The Obamanable Ruling
Vol: 129 Issue: 29 Friday, June 29, 2012
Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative appointee nominated for the job by George W Bush, astounded courtwatchers and the nation by joining with the Far Left wing of the Supreme Court and affirming the Constitutionality of Obamacare, now known as the Obamatax.
Constitutional law seminars and unlicensed political psychologists will spend years speculating about Roberts’ motivations in joining the liberal bloc in probably the most important Supreme Court decision since Bush v. Gore in 2000.
While we may wait decades to know for certain, some courtwatchers speculate that Roberts may have voted with the liberals in an effort to prevent the court from being seen as overtly political.
In so doing, he made the decision look overtly political.
The fact that it was Justice Roberts that cast the swing vote upholding Obamacare is dripping with irony.
Nominated to the court as chief justice by George W. Bush, his appointment was opposed by Illinois Senator Barack Hussein Obama who said of the man who would one day save Obama’s own legislative legacy;
“I ultimately have to give more weight to his deeds and overarching political philosophy … than to the assuring words he provided me in our meeting.”
Adding to the irony is the fact that it was W’s father, George H. W. Bush, that appointed David Souter, who quickly earned a reputation as one of the most liberal justices on the Court. Now Judge Roberts has joined Souter in betraying the ideology that won him his seat.
There is a theory being floated by two academics, a law professor at the University of Boulder and an economics professor from Berkeley who is also a former Treasury Department official. Paul Campos and Brad DeLong noted some peculiar language in the ruling after it was handed down.
“Campos wrote Thursday in Salon that the dissent had a triumphant tone, as if it were written as a majority opinion, and that the four conservative justices incorrectly refer to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s concurring opinion as a “dissent.”
“No less than 15 times in the space of the next few pages, the dissent refers to Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s concurring opinion as ‘Justice Ginsburg’s dissent,'” Campos wrote.
DeLong pointed out on his popular blog that in Justice Clarence Thomas two-page note on the dissent, he refers to the conservatives’ dissent as the “joint opinion” instead of the “joint dissent.”
Campos hypothesized that the conservative justices may have intentionally left these typos as a way of signaling to the outside world that Chief Justice Roberts abandoned them at the last moment.
Did somebody “get” to Justice Roberts at the last minute?
“And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.” (Luke 21:28)
Lyle Denniston, the long-term courtwatcher who writes for SCOTUSblog, tells Yahoo News that he “can’t account for the wording of the Thomas opinion.”
“My own sense, from reading the Roberts opinion, is that it was written as a majority opinion in all of its drafts, and that various Justices joined or dropped off,” Denniston told Yahoo News. “I think he was determined to try to uphold some key parts of the law, if he could find a way, partly because…he has grown concerned about the public perception that his Court is a partisan-driven Court.”
That explanation raises more questions than it answers. If Roberts wanted to dispel the perception of partisanship on the Court, why would he choose the most important ruling of the century so far in which to make such a statement?
This is a decision that affects one-sixth of the US economy, the health of every single American, turns the IRS into an American Gestapo and imposes the largest single tax increase in history, at exactly the worst possible time imaginable.
THIS is where he chose to abandon the Constitution in favor of making a statement? It isn’t as if the two sides were close — they were miles apart in their opinons.
In their dissent, the four conservative justices, Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Kennedy said that they would throw out the entire Obamacare bill as unconstitutional and not just the mandate.
But even though Obamacare, with its army of IRS ‘compliance’ agents survived, the decision restricted the limits of the Commerce Clause, which does NOT give the government the power to create activity for the purpose of regulating it.
The Commerce Clause is the basis for almost all federal economic regulatory authority.
The decision also crippled the government’s planned method of paying for it all. Obamacare required all states to participate in Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion or lose all federal funding.
The Court ruled that states have the right to opt out without suffering an economic penalty. It was a big win for States’ rights. It was also a big win for the Right politically. The Democrats hid most of the cost of Obamacare behind Medicaid. Now they can’t.
So the ruling is a mixed bag, with the worst part being that Obama will be alternatively taking victory laps over the ruling and the killing of Osama bin Laden from now until Election Day.
But will it help him? It seems doubtful. I found an interesting piece at the Weekly Standard that examined the results over 27 months of all 98 Rassmussen polls of likely voters regarding Obamacare.
- Number of times that a plurality has favored repeal: 98.
- Number of times that an outright majority has favored repeal: 96.
- Number of times that repeal has been favored by a double-digit margin: 95.
- Consecutive number of times that repeal has been favored by a double-digit margin: 36 (May 2011-present).
- Average margin in favor of repeal: 17 percentage points.
- Number of times that opposition to repeal has reached even 45 percent: 0.
“In addition to Rasmussen’s polling, Real Clear Politics lists 20 other polls on repeal from across the past 27 months. In 19 of those 20, support for repeal has outpaced opposition to repeal — giving Obamacare an overall record of 1-117.”
What that tells us is that there are more people who want to see Obamacare repealed than there are people that want to see it upheld. The math says that since the Supreme Court failed to act, it is now up to the voters to take matters into their own hands.
I don’t know whether somebody “got” to Justice Roberts or not, but if they did, they may not have done Obama any favors.
This is the same dynamic that existed in mid-2010 after Obamacare was rammed through Congressional supermajorities to become law on a 100% one-party vote. The backlash from Obamacare handed the lower House of Congress back to the Republicans.
The only reason the Senate managed to hang on to its Democrat majority is because not every Senator was up for re-election in 2010. This decision yesterday will likely anger voters and galvanize the opposition like nothing else could have.
At the same time, it is unlikely to stir up much fire among the Democrats. After all, they won. What’s to get excited about?
So, assuming that Obama isn’t able to find a way to suspend elections, winning on Obamacare yesterday may end up costing him the presidency in November.
There is enough irony in the overall ruling to build a warship. But what makes it important to Bible prophecy?
First, as Mark Levin noted yesterday on his radio program, the decision is “absolutely lawless.”
“And because iniquity [lawlessness] shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.” (Matthew 24:12)
“For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only He who now letteth will let, until He be taken out of the way.” (2 Thessalonians 2:7)
Secondarily, the Court ruled the mandate was rightfully a tax, and therefore rightfully handed over to the IRS for enforcement. Well before he knew he’d need them, Obama hired an additional 16,000 IRS agents.
“And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.” (Revelation 13:16-17)
Obamacare is not the antichrist’s system and Obama isn’t the antichrist. But Obamacare is a legally imposed economic “mark” enforced by the government’s application of financial pressure in a manner that four of nine Supreme Court justices ruled “appallingly lawless.”
Where this applies to Bible prophecy is two-fold. In the first part, it is an object lesson in how simple it will be, when he does show up on the scene, for the antichrist to impose his system and how he will use a centralized economy as a tool of enforcement.
Secondly, when he does show up, he will have a properly conditioned population with which to work. All the advance groundwork has already been taken care of. The population will be used to the IRS enforcing government policy.
“And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:” (2 Thessalonians 2:11)
“Under my health care plan, your taxes won’t go up one single dime.” – Barack Hussein Obama, February 2, 2009