The real ruling
POSTED: Monday, July 2, 2012 - 6:00pm
UPDATED: Tuesday, July 3, 2012 - 9:25am
TYLER — Out of all the POVs I've done, please listen carefully to this one.
Get every word. Listen before you start hollering.
Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court disappointed many of us who disagree with Obamacare.
I'd rather Justice Roberts not play the weird quirky little game he's given us.
But, I read this Friday in the Independent Journal Review.
And everything fell into place.
Sure the left-wing shouted with joy on Thursday, but that has turned out to be a short-lived party.
Here is what really occurred in the ruling that confused everyone.
Here's what really occurred - payback. Yes, payback for Obama's numerous, ill-advised and childish insults directed toward SCOTUS.
Chief Justice Roberts actually ruled the mandate, relative to the commerce clause, was unconstitutional. That's how the Democrats got Obamacare going in the first place. This is critical. His ruling means Congress can't compel American citizens to purchase anything. Ever. The notion is now officially and forever, unconstitutional. As it should be.
Next, he stated that because Congress doesn't have the ability to mandate, it must, to fund Obama-care, rely on its power to tax. Therefore, the mechanism that funds Obamacare is a tax. This is also critical.
Since it's a tax, it can be repealed in the Senate with only 51 votes.
Finally, he struck down as unconstitutional the Obamacare idea that the federal government can bully states into complying by yanking their existing Medicaid funding. Liberals, through Obamacare, basically said to the states - 'comply with Obama-care or we will stop existing funding.' Roberts ruled that is a no-no. If a state takes the money, fine, the Feds can tell the state how to run a program, but if the state refuses money, the federal government can't penalize the state by yanking other funding.
Roberts basically said you fix this at the ballot box.
That's my point of view, what's yours?