Obamacare ruling offers good possibilities, but no substitute for a win
Generals are often accused of “fighting the last war.” After Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling upholding Obamacare, conservatives are asked to pin our hopes on the notion Chief Justice John Roberts was fighting the next war.
This is a tempting proposition. There is the fact Roberts, in the main opinion of the court, and the four dissenting justices endorsed a limit to the power Congress wields under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. As this was the key judicial theory advanced by the law’s opponents, one that sought to halt a decades-long expansion of the meaning of “regulating” interstate commerce, that is no minor feat. It could even provide the starting point one day for further rollbacks of bad Commerce Clause precedent, starting with the awful 1942 Wickard decision that found a farmer affected interstate commerce by growing his own wheat.
There is also the fact the court’s majority decided the “penalty” for non-compliance with Obamacare’s individual mandate to purchase health insurance is really a “tax.” While this contradicts Congress’ actions and the president’s words during the 2009-10 health-care debate, it has the benefit of making it easier to repeal the law. As a budgetary matter, this “tax” — and Obamacare’s other taxes and spending — should be subject to the Senate’s reconciliation process, to which the filibuster does not apply. So, there’s no requirement for 60 votes in the Senate to remove the heart and guts of the law, just a simple majority.
And there is the fact that Roberts’ surprising vote on Obamacare averted the torrent of purely partisan criticism Democrats and liberals were set to unleash had a majority of the court struck down the law, accusing Roberts and his colleagues of — wait for it — partisanship. His court’s integrity intact, perhaps Roberts will be freer in lower-profile future cases to strike blows for the causes of federalism and limited government.
All these thoughts are pleasing to the conservative mind.
But if Roberts’ ruling can cite Benjamin Franklin’s aphorism about the certainty of death and taxes, allow me to caution against too rosy a view of his ruling with another saying: A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Maybe the Roberts court will reinforce federalist principles in future cases. Then again, maybe the facts and circumstances of these future cases won’t cooperate. Or maybe the cases won’t emerge before the Commerce Clause-limiting wing of the court changes for the worse: Antonin Scalia is 76, Anthony Kennedy turns 76 this month, and there are at least even odds Barack Obama will be making court appointments past their 80th birthdays.
Speaking of elections: Maybe Mitt Romney will win and have at least 50 GOP senators (plus his vice president) to pass a budgetary bill by reconciliation. Maybe not. The presidential election and key Senate races look close, and four months is an eternity in politics.
And maybe, just maybe, the same Democrats and liberals who thought partisanship was the only reason the court could strike down Obamacare will look back, when a future case is decided in favor of federalism and limited government, and say, “This stinks, but hey — Roberts was with us on health care back in 2012. So it’s cool.” Or maybe their reactions will be just as vicious and plainly partisan as their blowback to an anti-Obamacare decision promised to be.
Possible future good is a consolation for Thursday’s loss, but it’s no substitute for a win.
(Note from Kyle: This is my column for the Sunday AJC. As anyone who read my posts Thursday can tell, I have been going back and forth about the impact of the Obamacare ruling. Consider this column a refinement of my opinion: There are some good things that could come out of the ruling, but they are by no means guaranteed.)
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
677 comments Add your comment
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 30th, 2012
10:34 am
“Maybe you can come up with more spin and rhetoric on how Robert’s gave the Republicans / conservatives a victory with his vote on Obamacare.”
Still missing things, I see.
I have already admitted the victory for Obamacare as a law, but unlike you, I can think of the more subtle nuances behind the decision and the dissent.
Still active at Bookman's because I am an adult and act like one
June 30th, 2012
10:36 am
“I can think of the more subtle nuances behind the decision and the dissent.”
blah, blah blah and just because you think it does it make it true
Most thought including you the law was going to be struck down…… case in point
Next
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 30th, 2012
10:37 am
“quit lying.”
Please articulate in great specificity what I have lied about, AmWet.
If not, STFU.
Still active at Bookman's because I am an adult and act like one
June 30th, 2012
10:38 am
But keep trying Tiberius
Just hold the emotion down so you don’t throw a tantrum like a 3 yr old and start calling names as you did over at Bookman’s
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
June 30th, 2012
10:39 am
I thought you were taking your own suggestion, Upchuck . . . .
Don’t think, meat; it can only hurt the ball club.
BTW, did you really hose the H______ family out of nearly a quarter million dollars?
Still active at Bookman's because I am an adult and act like one
June 30th, 2012
10:39 am
“If not, STFU.” (from guess who)
Dusty do you need proof as to my reply to your post?
InAtl
June 30th, 2012
10:40 am
JDW, it is you who has trouble with facts. Tiberius nails you every time, and you try to pretend he doesn’t.
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 30th, 2012
10:40 am
“Most thought including you the law was going to be struck down’
And as I have shown through my posts, I believed the law would be struck down due to the Commerce Clause being an invalid means to penalizing people for inactivity. And I was, once again, right that the Commerce Clause was an invalid criteria.
