP aides told Politico that Republicans will not seek to preserve even the law’s most popular provisions.

That includes a rule allowing young adults to stay on their parents’ health care plans until they turn 26, as well as one forcing insurance companies to cover people with pre-existing conditions.

WHITE HOUSE SPOKESMAN SAYS OBAMACARE IS CONSTITUTIONAL BUT WON’T HAZARD GUESS ON WHETHER SUPREME COURT WILL AGREE

Anyone want to hazard a guess of what Emperor Obama will do if the whole damn thing is thrown out?
Today @ 12:30pmET, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) and The Heritage Foundation’s David Addingtonwill offer the conservative response to the Supreme Court’s ruling on the President’s health care law.WATCH LIVE, here.
SEE ALSO:
UPDATE:
ObamaCare is upheld!
@philipaklein SCOTUS: “The individual mandate is not a valid exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause.”
Monica Crowley@MonicaCrowley This ruling is a mess. Mandate could survive as a tax?! #WhatTheBleep
Aaron Worthing@AaronWorthing from scotusblog: “entire ACA is upheld, w the exception that the fed gov’s power to terminate states’ Medicaid funds is narrowly read.”
Michelle Malkin@michellemalkin RT @SCOTUSblog CJ Roberts’ fifth #SCOTUS vote saved the #ACA.
John Nolte @NolteNC No penalty for citizen who doen’t buy insurance?
Vicki Mckenna@VickiMcKenna SCOTUS: “The court reinforces that individuals can simply refuse to pay the tax and not comply with the mandate.”
Via Fox News, Justice Kennedy in his dissent, said the law was invalid in it’s entirety.
Greta Van Susteren calls the upholding of this hugely unpopular law, “a huge win for the Obama administration”.
Doug Powers at Michelle Malkin writes:

The mandate survives “as a tax.” That should help the middle class dig out of the recession. (flashback 2009: Obama says individual mandate isn’t a tax)

This doesn’t mean we’re stuck with Obamacare forever — it means that November 6th just got much more important, and I didn’t think that was possible.

See the above quote from Boehner and Romney and keep heart.

Via Freedoms Lighthouse: GOP Rep Schweikert: “Supreme Court just woke up a sleeping giant….election just rolled back to 2010 because it was driven by Obamacare”

via @SCOTUSblog Kennedy says: “In our view, the entire Act before us is invalid in its entirety.”

Longtime ACORN operative, now DNC Director, Patrick Gaspard, keeping it classy….Via Weasel Zippers: DNC Executive Director on Obamacare Ruling: “It’s Constitutional, Bitches!”

So true>>>@MTavistockThe Left will have a new monolith to loot, pillage, and game…

Speaker John BoehnerToday’s ruling by the Supreme Court underscores the urgency of #fullrepeal of #ObamaCare http://j.mp/LFJTni  #4jobs

UPDATE:

Bernstein at Volokh Conspiracy raised the prospect that Roberts initially voted to strike the entire law down but relented under political pressure:

Scalia’s dissent, at least on first quick perusal, reads like it was originally written as a majority opinion (in particular, he consistently refers to Justice Ginsburg’s opinion as “The Dissent”). Back in May, there were rumors floating around relevant legal circles that a key vote was taking place, and that Roberts was feeling tremendous pressure from unidentified circles to vote to uphold the mandate. Did Roberts originally vote to invalidate the mandate on commerce clause grounds, and to invalidate the Medicaid expansion, and then decide later to accept the tax argument and essentially rewrite the Medicaid expansion (which, as I noted, citing Jonathan Cohn, was the sleeper issue in this case) to preserve it? If so, was he responding to the heat from President Obama and others, preemptively threatening to delegitimize the Court if it invalidated the ACA? The dissent, along with the surprising way that Roberts chose to uphold both the mandate and the Medicaid expansion, will inevitably feed the rumor mill.