House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said on ABC’s “This Week” that Chief Justice John Roberts had to “contort logic and reason” to come up with his ruling on ObamaCare.
“So one man decided against the dissenting opinion, against what I, you know, thought were his principles and judicial jurisprudence, he decided to leave this up to the American people,” Ryan said. “So now the stakes of this election could not be higher, George.”
Stephanopolous asked Ryan about Mitt Romney’s past statements that Roberts is a model for the kind of justices he would appoint to the Supreme Court.
“Well, I don’t agree with his ruling. I agree with the dissenting judges. I think they basically had to rewrite the statute in order to call this a tax,” Ryan said. “He did have some good principles, which is the Commerce Clause and necessary and proper clause, meaning there is a limit to what Congress can do to affect people’s behavior. But if you call it a tax, you can tax anybody to do anything you want from government, apparently. That to me is a disturbing ruling. That to me is rewriting this law.”
Ryan looked forward to the week when the House returns from the July 4 recess, and an expected July 11 vote to repeal ObamaCare.
“And what’s frustrating about this is, when Obamacare was being deliberated, we were offering patient-centered solutions,” he said. “I’ll just say this. We can have a health care system in America where everybody has affordable access to health insurance, including people with pre-existing conditions, without a government takeover.”
Along with everything else in this relentless leftist onslaught, we also have to deal with betrayal. Why is it always conservatives who have to show ‘statesmanship’ or ‘compromise’ or ‘collegiality’? Why is it never the Left? Where is the Democrat’s McCain? Or now Roberts?
I hold in special contempt those who betray their principles in the false hope that their opponents will then respect them or like them. For their judgement is contemptibly poor, thinking their opponents are honest and well meaning rather than the ruthless, win at all means, totalitarians that they truly are.
Nobody respects a traitor. And the Left will not respect Roberts. They will treat him as a useful idiot and in that I will agree with them.
Well said.
Well stated!
Roberts has made a joke out of ‘constitutional law’ only to satisfy politics of whicha judge should never been influenced.
As Ben Shapiro said at the time of Roberts nomination – Roberts is a country club republican, seeking and liking teh atmosphere of country club environment.
Cali, from the Roberts opinion, how was he wrong with respect to the Constitution? Were the precedents cited invalid? Were the principles he applied incorrect? As a matter of judicial review, in what way was he in error, other than you don’t like the result?
I was arguing on a Scott Ott thread here on PJ Media that I thought that Roberts was being criticised unfairly, and on that thread, no one was able to explain to my satisfaction where Roberts went wrong in his opinion. Maybe I’ll find out in this thead.
So basically, you are saying congress has a right to make slaves out of us. Congress has the right to confiscate our income over non-activity? Congress has the right to tax us at 100% of our income?
The case being made was that it was legal under the commerce clause and it was, indeed, NOT a tax. Roberts answered a question not asked and came to a conclusion not on the floot.
Lolly said, “So basically, you are saying congress has a right to make slaves out of us. Congress has the right to confiscate our income over non-activity? Congress has the right to tax us at 100% of our income?
The case being made was that it was legal under the commerce clause and it was, indeed, NOT a tax. Roberts answered a question not asked and came to a conclusion not on the floot.”
To the extant that it is permitted by the Constitution and existing law, the answer, unfortunately is yes. The solution to that, in my opinion, is to elect Romney, elect majorities in the House and the Senate, and repeal the damn thing.
With repsect to your complaint that Roberts answers a question that was not asked, the question WAS asked. The government specifically argued that if the mandate could not be upheld under the Commerce Clause, it should be upheld by considering the penalty as a tax. The issue was put before the Court, and Roberts had to review it. We may not like his decision, but as I have said, I have not seen a convincing argument demonstrating that his opinion is in error.
@Brent – No! The government emphatically declared that it was NOT a tax. They didn’t frame it to the SP as a tax. Their argument was that it was an expansion under the commerce clause. Roberts said, no, you can’t claim it under the commerce clause, but you can claim it as a tax. So they were either illiterate or lying. We both know they were lying but they NEVER would have been able to sell this to the American people as the largest tax in human history. Fact is, they were never able to sell it to more than about 30% of the people anyway and not a single Republican voted for the beast.
I categorically reject that congress has the power to tax 100% of our income. As pointed out already on this thread – that is slavery.
@Lolly – Yes. From the Roberts decision:
“The Government advances two theories for the proposition that Congress had constitutional authority to enact the individual mandate. First, the Government arguesthat Congress had the power to enact the mandate under the Commerce Clause. Under that theory, Congress mayorder individuals to buy health insurance because thefailure to do so affects interstate commerce, and could undercut the Affordable Care Act’s other reforms. Second, the Government argues that if the commerce power does not support the mandate, we should nonetheless uphold itas an exercise of Congress’s power to tax.”
The government put forward the argument that the payment is authorized by Congress’s power to tax. The Court HAD to rule on that. If you disagree with the ruling, you need to provide a legal theory that demonstrates WHY the precedents, legal principles, and Constitutional interpretations used to arrive at the decision are in error.
“I don’t like it”, is not a valid argument.
Your questions have been answered. Entire articles:
http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-supremes-get-it-fundamentally-wrong/
and 4 supreme court justices (even the wildly liberal MSNBC has a link to it – though I can’t guarantee they haven’t selectively edited it so here’s a better link):
http://www.maggiesnotebook.com/2012/06/obamacare-scotus-dissent-transcript-scalia-kennedy-thomas-alito-verbal-wizardry/
Scot, in you first link, the author makes clear that he doesn’t like the decision, but if he presents an argument that demonstrated Roberts is wrong, I not seeing it. What did I miss?
Alas, I can’t follow the second link – that is a problem on my end that I can’t fix. Can you summarize?
Explain it to your satisfaction. Your mind is made up, screw you. Roberts violated the balance of powers by in essence rewriting legislation so he could twist and uphold it in violation of the Constitution and should be Impeached! While some few, even liberal , Constitution scolars uphold it politically , none can stand by it as Constitutionally sound and most agree that it destroyed individual freedom and the tenants of the Constitution! I do not give a damn what you or any other liberal or RINO think of it. The only good that can come of it is a rebellion against the left in November and bar that a new American revolution! The Constitution has been violated yet again to the extint of being nonexistant and therefore their is no guarantee of individual liberties in existance except the peoples’ malitia.
