Now that the initial shock and surprise from both sides of the aisle is dying down a bit, it's interesting to see what People Smarter Than I are having to say about the decision.
There is quite a bit of speculation that Roberts may have changed his mind. That comes from how not only his remarks were written, but in how his fellow non-dissenters address him. Is is possible Roberts began his decision in those closed-door meetings headed in one direction, and then changed his mind after some reflection/deliberation?
We'll probably never know, of course. There may be an interview or a book down the line, but I can't imagine we will hear/learn anything anytime soon.
Initially, I was very surprised that Roberts voted the way he did. As I read opinions from both sides today, I'm not in the camp that thinks Roberts is the worst thing that happened to the Court (as some on the Right are claiming).
I do agree with many People Smarter Than I that Roberts gave the Left a short-term victory. They may have won this battle, but are missing the bigger picture that is the War.
By saying Obamacare is a tax, and not handled under the Commerce Clause, Roberts has done two things simultaneously. First, he has drasticlylimited the power of the Commerce Clause for future rulings/legislation (and we know how important preserving earlier SCOTUS rulings is to you Lefties!), and he took the filibuster out of play in regards to Obamacare (we know how you wanted to get rid of it, Harry Reid!).
What would have taken a 60 vote Supermajority in the Senate, now only needs a simple 51 vote majority to overturn. It also brings reconciliation back into play to make changes/eliminate certain key components (Hey Lefties, don't bitch too much if the Right uses the same procedural trick you used in the first place, mmkay?).
Roberts has given the Right several wonderful gifts here. It remains to be seen if that was his intent all long.
I'm beginning to think it was done purposefully, if one looks at his carefully written words:
“Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our nation´s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”
In other words, "You shit in your pants, don't expect me to clean it up for you".
It's being reported that the Romney campaign has raised $4.2 million in the 20 hours since SCOTUS issued their decision on Obamacare. Why hasn't the Obama campaign done the same, and let us know how much they pulled in over the same time?
By the way, since it is a tax and the president has prosecutorial discretion, he can tell the IRS not to collect it, and the mandate goes away. Just saying.
Read the whole thing.
Additionally, it appears Obamacare can be taken away in the same manner that it was given: reconciliation.
because John Roberts concluded it was a tax, the Democrats cannot filibuster its repeal because of the same reconciliation procedure the Democrats used to pass it.
Remember a few months ago when I told you I wasn't worried about who was in the White House, I wanted to take back the Senate, and increase our numbers in the House? Let's get to 51 in the Senate in November, ok?
At least four Democrats say they will vote Thursday in favor of placing Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress.
Democratic Reps. John Barrow (Ga.), Collin Peterson (Minn.) and Nick Rahall (W.Va.) will all vote in favor of contempt in addition to Rep. Jim Matheson (Utah) when the measure comes to the House floor on Thursday.
The vote is expected to generally be a party-line vote, but one report by Fox News on Wednesday said as many as 20 Democrats could break with President Obama and support the measure.