No one except Chief Justice Roberts believed that the taxation powers of Congress would have supplied the majority with a vote they never expected, even if they firmly disagreed with his conclusion as well.
carlosgvv
June 30th, 2012
10:40 am
Tiberius – 10:31
Look it up, punkie.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com
Oblama
June 30th, 2012
10:40 am
ObamaTax …. socialism is a cancer on the soul.
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 30th, 2012
10:41 am
“BTW, did you really hose the H______ family out of nearly a quarter million dollars?”
No, it is false. Do you REALLY want to go down that road?
Still active at Bookman's because I am an adult and act like one
June 30th, 2012
10:42 am
spinning like a top
keep up the great work….. don’t get too dizzy
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 30th, 2012
10:43 am
Carlos, if you are going to insist on using decidedly biased and liberal sources for your “proof” then we’re simply not going to have an intellectual discussion about any issue.
AmVet
June 30th, 2012
10:44 am
Subtle nuances?
Riiiiight.
STFU? Tsk, tsk, tsk, free speech hater. Besides, make me, would be bully. Chuckle.
You faux cons are in full scale retreat now and your All White Circus in Tampa is going to be hysterical to watch.
How many meltdowns will happen there and who will be the next vein-popping, ultra-enraged Zell Miller?
Questions for the faithful:
Will the GOP’s
War on WomenFull Scale Legislative Assault on Women’s Rights be showcased or run from?Will the staggering lack of minorities, ethnicities and religions there and in the GOP itself be touched with 3.084 meter pole?
Will Sarah Palin be consulted as to your next VP candidate?
Good times on the funny farm…
td
June 30th, 2012
10:44 am
JDW
June 30th, 2012
9:34 am
You are dreaming my friend. If your statement was true then the Dems would still be in control of the US house of reps.
Also, how do you explain $4.5 million dollars in small donations from middle class voters to Romney within 24 hours of the ruling?
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
June 30th, 2012
10:45 am
Do you REALLY want to go down that road?
(Shrug) Meh…don’t really care, I was merely asking.
You sure don’t want any part of that road.
At least 3 videos on youtube have really taken you to task for it, though.
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 30th, 2012
10:45 am
A certain leg-humper has now typed nearly 10 post directed at me, and not a single one to the issue at hand.
Is there any wonder that liberals can’t argue the substance of any issue?
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 30th, 2012
10:47 am
“don’t really care, I was merely asking.”
Yeah, right.
Videos from crazy people who have had injunctions against them for stalking. Nice to know you have some great sources for your insinuations.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
June 30th, 2012
10:47 am
Cue the “Yerkes Primate Center” card in 3…2…1….
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 30th, 2012
10:48 am
I accept your surrender on the accusing me of lying question, AmWet.
Thanks for playing.
Still active at Bookman's because I am an adult and act like one
June 30th, 2012
10:51 am
Hope anyone isn’t getting caught up in any money laundering, ponzi or pyramid investment schemes?
For that matter would even be associated with people who do
Stay honest my friends
AmVet
June 30th, 2012
10:51 am
Davey, how does you own putrid medicine taste to you? Yummy?
You dish it out by the shovel fulls every single day but have a helluva time taking it back.
Funny.
And do not tell me that you expect for it to be paid for by the insurance companies! Pay for your own damn birth control, you parasite.
You faketriots are nothing more than sluts, prostitutes and FemiNazis.
And I want the videos.
And write your congressman, and tell him that global warming is a hoax, OK?
Toodles. The weekend calls…
DannyX
June 30th, 2012
10:56 am
GIBSON: ”Governor … you imposed tax penalties in Massachusetts?”
ROMNEY: ”Yes, we said, look, if people can afford to buy it, either buy the insurance or pay your own way; don’t be free-riders.”
LMAO!!!
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 30th, 2012
10:56 am
“Pay for your own damn birth control, you parasite.”
I already did, AmWet. It is called a vasectomy. And I paid for it, too (Oh, God, did I pay for it . . .). Too bad your Daddy didn’t have one before you were downloaded.
“And write your congressman, and tell him that global warming is a hoax, OK?”
Done. Years ago and every year since.
And I have no trouble taking your crap and sending it right back at you knowing you can’t back up your posts one tiny bit.
md
June 30th, 2012
10:58 am
“Debt solutions will take time down the road.”
Wonder if that is how we ended up with 16 T in debt…….the can is still there but the road is getting longer.
Still active at Bookman's because I am an adult and act like one
June 30th, 2012
10:59 am
Some claim to have never utilized a tax dollar they didn’t earn, but as for other folk’s money……. well that is up for interpretation………..
Tib: Isn’t that a shame when people do that?
Should be illegal, but you know how some are able to out smart the law via legalities and such
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 30th, 2012
11:00 am
JDW has sure been quiet since my smackdown of him.
It must be taking longer to get a reply from the DNC due to the pre-holiday weekend.
md
June 30th, 2012
11:01 am
Hmmm…..is the stagnation of real wages directly related to our own buying habits and trade imbalance?
Why yes they are……but denial is strong on these here blogs………….
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
June 30th, 2012
11:01 am
…….the can is still there but the road is getting longer.
Petty one liner.