“Roberts violated the balance of powers by in essence rewriting legislation so he could twist and uphold it in violation of the Constitution and should be Impeached!”
That is an opinion unsupported by fact. It is your right to have that opinion, so have fun with it. By itself, your opinion means nothing, however if you can’t back it up with facts.
You are quite correct that little has been written about precedent for Robert’s opinion that the taxing power goes far enough to support the individual mandate penalty as a tax.
I have read, and I think this has the ring of logic, that before last Thursday Congress’s power to tax had to be linked to a purpose which was otherwise constitutional. It makes no sense to write a constitution setting up a government with enumerated powers then allow the power to use taxation as coercion for ends that are not within those enumerated powers.
Maybe when all the screaming and yelling has subsided someone who is authoritative on the tax power will write an article laying out the precedent for his opinion, or lack thereof.
Brent, let me summarize why Roberts was wrong. He found that Congress had the power to create and enforce the individual mandate as a tax. Congress does not have an unlimited “taxing” power. Indeed, before the 16th Amendment, Congress could not “tax” income as that was simply taking private property prohibited by the 5th Amendment. There have been no amendments since then granting Congress any more taxing powers. The mandate is not a tax on income as you have to pay it whether or not you have any income.
So what kind of tax is it? Congress can enact excise taxes – i.e., when you buy something (like gasoline, liquor). But the mandate is a tax on NOT buying something, which makes it a “direct” tax. The very definition of a “direct” tax is a tax for doing nothing but existing. Congress may enact a “direct” tax, BUT it must be “in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.” Art. I, Sec. 9, clause 4. In other words, Congress cannot lay a direct tax on some people but not others. If it could, this would lead to obvious, inevitable tyranny as 51% could vote to “directly” tax the other 49% of all their wealth and then some, making the minority slaves to the majority. Why do you think Art. I, Sec. 9, clause 4 is in the Constitution? More importantly, where in Roberts’ opinion does he discuss and distinguish Art. I, Sec. 9, clause 4?
There’s more. If the mandate is a tax, the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case under the Anti-Injunction Act as the court’s jurisdiction to hear challenges to taxes only begins when the tax is actually collected, which won’t happen with the mandate until 2014 (designed to occur after Obama’s hoped-for re-election). Moreover, all bills to collect taxes must originate in the House of Representatives, where the politicians are most vulnerable to being voted out of office. Art. 1, Sec. 7. Obamacare was first passed in the Senate.
You seem to be on the pro-slavery side because you think you’ll wind up in the majority, i.e., the slave-holding side. That makes you degenerate scum. But be warned. Today’s would-be slaves are armed to the teeth.
“Congress does not have an unlimited “taxing” power.”
True, but the Roberts opinion covers the tests necessary for a tax to pass muster. If you’d like, I can post them. If you can find fault with his analysis, fine.
“The mandate is not a tax on income as you have to pay it whether or not you have any income.”
That is not true. If you earn insufficient income, you are exempt from the tax, just as with the Federal Income Tax. If you income falls below a certain level, no tax is incurred.
It is a tax on income, which is how the tax is calculated. The trigger for the imposition of the tax is not purchasing health insurance. This is not prohibited under either the Constitution, or by existing law. Further, Roberts cites several precedents to demonstrate that it is not a direct tax. I can post that as well, if you wish to contest his analysis.
“There’s more. If the mandate is a tax, the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case under the Anti-Injunction Act as the court’s jurisdiction to hear challenges to taxes only begins when the tax is actually collected.”
The Roberts opinion also covers why there is no bar under the Anti-Injuction Act. In what way is that part of the opinion invalid?
It would help if you had actually read the opinion. If you want to argue that the precedents and legal principles cited in the opinion are invalid, that is one thing. Presenting arguments that are already well covered in the opinion isn’t convincing unless you are prepared to argue that the opinion is in error in the precedents presented.
Roberts decision was wrong because
1) The penalty for not complying with the individual mandate was never referred to as a tax in the legislation in question.
2) The context in which the legislation was debated specifically stated that it was not a tax.
3) That the tax was a fair tax because it would be less in value than the product to be purchased. This means that any tax can be implemented for any purpose as long as the cost of the tax is one penny less than the cost of purchasing a specific product.
4) It expands the taxing authority of the government without limit and allows any inaction to be penalized under the newly expanded authority.
There’s more to it but this is just a brief overview.
GD Cooper says, “Roberts decision was wrong because
1) The penalty for not complying with the individual mandate was never referred to as a tax in the legislation in question.”
The Roberts opinion dismisses this objection by citing several applicable precedents. Do you think the precedents cited are invalid, and if so, why?
“2) The context in which the legislation was debated specifically stated that it was not a tax.”
Also irrelevent according to the opinion. You need to demonstrate where Roberts is in error to prevail in the argument.
“3) That the tax was a fair tax because it would be less in value than the product to be purchased. This means that any tax can be implemented for any purpose as long as the cost of the tax is one penny less than the cost of purchasing a specific product.”
How is this a limitation? I’m not sure I even understand your argument.
“4) It expands the taxing authority of the government without limit and allows any inaction to be penalized under the newly expanded authority.”
This tax and future taxes must comply with the limitations present in the Constitution and in existing law. Roberts demonstrates in his opinion that the new tax satisfies those limitations. If the opinion is in error, state how.
Perhaps he is sticking to his principles, and that is the problem.
As I stated here before, Robert Bork wrote a column in AmSpec in the 90′s suggesting mild Conservative judicial activism. Every letter-writer (remember letters?) excoriated him.
The other side fights with machetes, and we wear boxing gloves. If they insist the Constitution means whatever they feel like, and we insist on original intent (of the progressives who gave us the income tax amendment), judicial restraint, normal jurispridence, and precedent, then we have to lose.
I don’t know what the solution is.
Thank you. You said what I’m feeling. I’m so tired of being betrayed by the people we depend on to do the right thing.
There was an American General who fought Heroically and with Exceptional Bravery in the Battle of Quebec. He was wounded gravely and yet that did not deter him. He was the embodiment of all that is Great in America today!
His name?
Benedict Arnold.
Let’s have a show of hands how many know what kind of General Mr. Arnold was Before that little incident at West Point.
