In today’s landmark decision, Chief Justice Roberts’s majority opinion was badly wrong from a constitutional standpoint. The vast majority of Americans think that the PPACA is horrible legislation and terrible policy.

That isn’t why I’m arguing that Chief Justice Roberts got it wrong. Instead, I’m arguing that Chief Justice Roberts got it wrong because he’s essentially ruled that the courts have the right to rewrite the legislation.

In the original draft of the legislation, there was a specific section of the legislation that dealt specifically with taxes. It’s absurd to think that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court can simply rewrite legislation.

That’s what Chief Justice Roberts did. Congress didn’t include the mandate in the section on taxes. People remember President Obama’s interview with George Stephanopoulos where President Obama repeatedly insisted that the mandate wasn’t a tax. Only when it got into the courts did they start calling it a tax.

Chief Justice Roberts might make many wonderful rulings during his time as Chief Justice but his legacy will be sullied by this ruling. He didn’t just call balls and strikes this time. Instead, he appropriated for himself the authority to rewrite the PPACA.

That’s what activists do. Judicial historians will note that.

Most importantly, the American people will be repulsed by the decision, mostly because it kept intact legislation that hurts the American people.

Aside for the activist aspects of this ruling, the reality is that this ruling gives employers another major reason to not hire. It gives small businesses with 40-45 employees justification not to hire that fiftieth employee.

There are two bits of good news despite this ruling. One tidbit of good news is that other cases are working their way through the system. The other tidbit of good news is that this will motivate voters to defeat the people that initially gave us this job-killing monstrosity.

There’s no question that President Obama will get a temporary surge after this ruling. There’s no question, though, that this is a net negative for President Obama because he’s got to defend this terrible legislation the next 4 months.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

8 Responses to “Chief Justice Roberts gets it horribly wrong”

  • Nick says:

    Congress passes ObamaCare in 2010, Obama signs it, Supreme Court upholds it, yet Congress members exempt themselves from this bill and shove it down people’s throats? There’s something wrong with this picture!!
    Who does this bill benefit?
    Answer: Insurance companies and supporters of big government

  • eric z says:

    I cannot disagree with the sentiment that Romneycare, done via a cramdown with all real reform off the table from the get-go, is unsound and a big sop to the insurance industry – especially the individual mandate.

    My biggerst bitch about it: It delays the ultimate change to single payer as the entire industrialized world has, but for the US of A.

    But it is Romneycare – nothing else, done on a federal stage after proving problematic in Massachusetts, and it was done with reform of pharma pricing [the government using purchasing leverage to get fairer pricing] off the table so that the drug lobbyists would stay quiet while the Romneycare thing was being done to us.

    Many hoped the Supremes would kill the Beast; so that it would be back to the drawing board with single payer – single provider as more of an aim in a redo. Not to be. Roberts was loyal to his roots.

  • Patrick says:


    I must ask you this question. Do you value freedom of choice? Yes or no please no spin, no extra words.


  • eric z says:

    It’s a tax. Roberts says so, and anything can be justified on that basis, yes/no?

    Do your web search = Beatles Taxman


    Like that. Love it. ROMNEYCARE.

    Let me tell you how it will be
    There’s one for you, nineteen for me
    ‘Cause I’m the taxman, yeah, I’m the taxman

    Should five per cent appear too small
    Be thankful I don’t take it all
    ‘Cause I’m the taxman, yeah I’m the taxman

    If you drive a car, I’ll tax the street,
    If you try to sit, I’ll tax your seat.
    If you get too cold I’ll tax the heat,
    If you take a walk, I’ll tax your feet.

    Don’t ask me what I want it for
    If you don’t want to pay some more
    ‘Cause I’m the taxman, yeah, I’m the taxman

    Now my advice for those who die
    Declare the pennies on your eyes
    ‘Cause I’m the taxman, yeah, I’m the taxman

    The only sane answer to reach cost control without allowing a stranglehold on availability is clear. Cut through all the bullshit and go to single payer – single provider as the best cost-benefit balance feasible in managing the runaway costs in that industrial segment.

    The VA controls its costs. It uses leverage with Big Pharma. Etc. There is that precedent – in existence as a US of A on the ground proof of concept.

    Deny it if you choose, but it is there, along with Europe and Canada. It is real. It is effective. So who is against it? Employers wanting to hold employees by a pair of vital organs? Change jobs and bump into pre-existing condition exclusions. What? Who else, besides that and Big Pharma, the HMO profit machines, those with a vested interest in the status quo. The lobbyists and those in Congress already bought and owned. Idiots subject to being propagandized. Romney and Obama both offering a Tweedle Dee – Tweedle Dum band-aid where major surgery is called for to fix the cancer.

  • eric z says:

    Patrick – yes I am pro-choice.

  • eric z says:

    Patrick – are you pro-choice? A fair turnaround of the question.

  • Gary Gross says:

    I’m for getting the clutter out of the health insurance industry. In my world, though, that mean giving the decisionmaking to We the People & our physicians. It means eliminating the federal & state governments from the insurance industry as much as possible.

  • Gary Gross says:

    It’s a tax. Roberts says so.

    That’s true, meaning that Sen. Klobuchar, Sen. Franken, Rep. Ellison, Rep. McCollum & Rep. Walz each voted twice for a gigantic regressive tax increase that’s putting the squeeze on the middle class. That’s the undeniable fact from yesterday’s ruling. The DFL can tip-toe around alot of things but there’s no arguing that they didn’t vote for the annual tax on health insurance policies. They voted to tax tanning sessions. They voted for a 40% excise tax on the Cadillac health insurance plans that many unions have negotiated. They’ve even started a “new tax on insured and self-insured health plans”, most of which are paid by small businesses.

    If the DFL is such good friends with unions, how could any of these DFL legislators vote to levy a 40% tax on unions’ health insurance plans?

Leave a Reply