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 30th, 2012
11:01 am
“Some claim to have never utilized a tax dollar they didn’t earn, but as for other folk’s money……. well that is up for interpretation………..
Tib: Isn’t that a shame when people do that? ”
Wouldn’t know.
Your point . . . leg-humper?
md
June 30th, 2012
11:03 am
“Should be illegal, but you know how some are able to out smart the law via legalities and such”
Outsmart the law?? Don’t know if that is really possible……it’s either within the law or it’s not………
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 30th, 2012
11:04 am
md, ignore my leg-humper.
She thinks she knows something about me she really has no clue about.
Still active at Bookman's because I am an adult and act like one
June 30th, 2012
11:04 am
Tib
Just asking a question in general seeing your the expert around here
No need to huff and puff and get all red faced
md
June 30th, 2012
11:05 am
“Outsmart the law??”
I take that back……since our own President has shown that if one doesn’t like the law then it should just be ignored………….
Still active at Bookman's because I am an adult and act like one
June 30th, 2012
11:09 am
Where did the money go?
What happened to it?
md
June 30th, 2012
11:12 am
And now for the irony of an Obama administration:
Every citizen must prove they have insurance, but we don’t all have to prove we are citizens…….
JDW
June 30th, 2012
11:12 am
Tiberius…”Tiberius nails you every time, and you try to pretend he doesn’t.”
The only thing Tiberius nails is well a nail. Assuming he gets his thumb out of the way.
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 30th, 2012
11:13 am
Are you addressing me, leg-humper?
And what money?
Again, do you REALLY want to go down this road? Because I can assure you, if you are relying on some videos on youtube for your information, I’d do a whole lot more research on the accuracy of the allegations and background of the poster before you go down that particular road.
Remember, I am no longer a public official, and the immunity you might have had from libel laws no longer applies to you.
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 30th, 2012
11:14 am
Welcome back, JDW. Did you get you next set of lying talking points from the DNC?
Or are you going to go this alone?
MarkV
June 30th, 2012
11:15 am
The way the Obamacare opponents argue about the “individual mandate” is particularly corrupt. When the issue first comes up, their arguments are all about liberty and freedom of choice. But when it is pointed up that Romney signed into law an individual mandate, and he and others praised that approach, suddenly the liberty and freedom of choice go in the air and it is all about other issues: not consistent with commerce clause, denial of state rights. In other words, if all 50 states adopted the Romney plan for MA, that would be perfectly all right, even if the result would be the same as with a federal mandate, no problem with liberty and freedom of choice then. As if the need for health insurance were different from state to state. And we even hear such idiocy as from Marco Rubio justifying the Romneycare by saying that if some people do not like it in MA, they can just move to another state.
Still active at Bookman's because I am an adult and act like one
June 30th, 2012
11:15 am
Tiberius
I asked you one general question. Any inference you are making are totally on your part. So do what you must. Not sure what you are talking about.
Still active at Bookman's because I am an adult and act like one
June 30th, 2012
11:17 am
So whatever road you think you need to go down, be my guest if you think your inferences to a general question will get you somewhere.
Paranoia will destroy you
JDW
June 30th, 2012
11:19 am
@Tiberuis…”JDW has sure been quiet since my smackdown of him.”
Only thing you are smacking is…well this is a family newspaper after all
I have had enough fun with you for a while. It is always a pleasure to see just how well I do have it compared to some others.
md
June 30th, 2012
11:19 am
“Petty one liner.”
There is a difference between a one liner directed at our politicians vs a petty one liner directed at others……one would be wise to learn the difference.
Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer's ineptocracy
June 30th, 2012
11:20 am
What is it with you liberals, angry, hostile, and a little deranged even in victory. I was always taught to be a gracious winner and a good loser, guess we had different instructors.
Like a bunch of fire ants scurrying from the mound, biting and stinging anything in your path. Well, Romney is bringing the Amdro and the big boots, so enjoy your temporary feeding frenzy.
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 30th, 2012
11:20 am
“I asked you one general question.”
You asked two. One where you inferred that there was shenanigans with money.
Don’t give me that innocent crap. I will NOT put up with it.
AmVet
June 30th, 2012
11:21 am
And the best part of Dave ran down his momma’s leg! (Hat tip R. Lee Ermey)
Were you deprived of oxygen as a baby, Davey?
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 30th, 2012
11:22 am
“But when it is pointed up that Romney signed into law an individual mandate, and he and others praised that approach, suddenly the liberty and freedom of choice go in the air and it is all about other issues:”
maryV, do not confuse the terms “praised” and “justified”.
I do not praise his approach, but I can justify it under the Massachusetts Constitution.
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 30th, 2012
11:24 am
I see AmWet is back for another drubbing.
Got any new lies to post, sweetie?
md
June 30th, 2012
11:25 am
“In other words, if all 50 states adopted the Romney plan for MA, that would be perfectly all right, even if the result would be the same as with a federal mandate, no problem with liberty and freedom of choice then.”
And that is correct…….although what are the odds that all 50 states would agree on the same course of action? That is the difference. And it wasn’t a matter of a nation voting in favor when the party in power had to use reconciliation to get it through…..another huge difference.