I am familiar with his previous heroic behavior – and so were the patriots fighting against the British Empire.
That is what made his traitorous deceit so noteworthy among the colonists.
I also understand his change in loyalty was not due to any change in beliefs about the legitimacy of the American cause, but rather was due to ego or hopes of financial gain or some similar shallow reason.
Not even the British really wanted anything to do with him after the Revolution was over. I say conservatives and libertarians alike should treat Roberts similarly to how Arnold was treated.
He was a fair weather friend, and he has just stabbed us all in the back.
And he was a lot more effectively heroic at Saratoga, even when he was sulking after Gates had ignored him in the battle report of the first day. Saratoga turned the war our way. Quebec was a disaster; Aaron Burr (speaking of another guy, who went astray when he did not get his way) was up there too. We never did well when we invaded Canada, either in the Revolution or the War of 1812.
But, that said, it is a stretch to compare Roberts to Benedict Arnold, but, what the h*ll; in political speech, all sorts of absurd things can get said. Everything comes down to winning and losing, and that is supposed to check and balance us. You try to win every battle, but some losses set up subsequent victories.
Obama has failed at being a centrist; Romney has a better shot at being one, but many here will “hate” him for it, but not with the passion they “hate” Obama. The political thrill of hating the other side when they are in power, the lefties with GWB, the righties now…is about as good as it gets, eh? When your own guy is in power, you have to kind of defend and support him, but when the other guy is in there, you can give him full broadsides day after day.
The comparison between the rights hatred of obama to the lefts hatred of Bush is specious at best. The left litigated Bush to death – not one conviction. The right has always been of the opinion that elections has their consequences so they play nice-nice and don’t even offer up token objections to any candidates or policies the left offer up.
Obamacare was different in that if really did attack the Constitution. Roberts, it can be fairly said, is a traitor in that he betrayed the trust put in him to obey the Constitution. Nowhere, by any stretch of the liberal imangination, does the Constitution give either congress the power to levy an individual tax on people for NOT purchasing a product, or forcing people to purchase a product under the commerce clause. This should have been open and shut and Roberts just drove a spike through the heart of the Constitution.
It can be legitimately claimed that freedom in America died on June 28, 2012.
“Nowhere, by any stretch of the liberal imangination, does the Constitution give either congress the power to levy an individual tax on people for NOT purchasing a product, or forcing people to purchase a product under the commerce clause.”
Really? Here’s what the Constitution says:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
As you can see, it does not elaborate to the point that we know for a fact that Congress does not have the power to tax inactivity. It’s content is both very broad & very vague.
As Brent Glines asserts above, there has yet to be a truly compelling argument to support the notion that the Roberts decision is in error, represents incompetence, etc.
True, but only so much as they fall within the limits of their responsibility as outlined in the U.S. Constitution.
Not sure what your point is here, Ted.
“only so much as they fall within the limits of their responsibility as outlined in the U.S. Constitution.”
What limits, Ted? Read it’s passage again & tell me where there are limits. Again, the parameters are so broad & vague as to not be there at all. This smacks of a design to give Congress wide latitude to be limited only by the will of the American people. If they overreach too far (which they most certainly have done in the case of the ACA), the people can respond at the ballot box during the next election. Roberts’ opinion indicates this quite clearly.
The enumerated powers granted to the federal government.
Shouldn’t any tax be pertaining to to these and only these specific and enumerated limits?
These are after all my assumptions whenever I vote for anybody.
“Shouldn’t any tax be pertaining to to these and only these specific and enumerated limits?”
That is not a limitation specified under the Constitution.
“Shouldn’t any tax be pertaining to to these and only these specific and enumerated limits?”
The Constitution does not address that. Again, it states as follows: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
It pretty much says Congress can collect taxes. Period. The only restrictions I see in there pertain to paying debts, covering for defense & general welfare of the US & they have to be at the same rate for the entire country. No amounts are discussed. No activity or lack therof is discussed. It’s pretty much wide open for interpretation.
Again, it’s up to us to decide just how much gov’t involvement into our lives we wish to have. The more involvement there is, the more it’s going to cost everybody. The entitlement mentality that so deeply fetters way too many people has helped more than anything to prompt the development of this mess we find ourselves in. We are our own worst enemies here.
bobbcat, you’re forgetting about Article I, Section 9, Clause 4: “No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.” Being taxed for doing nothing is the definition of a “direct” tax. So, is this tax imposed in proportion to the census or enumeration? No. Unconstitutional. End of analysis.
Ben Pugh said, “bobbcat, you’re forgetting about Article I, Section 9, Clause 4: “No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.””
Roberts opinion addresses at length why this tax is neither a capitaion or direct tax. Specify how the opinion is in error on this subject.
@Brent & Bobcat – OMG! You people are absolutely in favor of 100% confiscatory taxes. You really want the entire American population to be slaves to the state! I’m absolutely astonished that there are such truly, TRULY evil people in this country. What in the world caused you to hate people so much?
Lolly said, “OMG! You people are absolutely in favor of 100% confiscatory taxes.”
Absolutly not true. Look. In the ’50s, the top tax bracket on income tax was something like 90%. Well guess what? Congress could impose that tax rate on everyone tomorrow, including the 47% of Americans who currently pay NO income taxes.
They aren’t about to do that because they know they would never survive their next election. And yet, they already have the power to do it? Why, because the people who authorized that possibilty just hated people so damn much?
Don’t be stupid. Just because a thing is possible doesn’t make it probable.
Yes, everything Ben Pugh talks about below is possible now.
Want to tax everyone who doesn’t own a hybrid/electric car? Constitutional.
Want to tax everyone who doesn’t have a subscription to the New York Times? Constitutional.
Want to tax everyone who doesn’t volunteer for a liberal/progressive cause? Constitutional.
Want to see Tea Party participation grow exponentially? That would be the way to do it. Want to make having an incumbant elected to office never happen again? EVER? That would be the way to do it.
Look at the outrage in just this thread. I’m glad people are pissed. The more pissed people are, the less likely this will be a problem. The more pissed people are, the MORE likely it is that the damn thing is repealed.
Yeah, the decision sucks. It’s also valid. The question now is, what are we going to do about it.
Elect Republicans and repeal the damn thing, that’s what!
