Floyd Reports

Chief Justice John Roberts, the last person on Earth whom conservatives thought would rule AGAINST the Constitution, did just that this past Thursday. The court’s decision on ObamaCare, or the PPACA, requires a complete suspension of what sane people call logic if you are to buy what we were just slapped with.

The Solicitor General and Robert Long, during oral arguments, first claimed that the penalty incurred by not complying with the individual mandate, the heart of that massive monstrosity, WAS a tax. And since it had yet to be implemented, it fell under the protection of the Anti-Injunction Act, and therefore, the suits against the bill were not valid.

The next day, it was argued that under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause — or was that the “Good & Plenty Clause” as John Conyers referred to it — the penalty WAS NOT A TAX and therefore constitutional under Congress’s enumerated powers.

General Verrilli was even cornered by Justice Alito: “General Verrilli, today you are arguing that the penalty is not a tax. Tomorrow you are going to be back and you will be arguing that the penalty is a tax. Has the Court ever held that something that is a tax for purposes of the taxing power under the Constitution is not a tax under the Anti-Injunction Act?”

I heard this and you could feel SG Verrilli squirm as he replied “No, Justice Alito, but…”
You can almost see Justice Alito as Jack Nicholson’s character from “Chinatown” slapping Faye Dunaway’s stand-in, Verrilli, as he (she) says — “IT’S A TAX! (she’s my sister) — slap — IT’S NOT A TAX! (she’s my daughter) — slap — IT’S A TAX! (my sister) — slap — IT’S NOT A TAX! (my daughter) — slap — A TAX! (sister) — slap — NOT A TAX! (daughter) — slap — IT’S A TAX and IT’S NOT A TAX!!! (she’s my sister and my daughter!)”

Confused yet? If not, hang on. To quote the old Jedi master, Yoda, “You will be!”

Oral arguments don’t always reveal how the case is going to end up — especially when the liberal Justices are sometimes arguing the government’s case for them when Verrilli was unable to put two thoughts together (and looked foolish at best) and when they beat him up on the tax thing.
Pundits far and wide were confident that Obamacare was dead, basing their thinking in logic. But logic didn’t apply here; it seldom does with government, but I digress. Nobody, not one person, was able to predict the outcome we got. If someone tell you he predicted it, you better get the fire extinguisher out ‘cause their trousers will spontaneously combust!

Most guesses were 5-4, failing with Justice Kennedy joining the Conservative side of the court, or upheld 5-4, with Justice Kennedy joining the Liberals. There were even a few – okay, none – who thought Justice Kagan would somehow show integrity and realize that she should recuse herself as she did in the US v Arizona travesty delivered earlier in the week, and then it would be 5-3 against it. 4-4 was never in the cards.

Not a single pundit predicted that the Chief Justice would join the libs and rule as he did.

Here we go. This gets confusing and sickening from here, so hold on tight and grab the Dramamine.
Reading from the opinion — “Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Part II, concluding that the Anti-Injunction Act does not bar this suit.”

Fine! That’s what everyone with a logical brain expected. It is NOT a tax. And the claim that you can’t challenge a tax until it’s been imposed does not apply. The mandate IS NOT A TAX. With me so far?

Next from the Opinion — “Chief Justice Roberts concluded in Part III-A that the individual mandate is not a valid exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause.”

“Excellent, more logic!” you say. I like how this movie’s turning out. Pass the Good & Plenty. You can’t make me buy something I don’t want to buy. You can’t force commerce upon the people if they don’t want it. Obamacare should have been declared dead and buried at this point.

But wait, there’s more!

In the most unexpected plot twist since Alfred Hitchcock was directing thrillers, the monster in not dead. More from the Opinion — “Chief Justice Roberts concluded in Part III-B that the individual mandate must be construed as imposing a tax on those who do not have health insurance, if such a construction is reasonable.”

WHAT??? You said IT’S NOT A TAX before, but now you say IT IS A TAX! Pass the airsick bag; this spin is just not believable, or tolerable. Mr. Geddes, it’s time to slap Miss Mulholland around again — she’s not making sense.

