SCOTUS deals biggest blow to Liberalism in 100 years!

Dixie said:
In spite of giddy Liberals dancing in the streets today, the ruling of the Supreme Court on Obamacare is actually one of the biggest defeats of Liberalism in 100 years. Roberts has brilliantly played the long game here, and the Liberals have no idea of what has just happened. While they celebrate this seeming 'victory' for something they really really wanted, they fail to realize the consequences of this ruling.

The most important aspect, is the rejection of Liberals argument that the Federal government can do things like this under the commerce clause. That argument was refuted by the court, and actually defines the limits to the commerce clause. Something the Liberals have often used to pass more and more government intrusion into our lives. So that whole 'commerce clause' argument ends as of today. Never again, can we have Liberals trot out a liberal idea and cite the commerce clause as their basis for authority. This is HUGE, and a HUGE win for conservative small government philosophy.

The next thing, is the finding by the court this has to be a TAX. Obama has argued it's not a tax, and actually ran on a promise to not increase taxes on those making under $200k.... that's out the window now... We just had the largest tax increase in human history... thanks to Obama! The funding can not come from Medicare, which also means, the CBO will have to re-score Obamacare, and it will dramatically effect the budget deficit. Again, something Obama and the Liberals often used as a shield, is gone. They were able to tell us this was not going to increase the debt, it was going to actually reduce the debt, according to proponents... well now, it's going to necessarily increase the debt, because it can't be paid for with Medicare funds.

Finally, it is important to note, this doesn't seal the fate of Obamacare. If the court had gone the other way, it would have sealed the fate of Obamacare for certain, but in upholding the law, it doesn't solidify the law itself, it can still be repealed. The Roberts ruling only makes the 2012 elections THAT much more important. Obama will have to defend his largest tax increase in history, and the challengers still get to run on repeal of Obamacare.

Let's summarize...

Commerce clause can be used to enable federal expansion of power.... GONE! Never again can it be used by Liberals!
Obamacare is not a TAX... GONE! Making Obama a LIAR by giving us the largest tax increase in history.
Obamacare Reduces the Deficit.... GONE! Can't be paid for with Medicare... HAS to INCREASE the deficit.

In the short term, I would have loved to have seen the court strike down Obamacare, and I believe they should have done so. But if the court were going to find in favor of it, there isn't much of a better scenario than this, as a constitutional conservative. The legal barriers Roberts has now placed on future Congresses is monumental, and gives us a commerce clause definition that has been lacking for the past 100 years. It is a victory for states rights as well, and these are the kind of fundamental things that are being overlooked in the decision. But I don't blame pinheads... they needed something "good" to lift their spirits.
Click to expand...

LMAO

Welp, Onceler called it.

We have no idea what's about to happen!
 
To Dixie's credit, he actually made some decent points. It established the precedent that the Federal government cannot use the CC to do whatever the fuck they want. It may also make it easier to repeal. If Republicans can simply repeal the tax, the whole POS law will fall apart.
 
hi all, thanks


The claims dixie makes will be born out by the further decisions of the court.

I think Roberts just realized that he wants to be a real Justice and not go down in history as a partisan hack.

It has happened on the court before.

They sometimes get this lifetime appointment and stop fearing their benifactors and start listening to the rationality of the other sides debates.
 
evince said:
hi all, thanks


The claims dixie makes will be born out by the further decisions of the court.

I think Roberts just realized that he wants to be a real Justice and not go down in history as a partisan hack.

It has happened on the court before.

They sometimes get this lifetime appointment and stop fearing their benifactors and start listening to the rationality of the other sides debates.
Click to expand...

disagree with desh? partisan hack
agree with desh? a real true justice
 
Dixie said:
Not in a way that you are capable of comprehending, sorry, find a retarded person to explain it to you.



Never said it did! What it DID do, is DEFINE the commerce clause, or the extent at which it can be used by the Federal government. Your side argued that you could impose Obamacare under the commerce clause, but the courts found that you couldn't do this. In fact, it went on to specifically say that Federal government CAN'T use the commerce clause in the future for things like this, which is a HUGE ruling in favor of small-government conservatives.



Right, we have every right to repeal Obamacare and not make it a tax. Great point! ...I haven't listened to Rush in months.
Click to expand...

Oh, my bad, I thought this was a direct quote from your opening post, "Never again, can we have Liberals trot out a liberal idea and cite the commerce clause as their basis for authority."

That sure sounds like a claim that the Commerce Clause was overturned.
 