Pardon me if I misunderstand but, the taxing power of the federal government is limited to those items listed. Those that are not defined are outside of the scope of those taxing powers. You know where it says those not defined to be the responsibility of the federal government are to be left to the states and “we the people”.
Dwight, do you not understand that Roberts’ opinion makes you a slave? The national majority may now tax the minority to its heart’s content (in unlimited amount!) for doing nothing. The majority can make up whatever rules it wants for taxing some people for existing but not others.
Want to tax everyone who doesn’t own a hybrid/electric car? Constitutional.
Want to tax everyone who doesn’t have a subscription to the New York Times? Constitutional.
Want to tax everyone who doesn’t volunteer for a liberal/progressive cause? Constitutional.
Ben, as far as taxes are concerned, that has always been true. The limitation lies with the voter. Tax legislation has always been unpopular. Given this ruling it will be even more unpopular.
The ruling caught everyone by surprise. Now that we know what to look for, there is about a zero percent chance of future legislation being passed that will try to use this mechanism.
Politicians may try, but I think those will be politicians who will be seeking opportunities in the private sector following their first attempt for reelection.
“But if you call it a tax, you can tax anybody to do anything you want from government, apparently.”
Well, I admire Paul Ryan a lot, but this remark suggests a grasp on reality which is less than firm.
The fact is, the US government already gives tax breaks to people who buy health insurance, and how is that different from taxing people who don’t buy health insurance?
The US government already buys health insurance (Medicare, Medicaid) with taxpayers’ money, and isn’t that even more socialist than giving tax breaks to people who buy health insurance?
Let’s talk about broccoli. Congress already has the power to subsidize broccoli growers. It already has the power to give tax breaks to people who buy broccoli, and how is that different from taxing people who don’t buy broccoli?
In short: the way I see it, these battles have been lost a long time ago.
(Which is not to say that Obamacare could not have been repealed on technicalities, but that’s another subject.)
Please, show some respect for our next Vice President.
I am showing respect: I am taking his argument seriously, and giving a reasoned counter argument to the one line with which I take issue.
The difference is that the government now has complete control over the insurance industry. The moment you are born you are required to buy that product from the government or pay whatever the going tax rate is.
Many years ago there was a War fought over a similar issue here on American soil. Freedom. The Western world’s ideal of the importance of the individual over the State.
Obamacare is based on the idea that all labor belongs to the State; i.e. Taxing at 100% is perfectly alright as long as food, water, housing and healthcare are provided in return. That was once called slavery; Owned non-persons were afforded the same.
Snorri, I agree with you that the tax breaks and subsidies are unconstitutional as violations of Equal Protection, Due Process and do not promote the General Welfare. But, we’ve taken another leap with the mandate. Before, to be taxed, you had to actually have money to be taxed. Your income cannot be taxed more than 100% because then it would cease to be an income tax. Duties, imposts and excises require you to buy things or move them in commerce.
Now, if you have nothing, you can be taxed, selectively, based on whatever Congress thinks you should be doing, in unlimited amount. Roberts ignored Article I, Section 9, clause 4. Congress can now enact the Snorri tax. That would not be a bill of attainder because it’s not a criminal penalty, but a “tax.”
There are now reports from CBS News (yes, I know, consider the source…) that Roberts in fact switched sides a month ago. This brings to mind that, in American history, there was the “Corrupt Bargain” of 1824. We apparently now have John Robert’s 2012 version. At least he has the praise of the left. I hope it warms him. I know it has me.
It should be clear to all that unless the American people wish to find themselves saddled up and ridden in perpetuity by booted and spurred Ivy elites, they had better start taking the gloves off. Sooner rather than later. For it seems the national government, the Democratic Party, the establishment part of the Republican Party, the courts, academia–one and all, all and one, by repeated act after act, every institution of “prestige” in America has demonstrated that they are just going to do what they wish to do when they wish to do it, and the people be hanged–or that they will cave to those trying to do so.
Anyone objecting better understand that only resolute, unbending determination is going to carry the day, for they are being challenged by the same.
Let’s face the political truth – Congressman Ryan can not go around calling John Roberts a coward, a traitor, and a sophist.
But I can!
Roberts faced a test of character and was found wanting. His rationalizations convinced no one; his surrender was transparent.
This is a man we want in a position of power in our government? Would any of the signers of the Declaration or of the Constitution wanted to have this man in their company?
I too thought during his confirmation that Roberts would be a solid pick but he has proved me wrong.
Whitehall, I’ll ask you the same question I asked Cali, above.
As a matter of judicial review, in what way was he in error, other than you don’t like the result?
I’ve read the opinion, and although I don’t like the results, I can’t argue with the analysis, the precedents cited, nor legal principals applied.
Robert’s ruling is, of course, a contortion of thinking on several counts. The main and most outrageous is because he justified a tax on citizens inaction. The government penalty tax on failure to purchase a private good or service is a form of compulsion and extortion to engage in commerce. Any private firm which insists on your purchase as required unless you decline to purchase is liable and unethical. Even the much maligned American Marketing Association, of all groups, has a higher standard of ethics than our own Chief Justice. Whether public or private, government or business, it is unethical and illegal. Now Roberts claims there is an exception if you are the President and all his men and women, and the Supreme Court. Then you can do as you please. Such government coercion was a cause for revolt for our founding fathers, and is a cause for revulsion and rejection today. While Roberts was correct that we can remove politicians from office as redress, he is ungrounded to legitimize coercion and forced purchases making legal what are wrongful acts. To pretend there is justification because government run health care is some higher purpose is sophistry, and grounds for exclusion from the company of decent people.
I agree with Ryan on this one.
Basically, Robert’s position boils down to this:
The government can NOT mandate the individual engage in a commercial activity as that exceeds Congressional authority under the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution.
However – they can tax you into oblivion as punishment if you refuse to undertake that very commercial activity that they are otherwise Constitutionally barred from mandating that you engage in?!?
Precisely how is this a difference?
I am actually hopeful, provided the elections go against Barack the Betrayer as big as I am hoping they go against him, that this traitorous piece of $hit takes another header off the boat docks come February….only this time from a greater height and with more permanent repercussions……or concussions…..whichever.
Scott said, “The government can NOT mandate the individual engage in a commercial activity as that exceeds Congressional authority under the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution.
However – they can tax you into oblivion as punishment if you refuse to undertake that very commercial activity that they are otherwise Constitutionally barred from mandating that you engage in?!?