But wait, there’s more.

From the Opinion — “Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Part III-C, concluding that the individual mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s power under the Taxing Clause.”

Taxing Clause? Let’s read the Taxing Clause, shall we? “Article I, Section 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”

Now, where does that pesky mandate fall within these specific areas? Is it an Excise? Nope; in order for it to be an Excise Tax, you would have to be actually buying something, like gasoline, or a car, or a yacht. The penalty is assessed for something you DON’T buy. Steee-rike one. Is it an Impost or Duty? Nope, and nope. Imposts and Duties are assessed on items that are IMPORTED from outside the United States. So, unless we’re getting health care from Cuba, steee-rike two. Is it a direct tax apportioned among the States? Nope, that kind of tax has NEVER been assessed in our history. It is a PENALTY for not buying health insurance that the Government approves of. So, Swing and a miss, strike three.

But wait, you say. I foul-tipped that one. There’s another kind of tax. You know, you’re right! But the 16th Amendment established the Income Tax. And, clearly, the penalty is not income. Sorry. The catcher snagged it. You’re out! In a logical world, it’s over, dead, done, kaput, finis! But not here, no, no, no!

The remaining conclusions and opinions of the majority shock no one that thinks logically. Medicaid expansion can be declined without the States losing existing Medicaid funding. Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor disagreed with this and wrote a dissenting opinion that should have been the only dissenting opinion, if logic would have prevailed.

First, it’s NOT A TAX, and the Anti-Injunction Act does not apply. Then it IS A TAX and falls under the Taxing Clause, even though it fails to meet the Taxing Clause definitions of a tax.

Strange little point of order, your honors. The Solicitor General argued that the mandate fell under the Taxing Clause, and y’all beat him up over it. Quoting Justice Scalia on day 2, “You’re making two arguments. Number one, it’s a tax; and number two, even if it isn’t a tax, it’s within the taxing power. I’m just addressing the first.” How can you justify that one?

Our President and anyone associated with ObamaCare vociferously denied that it was a tax, and they still do. It is going to be spun from here until Election Day that it is NOT a tax by the Democrats, “Chief Justice Roberts be damned! He called it a tax. Not us. Not me.”

Oh, the mendacity!

My humble observations —
a) Can it be that the only reason it survived is because the Chief Justice was on meds? And didn’t have all his faculties when he made his decision? No, there is some other explanation. We’ll never be told what it is, though.
b) With the way Justice Ginsburg railed at the Medicaid decision, you would think her side lost as it should have. It was a blistering rant that took one-third of the decision’s 193 pages.
c) The true Conservatives and the usual swing vote had it right in their dissent — “Congress has set out to remedy the problem that the best health care is beyond the reach of many Americans who cannot afford it. It can assuredly do that by exercising the powers accorded to it under the Constitution. The question in this case, however, is whether the complex structures and provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Affordable Care Act or ACA) go beyond those powers. We conclude that they do…

“The Act before us here exceeds federal power both in mandating the purchase of health insurance and in denying non-consenting States all Medicaid funding. These parts of the Act are central to its design and operation, and all the Act’s other provisions would not have been enacted without them. In our view it must follow that the entire statute is inoperative.”

So, what do we do now? The simple solutions are usually best. First — register to vote; double check if you are not sure you already are. If you have moved recently, or changed your status, you need to check. Second —vote on November 6th (that’s a Wednesday for you Liberals). Third — vote conservative. RINO’s and Liberals need to be defeated. And lastly — vote Obama OUT!

Not much point in trying to throw the law out on the scrap heap where the Supremes should have sent it if you will not have the votes (which we probably won’t) to override Obama’s veto. Romney has pledged to repeal it. I want to believe him. We have to believe him. Make it a campaign plank.
But it doesn’t end there. We have to gently remind the larger Republican majority in the House, the new Republican majority in the Senate, and the new President that they will be held accountable. Cattle prods and sharp spurs work best for this. Torches and pitchforks are my second choice. If we do what we did after the 1994 election and rest on our victory, Beltway creep will set in again, and we’ll be no better off for the results. Hold them accountable, or vote ‘em out.