Uninsured people cost the government lots of money, now we have an uninsured tax. I am happy to be requireing personal responsability from citizens. If you choose to behave in unresponsable ways that cost others money, you should expect to be taxed for it.
 
Stupid Proles said:
I wonder if dixie would have made a post today about how liberalism won if the ruling was struck down. Something tells me that wouldn't have happened.
Click to expand...

You correct, that wouldn't have happened. The fact that you think it should have happened if logic applied, because we live in a black and white world, is stunning to me. It would have been a huge defeat for Liberals if Obamacare had been struck down, no doubt. But if it had been struck down and the commerce clause left ambiguous as it has been the past 100 years, it wouldn't have been a good thing. It is much better, from a constitutional constructionist view, that the commerce clause was defined and limited here.

What it means is, Liberals can no longer expand government by running to the commerce clause. That ended today with this ruling. IF such expansions happen in the future, they can only happen as a TAX, which the SCOTUS reaffirmed the Federal government's right to levy. If we want to pass things like Obamacare, we can't call it something other than a tax, and we can't pay for it with Medicare or any other money the people have established for other purposes. For the party who claims to not want tax increases for the middle class, this is particularly troubling, no? For the party opposed to ANY increase in tax and smaller government, this is kind of a feather in the cap, is it not?
 
Jarod said:
Oh, my bad, I thought this was a direct quote from your opening post, "Never again, can we have Liberals trot out a liberal idea and cite the commerce clause as their basis for authority."

That sure sounds like a claim that the Commerce Clause was overturned.
Click to expand...

Yes, your Liberal understanding and interpretation of the commerce clause is HISTORY!

That's what I am saying.
 
c'est la vie said:
To Dixie's credit, he actually made some decent points. It established the precedent that the Federal government cannot use the CC to do whatever the fuck they want. It may also make it easier to repeal. If Republicans can simply repeal the tax, the whole POS law will fall apart.
Click to expand...

BINGO!

And the net result? We get rid of Obamacare AND restrict future Congresses from implementing Federal expansion on their claims of 'commerce clause' protection.

WIN/WIN!
 
Dixie said:
You correct, that wouldn't have happened. The fact that you think it should have happened if logic applied, because we live in a black and white world, is stunning to me. It would have been a huge defeat for Liberals if Obamacare had been struck down, no doubt. But if it had been struck down and the commerce clause left ambiguous as it has been the past 100 years, it wouldn't have been a good thing. It is much better, from a constitutional constructionist view, that the commerce clause was defined and limited here.

What it means is, Liberals can no longer expand government by running to the commerce clause. That ended today with this ruling. IF such expansions happen in the future, they can only happen as a TAX, which the SCOTUS reaffirmed the Federal government's right to levy. If we want to pass things like Obamacare, we can't call it something other than a tax, and we can't pay for it with Medicare or any other money the people have established for other purposes. For the party who claims to not want tax increases for the middle class, this is particularly troubling, no? For the party opposed to ANY increase in tax and smaller government, this is kind of a feather in the cap, is it not?
Click to expand...

cool. so everything is the same as it was before, we've just called it something else. and you're happy about that?
 
Rana said:
Cantor claims the House still plans to repeal Obamacare, what, if anything, do they plan to replace it with?
Click to expand...
There just blowing smoke. It's empty rhetoric. Republicans would need complete control of our government to repeal it. They would need to have control of the White house, the house of reps and 60 seats in the senate. I don't see that happening anytime soon.
 
Dixie said:
BINGO!

And the net result? We get rid of Obamacare AND restrict future Congresses from implementing Federal expansion on their claims of 'commerce clause' protection.

WIN/WIN!
Click to expand...

yeah they can't use the commerce clause for whatever the fuck they want. they'll just use tax law for whatever the fuck they want.
 
Derp Derp said:
There just blowing smoke. It's empty rhetoric. Republicans would need complete control of our government to repeal it. They would need to have control of the White house, the house of reps and 60 seats in the senate. I don't see that happening anytime soon.
Click to expand...

True, but Romney said today, repeal it, so we can replace it, what does that mean?
 
c'est la vie said:
To Dixie's credit, he actually made some decent points. It established the precedent that the Federal government cannot use the CC to do whatever the fuck they want. It may also make it easier to repeal. If Republicans can simply repeal the tax, the whole POS law will fall apart.
Click to expand...
Good luck with that. You've lost SCOTUS on the issue so You'll need to gain the White House, The House of Reps and gain 60 seats in the Senate. In other words, I wouldn't hold your breath if I was you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top