Precisely how is this a difference?”
Scott, you have that exactly right, but the difference, according to the precedents Roberts cites, is that for almost 200 years, the Supreme Court has been working under the legal principle that if there are two possible interpretations to a statute, one which renders the statute unconstitutional while the other passes constitutional muster, the Court has an obligation to follow the interpretation the preserves the constitutionality of the statute.
Now I was surprised and dismayed by the result, but as a conservative, I don’t want the court to stop following presedent and start ignoring legal principles just so I can get the result I would prefer.
Then it is time for another reveolution because we are no longer free citizens. 200 years of “interpreting” the Constitution has now granted 100% confiscatory powers to the government – essentially making every man, woman and child in America a slave to the state from the moment they are born.
Hyperventilation is not a valid argument either. Far short of revolution, the path is clear, as I have mentioned. Plan A. Elect Romney, elect majorities in the House and Senate, and repeal the damn thing. This is a political problem that can be addressed by simple political means.
It certainly appears that this is the way Roberts has interpreted it. He apparently doesn’t think it’s the court’s responsibility to settle situations such as this; he may be right.
I’m not hyperventilating – I’m in earnest. You seem to ignore the fact that democrats only win elections by fraud. If the election is close – they win. Period. There are always trunks full of votes to push their guy over the top.
So bbasically, if we can’t overwhelm them we get to be their slaves. I reject this.
Well then, we need to make sure it’s not close then, right.
If you think this is important (and it is), do you think that it is better now to elect Democrats or Republicans? If you answered Republicans, do you think you are the ONLY person who thinks that way?
It doesn’t do any good for people to put their fingers in their ears and say, “I’m not listening!!!” This decision is what it is, which is valid. I don’t think there is any getting around that. So, the solution, as I have said continuously in this thread, is to elect Republicans, FISCAL CONSERVATIVE Republicans, and repeal the damn thing.
Do you have a better (legal) idea?
Actually, the “precedent” in this case does NOT go back 200 years. It only goes back to Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes who was on the court from 1902 to the 1930′s.
Holmes, by the way also being a former Union soldier from the Civil War, and his great contribution to the law being that the court should defer to government on interpreting a law rather than deciding for itself whether it meets constitutional muster or not.
I believe it has been boiled down to, if two interpretations are available, and one is constitutional and the other isn’t, then the court should choose the interpretation that supports the federal government.
Gee, I wonder what influences shaped his judicial views, what great events in his life would have led him to take the position that the federal government was all powerful?
Did I mention he was on the court when it was getting into the Roosevelt progressive era.
Anyway, the precedent from 200 years ago would have been Marbury vs Madison.
Under THAT precedent, the law should have been shut down as it clearly violated multiple constitutional impediments.
So, we have two precedents to choose from.
One would have shut the law down, the other has the court rolling over to the tune of Congress and abdicating its responsibility to be watchdog over the limits the constitution imposes on the federal government.
Take a wild guess as to which way that ol Benedict Arnold known as John Roberts went?
Like a lot of people on both sides, I was confused and even upset by the ruling, I guess I expected someone else to do what we wanted done. Namely to strike down this Health Care Act. In a way Roberts has given US the opportunity to do it ourselves come November. Vote this man and his crony thugs out of office and demand that our representatives do what they’ve been bleating about which is overturn this legislation. We will have the House AND the White House and the Senate can act by way of reconciliation of the bill which requires only a majority of one, not ten.
The American people have to lead their government. For far too long we sat back and groused about Washington. If we do not act, well, then we will have deserved anything and everything coming down the pike. Isn’t it curious that the left CAN get their bills passed in both Houses. It seems that their side stays bought or threatened/intimidated. The Republicans feel no onus nor threat of retribution if the collaborate with the other side in the spirit of “bipartisanship”. Hell, the brag about it. Listen to how many times McCain extolled the virtues of dealing with the other side. I’m sick to death of these hypocrites who talk of “my dear friend from across the aisle”. How about the dear friends that put you in office and kept you there? Doesn’t he feel he owes us something other than platitudes?
Since fraud is now institutionally part of the democrat process (they apparantly can’t win without it) I’m not entirely sure we can overcome their theft of elections. Al Frankin is a prime example of someone who should never have seen the inside of congressional proceedings as anything other than a spectator. Look how hard they are working to keep the dead and illegals on voting roles – going so far as to sue states that are trying to purge them.
there is no doubt in my mind that our cool crackin’ kenyan intercepted john’s legal opinion. wonder if it was just a threat or there were other consideration$ involved? either way, he has cemented his place in the history books, right along w/ benedict arnold.
every pix i see of him he is grinning like a coon eating briars. now i know why they wear those long robes:
1. covers the stains he is probably making on his pants.
2. you can’t see the cowardly traitor’s knees shaking.
3. hides the yellow streak down his back
too bad it doesn’t hide the corrupt lawyer smell.
the corrupt kenyan’s people have him running scared. for me, this whole fiasco proves one thing beyond any shadow of a doubt. these commie marxists will do anything and leave no stone unturned to get their way, and cheating in nov. will just be s.o.p.
the fix is in, be ready.
You are right. Now we can wait seven decades to kick them out (like the Russians did) or we can –by any means necessary– expel them now by a massive campaign of absolute civil disobedience until they are out of the country. Then we can commit ourselves to the sacred duty of erasing the Marxist abomination from the face of God’s earth.
Roberts is a fraud and will never be trusted again by the American people. Given a life time appointment, he has the ultimate personal protection from losing his job or otherwise facing the kind of retaliation that most of us have to deal with day to day. Yet there he is intimidated by the first black post racial dictator president. What kinds of threats did Obama make? No more invitations to the white house? Roberts swore to uphold the constitution (so did Obama so how much does this mean) and he had a chance to do the right thing by the American people. Doing the right thing used to be something that right thinking people knew about. Now when we have been reduced to a sniveling bunch of welfare addicts whining and complaining about our benefits, our foodstamps, our mortgages, college tuitions, lack of job opportunity etc. Rather than encouraging people to be virtuouus we are now just a collection of victims and voters, cheering for our gladiator to win and have ceaser throw us a loaf of bread to boot. Obama and Roberts and their view of America must be rejected or this great country will not survive. We are already at the brink but these libtards are doubling down on everyone of their bad bets whether it is government run health care, wind mills, global warming, the welfare state, resettiing the marxists button with our enemies and betraying all our friends, the list goes on and on. We have become unrecognizable from our forefathers and we have now unfortunately the government we deserve. God help this country because you can’t expect much help from the mindless drones that occupy half of America at the moment. Is it too late for us? Will we have the courage to fight or just give in?
