Now the talking heads are reading it, in order to make a proper interpretation.
The decision is lengthy and complicated.
In part:
- – The healthcare law is generally upheld.
- – It can be upheld under the court’s taxing authority.
- – The mandate cannot be upheld under the Commerce Clause.
- – The penalty — tax — at this point appears to be intact.
- – The opinion was written by Chief Justice Roberts.
There will be more as the day goes on.
Now according to SCOTUS, you have to 1) Die, 2) Pay taxes and 3) Have health insurance.
God help us all.
BZ
Scotus is supposed to the one branch of govt that is unbiased and non-partisan. Looks like no longer applies. The trust given our Supremes has been horribly violated. Kelo and now this. Our Founding Fathers picked up their muskets and fought tyranny for less than what has been done to us.
I guess our last chance is Romney, who has promised to kill obama-care if he is elected. Romney should win if we can keep obama from stuffing too many ballot boxes.
It looks like the last great bastion of freedom, that shining light on a hill, is being snuffed out. Once great America will join the rest of the world and slip into socialism followed soon by islam and sharia.
Oh well, it was good while it lasted. Thank god I am older, have no kids, and will not live long enough to see the complete devastation and destruction of this great country. America has lost its way.
sdkar: and, then, what occurs should Obaka be re-elected?
Staggers the imagination.
BZ
That previous cartoon turns out to be dead on… sigh
I must admit that Roberts surprised me!
And best of all, though Mr Obama PROMISED this wasn’t a tax, guess what?
IT’S A TAX.
Which will equate to the largest tax HIKE in the history of the planet, ALONG WITH the Bush Tax Cuts that may not be extended following January 1.
Taxpayers, grab your K-Y and start working longer hours; you’re going to need the lube and the extra money to pay for the greater needs of the Non-Producers and Non-Taxpayers.
BZ
Roberts opinion is based on his concerns over public perception of the court. It is not brave as some would suggest, but rather an effort to curry a legacy of impartiality from leftist historians.
The ‘interpretation’ of this as a tax issue directly conflicts with the way this bill was purposefully constructed. The democrats rejected an earlier version specifically on those grounds.
There is a fee, a penalty, not a tax. One can agree that they are the same as they extract money, but one cannot equivocate legitimacy, which is what Roberts has done.
sorry… equate
Equivocation was the purpose of the rewrite which Roberts demonstrated but failed to rule on.