The Narrative seems to be congealing around the idea that the decision is a boost for Obama. I wonder. Althouse makes this interesting observation: “I have said repeatedly that Obama would be worse off if Obamacare were upheld, but what I’m really seeing is how bad it is for him with the mandate declared a tax.” I think so. Will those who are going to be most hurt by this legislation agree? Althouse argues that “the Democrats got the statute passed by insisting it was not a tax. Now, we learn it is only constitutional because it is a tax. That’s got to hurt politically.” I hope she is right. Romney has lost no time in playing it that way:
Republican Mitt Romney is promising that he will repeal the federal health care law the Supreme Court just upheld.
He called the decision incorrect and said Thursday that it is “bad law.” He says it raises taxes and cuts Medicare.
Yep, and yep again. Bottom line: the ball is back in the court of those who favor individual liberty and limited government. John Boehner got it absolutely right when he said: “Today’s ruling underscores the urgency of repealing this harmful law in its entirety.” And I see from Drudge that the House has scheduled a vote to repeal ObamaCare for the week of July 9. So maybe, just maybe, John Roberts was the hedgehog in this scenario, or at least the purveyor of silver linings.
thumbnail image and illustration courtesy shutterstock / 2399