“But if you call it a tax, you can tax anybody to do anything you want from government, apparently. That to me is a disturbing ruling. That to me is rewriting this law.”
And it disturbs me, too. Think about it. The government now can even tax you for NOT doing something, like buying insurance. What’s next? Will they tax you for NOT buying a Chevy Volt or for NOT turning down your air conditioner during the summer months? Or how about taxing you for driving too much or, under Obamacare, eating and drinking too much? It seems that all common sense has fled Washington these days. Time to start taking government back in November by electing every conservative we can find, especially to Congress. And with Congress loaded with conservatives, even Romney will have to follow what a conservative majority in Congress wants. It really is our only hope for escaping the rank socialism that is infecting this government.
Years ago I had a matter before the court, and I asked a lawyer I knew at the bar, the bar that serves alcohol, how can I win this case? The lawyer, for the price of a beer, told me, “Call the judge and threaten to murder his family”. I said, “You’re joking.” The lawyer replied “You’d be surprised how well that works”.
Whether that scenario played in the case of Judge Roberts and Obamacare may never be known, but two things seems apparent: Someone got to Roberts, and Obama and his gang are thugs.
“Someone got to Roberts, and Obama and his gang are thugs.”
Bingo!
The Democrats and the Obama administration, have been very successful in labeling anyone who disagrees with their agenda as racist. Instead of doing his duty, and upholding the Constitution, Roberts caved to the pressure. He did not want to be the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, to shoot down the signature legislation of the first black President. So now instead of being Commerce Claused into governmental oppression, we can be Tax Claused into governmental oppression. I fail to see this decision, as anything but a dark day for freedom and America.
I see a pattern among posters in this thread that appear to illustrate a lack of faith (not that I blame anyone, as there is enough stupidity out there to shake most anyone’s confidence in people) that people have been agitated enough to get up off the couch & have their voices heard.
As Patrick of Atlantis alludes to above, this is an angle that everyone should consider carefully. No one can put such a thing past the Obama administration.
I agree too with the point that has been made by some that this legislation is significant to the point that the court’s reputation was at stake. I agree with Roberts’ view that it is up to the legislators, not the court, to determine issues such as this one. He was right about how this mandate is unconstitutional AFA the commerce clause is concerned. But tell me just where is it in the Constitution that it cannot be a tax? I don’t recall seeing anywhere in it that it’s declared that Congress cannot tax on the basis of refusing to do something. If I am wrong, please point me to exactly where.
The American people have yet to show a pattern of tolerating too much taxation (albeit they tolerate a lot more than I’d like to see). I just don’t imagine Congress being allowed to get away with truly Draconian levels of taxation.
I remain cautiously optimistic that Obama & the Democrats in the Senate are going to get a real drubbing this upcoming November. I will certainly be doing my part…….
If it was meant to be a tax, the law should have been written that way and sold to the public that way. The judiciary does not have the power to rewrite legislation after the fact, to make it more acceptable for constitutional affirmation. Justices Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, and Scalia wrote in their dissent that “we cannot rewrite the statute to be what it is not.”
Read more of my article: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/06/still_a_bfd_obama_loses.html#ixzz1zU04dpXE
It was, for all practical purposes, a tax. The IRS was slated to collect it, was it not? Would people have actually been put into jail for not paying this “penalty” in the case of refusing to purchase a health care insurance plan?
Roberts addresses that question in his opinion.
“While the individual mandate clearly aims to induce the purchase of health insurance, it need not be read to declare that failing to do so is unlawful. Neither the Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS. The Government agrees with that reading, confirming that if someone chooses to pay rather than obtain health insurance, they have fully complied with the law.”
I interpret that to mean that indeed, the “penalty” paid to the IRS for the case of refusing to buy health care insurance is indeed a “tax.” If there is no criminality attached, it can hardly be called a penalty.
I think Roberts, with his decision, was concerned about preserving the integrity of the court (by not trespassing what is allegedly legislative ground), albeit I still am not convinced that some serious threats to himself or his family did not go down just for good measure.
Well, it certainly serves to support the argument that it is “fairly possible” to interpret that the payment is authorized under the Congressional power to tax, and according to valid precident, “fairly possible” is the standard of judicial review that applies to this question.
And what if you don’t have the money to pay the “fine/tax?” Will we be opening Debtors Prisons next to throw people away who are too poor and too proud to accept welfare/obamacare?
If you don’t pay the tax, you are prosecuted for tax evasion, just like if you don’t pay other taxes owed.
If we as voters don’t like that, we need to vote to repeal. Plan A.
Oh I want THAT to go to the SP! Someone thrown in jail for not paying for something they DIDN’T want to participate in! Going to jail for doing NOTHING!!!!
OH YEAH BABY!!!! What a COUNTRY we have!!!!!
Lolly said, “Someone thrown in jail for not paying for something they DIDN’T want to participate in! Going to jail for doing NOTHING!!!!”
So, explain to me exactly how this is far different than if you don’t pay your Federal Income Tax.
Remember that one? The tax that is imposed for no better reason than you have money that the government wants, so every year they come and take some from you. Because you are there? I don’t want to participate in that one either.
I don’t see a great deal of difference between the two. And now, by Supreme Court decision, that STILL no one can explain why it’s invalid other than they REALLY don’t like it, there is no real difference. And truly, there isn’t when you think about it.
So – you are saying that if I don’t want to purchase a product and I’m not working and I get fined it’s OK to send me to jail. Even though I don’t have income (which negates your premise on my paying income tax – if I don’t have income I’d actually be exempt from paying an income tax) I would absolutely have to go to jail because I was refusing to purchase a product I can’t afford in the first place and I’m too proud to take welfare.
Yeah – I still want that one justified by the SC.
“So – you are saying that if I don’t want to purchase a product and I’m not working and I get fined it’s OK to send me to jail. Even though I don’t have income…”
If you have no income, from the exemptions listed in the excerpt of the law itself I quoted below, you would owe no tax. But if you read that, you know that by now, don’t you?
Mr Gensert, according to the precedents and legal principle cited in the Roberts opinion, not only is the Supreme Court permitted to interpret legislation after the fact in this fashion, the court is compelled to do so. As I have asked above, if you think Roberts is in error in his application of precedent and long established legal principal, please demonstrate HOW he is in error.
As I’ve said before, I don’t like the results, but I have not yet found a valid objection methodology used. At this point, we need to elect Romney, and elect majorities in the House and the Senate, and repeal the damn thing. That is Plan A. That has ALWAYS been plan A.
I asked in a thread on another article here just where is it said in the Constitution that Congress cannot impose a tax based on inactivity. So, I am with you on the notion that there has yet to be a compelling argument that proves Roberts’ decision was wrong, incompetent, etc.
Justice John Roberts has just added another title: Disgraced Justice John Roberts. He should resign after 11/6/12.
I think Obama has stumbled upon something. Never mind that millions of people CHOOSE to not have health insurance (myself included, and millions do not NEED health insurance. The govt. now has the mandate to impose anything they want upon us.
Idea: We can wipe out homelessness too. Just make everyone purchase a home, and if they do not, tax them.
We can attain full employment as well. Make everyone get a job, or tax them.
Heck, let’s get rid of the poor too. Become wealthy or face a tax!
Errr, I mean penalty issued by the IRS (no, that’s not a tax)
While it is possible, I don’t think it is probably. Charles Krauthammer mentioned that if the payment for not getting health insurance had been sold as a tax when the law was being debated, it would never have passed. Going forward, since people do not like taxes, it will be hard for Congress to pass legislation with mechanisms like this, because now people know what to look for.
The Roberts decision caught everyone off guard. No one expected it. Now that we know what to expect, measures can be taken to avoid this in the future.
With respect to Obamacare, we need to work on Plan A. Repeal it.
Roberts (spit be upon him) evidently went to Justice Kennedy TWICE to get him to change his vote and TWICE Kennedy said NO!!! That should tell you something right there.
That tells us something everyone already knows. The Justices confer with each other, and try to convince each other on cases before the court. What is so sinister about that?
Kennedy is the famed swing vote. It is he that is so easily swayed by the K St cocktail parties. It is he that swung on Kelo – that STOLE peoperty rights from individuals – something so sacred it was put in both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
If HE was unwilling to side with something so blatantly UnConstitutional then THAT is saying to all with two brain cells to rub together that this was an open and shut case of judicial overreach. Granting to congress the right to confiscate 100% of a human beings work. The sweat of their brow. The fruits of their labor. In other words – slaves. You thinking we can work within the framwork is delusional. This is NEVER going away and will only be expanded in the future.
If HE was unwilling to side with Roberts then I think THAT is saying only that HE and Roberts disagree. Just like we disagree. No need to read more into it that that, I think, particularly since I don’t think the dissent does a particularly good job of demonstrating that Roberts majority opinion is in any way in error.
That should give us something to talk about for quite a while, but that will have to wait until tomorrow. Until then, Cheers!
Cheer? Ugh! You’re not even a yank! No wonder you’re so obtuse!
Just because I said Cheers? See what you get from leaping to unfounded conclusions (story of your life, I suspect)?
Of course I’m a yank. From Utah, no less, though not LDS (that is the obligatory next question, you know).
I have never seen so many “knee-jerk” morons as these remarks. Roberts pulled an end run on the liberal members of the court and gave us a battle cry for November. His majority opinion was exactly what we needed to get rid of this idiotic bill. It appears that none of you have read his opinion. And, those of you who have read it obviously do not understand the implications of it. You will all have egg on your face as Robert’s ruling gets analyzed and praised by Constitutional scholars and by analysts like Dick Morris and Judge Nepalitano. Roberts is the Man. Just pay attention to all the talking heads commenting on Obama’s video comments saying, “This is not a tax”. Since it is a tax, he looks more stupid than ever and we have a hammer to smack him upside his head as we move to November and get rid of him.
G-Man, I fear you underestimate the stupidity, ignorance and dependency of the American electorate. Sad to say.
Praised by Constitutional scholars? Are you kidding me? I’ve heard nothing by SCATHING reviews of his decision by people who really ARE Constitutional Scholars!
You call us stupid – You PRAISE Roberts when you KNOW the only reason he made his decision was to set precedent for 100% confiscatory taxation.
I don’t see how you can sit there and praise the enslavement of an entire people.
Reality Check: If Healthcare Law Is A Tax Is It Now Invalid?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyLU9-VqVxY&feature=plcp
There are a lot of inaccuracies in that video, but his main argument, that by ruling that the tax for not having health care renders it unconstitutional because it originated in the Senate rather than the House falls flat. If the House had objected on those grounds, it could have, but the house voted on the legislation and approved it, so any objection that might have been raised died when the House voted to approve the legislation. However, at that time, the understanding was that it was a penalty not a tax, so there was not reason for the House to raise an objection.
I suppose that it is possible now for Congress to seek to invalidate the tax imposed for not buying health insurance. All they need to do is to vote to repeal the legislation, but since Romney and Republicans in both the House and the Senate have vowed to do that anyway for the whole law, not just the tax, that renders this trivial point a bit moot. A court challenge could still be mounted, but it would be a lot easier and faster to just elect Republicans, and repeal the damn thing.
Uh – No! The House did NOT vote on this Bill. The Senate sidestepped the House altogether and DEEMED it passed. In other words they cheated. Totally illegal proceedure that they were called on – but you can’t shame these people.
Bet you don’t give a hoot about HOW it was passed do you? It was illegal from beginning to end including the LAW that they were supposed to READ what they voted on. Their OWN rule!
Ah, you do have me on that one. All the more reason to press for repeal, no? And unless you want to spend another 3+ years for the case to wind through the courts, electing Republicans who will repeal the damn thing is the quickest solution, is it not?
“Judge” Roberts is a LIAR: Odamnacare is clearly a case of FORCED SALES, not a tax (since it’s mandate is that you have to buy private insurance or else go to jail, then, since the money does NOT go to the government, NO, it’s NOT A TAX)!
Not true, Uncle. If you don’t buy insurance, there is no criminal penalty. You are just assessed an additional tax based on income. If you don’t pay the tax, THEN you may go to jail, just as with any other case of tax evation. And the money does go to the government. It’s collected by the IRS, and goes to the Treasury, just the same as your income tax.
If you don’t like that, do what conservatives should be doing. Vote so that the damn thing is repealed.
“You are just assessed an additional tax based on income.”
This is not true. You are FINED a fixed amount. If you don’t have income and can’t pay you are jailed. Period.
It is based on income in that if your income is below a minimum amount, you are exempt.
Quoting from the ACA legislation:
e) Exemptions- No penalty shall be imposed under subsection (a) with respect to–
`(1) INDIVIDUALS WHO CANNOT AFFORD COVERAGE-
`(A) IN GENERAL- Any applicable individual for any month if the applicable individual’s required contribution (determined on an annual basis) for coverage for the month exceeds 8 percent of such individual’s household income for the taxable year described in section 1412(b)(1)(B) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. For purposes of applying this subparagraph, the taxpayer’s household income shall be increased by any exclusion from gross income for any portion of the required contribution made through a salary reduction arrangement.
`(B) REQUIRED CONTRIBUTION- For purposes of this paragraph, the term `required contribution’ means–
`(i) in the case of an individual eligible to purchase minimum essential coverage consisting of coverage through an eligible-employer-sponsored plan, the portion of the annual premium which would be paid by the individual (without regard to whether paid through salary reduction or otherwise) for self-only coverage, or
`(ii) in the case of an individual eligible only to purchase minimum essential coverage described in subsection (f)(1)(C), the annual premium for the lowest cost bronze plan available in the individual market through the Exchange in the State in the rating area in which the individual resides (without regard to whether the individual purchased a qualified health plan through the Exchange), reduced by the amount of the credit allowable under section 36B for the taxable year (determined as if the individual was covered by a qualified health plan offered through the Exchange for the entire taxable year).
`(C) SPECIAL RULES FOR INDIVIDUALS RELATED TO EMPLOYEES- For purposes of subparagraph (B)(i), if an applicable individual is eligible for minimum essential coverage through an employer by reason of a relationship to an employee, the determination shall be made by reference to the affordability of the coverage to the employee.
`(D) INDEXING- In the case of plan years beginning in any calendar year after 2014, subparagraph (A) shall be applied by substituting for `8 percent’ the percentage the Secretary of Health and Human Services determines reflects the excess of the rate of premium growth between the preceding calendar year and 2013 over the rate of income growth for such period.
`(2) TAXPAYERS WITH INCOME UNDER 100 PERCENT OF POVERTY LINE- Any applicable individual for any month during a calendar year if the individual’s household income for the taxable year described in section 1412(b)(1)(B) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is less than 100 percent of the poverty line for the size of the family involved (determined in the same manner as under subsection (b)(4)).
Exempt means exempt. As in you pay nothing. Period. And that exemption is income based. The amount is fixed, but the necessity to pay is still based on income. Sorry if I was insufficiently clear on that point.
Naw – Not happening. As with all taxes the exemptions will be terminated and the tax will be graduated as health costs necessarily go up.
Well be sure to get back with us once that happens. Until then, you are wrong.
Roberts was also clearly outed as a closet leftist during the vetting process for his current job, when it was discovered that he had declared, in writing, that: “There are no real human individual citizens rights, beyond those that get assigned to us by the state, Whee!”
Got a citation you can link for that quote?
Please don’t call him a leftist. The Left/Right Dichotomy has been exposed as false. This is a fight against fascists hiding behind the veils of conservatism and socialism. They are representatives of neither. They are the intellectual heirs of Hitler and Mussolini.
Incorrect – Socialism/communism/fascism are all varying shades of the same coin – Leftist/statist ideology.
Conservatism – or rightwing ideology is a belief in small govenment. In individual rights. If you want FAR-RIGHT ideology then taken to it’t obscene extreme would be anarchy – i.e. NO government. Every man truly on his own and for himself. So sense of communtity and no recognition of authority.
For some reason leftist loons seem to hang out in anarchyville, but they are clueless. Or don’t know that THEY are the true rightwing extremist loons.
Bless your little heart, Lolly!
But the political spectrum is not circular. It is a straight line phenomenon.
Zero government on the Right and total Government on the left.
The sane acknowledge that some Government is essential to peaceful productivity. The question is, “How Much?”
“As little as possible” is the Conservative response.
“As much as we can engineer” is the Liberal response.
Thus the clash and confrontations.
And when Right and Wrong are the criteria; not Good or Better, compromise is not possible. Just so you know.
I know White Tiger, but because of a lie 70 years ago (When Uncle Joe and Brother Hitler got together to tell the world that left and right had united) everbody assumes that fascism is rightwing not understanding that it’s was national socialism, i.e. leftwing=statist. I just try to correct the fallacy.
Two words tell it all: Bought and Scared. Or, if one wills, Bribed and Extorted. This is plainly a case of the CFR making Roberts an offer he could not refuse. Faced with a Kennedy who would not cooperate, the CFR squeezed the Sissy Supreme to provide them with a defecatory dissent from the Constitution.
We have long known that the majority of the Court is perverted, eg, Roe vs. Wade. We see that the majority of Congress and the majority of the Electorate are amoral and irresponsible. We see that the incumbent Administration is sociopathic.
So, what can, should, and will we do about it? Allow the continuing erosion of our constitutional liberties until we are de facto slaves of the sociopaths? Try for political control? Secede, state by state, and endure civil war? Emigrate? Refuse, via civil disobedience, to obey unconstitutional laws? What happened to Jim Crow when only a few would honor it? What happened to Prohibition when many ignored it? And what happened to Common Decency when the Mass Media slandered and libelled it? There is no right way to do wrong!
We have sworn our allegiance to support and defend the Constitution of the United States agains all enemies, both domestic and foreign. Shall we not do so?
So, impeach him already!
He can be removed for “bad behavior”.
If screwing up the entire country through outright fraud and deceit isn’t bad behavior, what is?
Don’t laugh. If we’re stuck with this crap, many, many people will die because of it. I guarantee it.
We’re only stuck with these outrageous jerks for life because Congress never does its job. They’re too busy stealing from us.
Exactly what bad behavior? Making a ruling of which you disapprove? You can’t be serious…