John Roberts saves Obamacare: How does George W. Bush feel right now?

Story by Walter Shapiro for Yahoo News

In his White House memoir, “Courage and Consequence,” Karl Rove recalls being the lone non-lawyer among the group of George W. Bush aides who initially interviewed John Roberts for the Supreme Court in 2005. Rove asked Roberts to go back in history to name the justice whom he most revered. Roberts’ answer, Robert Jackson, intrigued and reassured Rove. When appointed in 1941, Jackson was serving as Franklin Roosevelt’s attorney general and had been expected to be a pro-New Deal rubber-stamp on the court. But, as Rove put it, Jackson “instead demonstrated a fidelity to the Constitution that Roberts admired.” 

Thursday, in a jaw-dropping turnabout worthy of Justice Jackson, Roberts provided the swing vote in a 5-to-4 decision that upheld the constitutionality of almost all of Obamacare, the president’s signature legislative achievement. While an army of armchair court watchers expected Justice Anthony Kennedy to determine the fate of the Affordable Care Act (a recent Time cover called him “The Decider”), it was Roberts who took his fidelity to the Constitution in an ideologically surprising direction. Kennedy voted with three other conservative justices to overturn the health insurance mandate at the heart of the law.

Constitutional law seminars and unlicensed political psychologists will spend years speculating about Roberts’ motivations in joining the liberal bloc in probably the most important Supreme Court decision since Bush v. Gore in 2000. While we may wait decades to know for certain, it does seem plausible that Roberts may have been partly triggered by a desire to prevent the court from being seen as overtly political. Polls showing public respect for the Supreme Court at a quarter-century lowreflect the growing view that the justices pursue partisan agendas. 

One of the most important passages in Roberts’ majority decision was the chief justice’s assertion: “We do not consider whether the act embodied sound policies. That judgment is entrusted to the Nation’s elected leaders. We ask only whether Congress has the power under the Constitution to enact the challenge provisions.” 

In short, if you want a national referendum on the health-care law, then the proper arena is the 2012 campaign—and not the inner sanctums of the Supreme Court. 

The majority opinion in the health care case points up the inadequacy of the political clichés used in the heat of an election year to describe the Supreme Court. Phrases like “strict constructionist” and “not making law from the bench” do not clarify complex Supreme Court opinions like Thursday’s ruling. Romney’s campaign website declares, “As president, Mitt will nominate judges in the mold of Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito.” There’s only one problem with this formulation: Roberts went in one direction and Scalia, Thomas and Alito went in the opposite on the constitutionality of the health care bill. 

Obama’s own ability at prophecy is limited, as well. In 2005, the former constitutional law professor declared in a Senate address that he was opposing Roberts’ nomination to the Supreme Court because “I ultimately have to give more weight to his deeds and overarching political philosophy … than to the assuring words he provided me in our meeting.” 

While Obama has sharply disagreed with major decisions of the Roberts Court (particularly the anything-goes Citizen United ruling on campaign finance), it is tempting to wonder if the president now feels that he misjudged the man who saved his legislative legacy. 

It is almost part of the job description of a president that he will make, at least, one blunder when picking Supreme Court justices. Harry Truman called one of his nominees, Tom Clark, a “damn fool from Texas.” When George H.W. Bush tapped New Hampshire jurist David Souter in 1990, the president never expected that he would be reinforcing the court’s liberal wing. Now it is Roberts who has refused to stay in his pre-determined ideological cubbyhole. 

With four current justices over the age of 70, it is likely that whoever is elected president this November will get an opportunity to put his stamp on the Supreme Court. But the potential for Lucy-and-the-football surprises endures. About the only ways a president can achieve some measure of certainty about the court are either to nominate fire-breathing ideologues like Antonin Scalia or political cronies like Abe Fortas, who kept open a back channel to Lyndon Johnson during his brief tenure as a justice. But even the Scalia precedent no longer works, because anyone with a sharply articulated judicial philosophy probably could not make it through today’s hyper-partisan Senate.

As for the health care law, its major provisions remain on schedule to take effect in 2014. Even a President Romney may find it difficult to reverse history, as he would have to face down a filibuster threat by Senate Democrats to get a repeal bill through Congress. (There are, however, administrative gambits that Romney could use to eviscerate Obamacare if Congress proves balky.) That’s why the Supreme Court seemed like such a beguiling short cut for conservatives who loathe Obamacare. 

It’s also why back in 2005 Karl Rove may have badly misinterpreted John Roberts’ stated intention to be an independent jurist like Robert Jackson.


Commentary courtesy of the Heritage Foundation Blog: The Supreme Courts announcement earlier this morning completely stunned citizens across the nation, each individual having their specific opinion and reaction.The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Obamacare reflects a tragic misreading of the law, one which could cost us not just economically but also in terms of liberty.  On the bright side, the Court recognized that there are limits to what Congress may do under the Commerce Clause.  But this was the silver-lining of a dark cloud.  The Court then fundamentally misreads ObamaCare, contorting to find another authority—the power to tax—for Congress to enact the law.

The effects of the decision will be felt far beyond ObamaCare.  By allowing government to require Americans to buy a product or service at the federal government’s direction, the Court has seriously damaged the principle of limited government. The decision announced today could open the door to even more dictates from Washington for generations to come.  Indeed, anyone who has any doubts about this need only read the Court’s suggestion that Congress could force Americans to buy energy efficient windows or pay a tax.

Fortunately, Americans have always fought for freedom, and won’t give up now. We must turn to the task at hand and work for full repeal of this law. The Supreme Court has in essence given this decision back to Congress and the people, where political power resides.

The American people have spoken—they don’t support Obamacare and fear its consequences more every day. Just this month a new poll conducted by The New York Times and CBS News showed that more than two thirds of Americans want to see the Supreme Court strike down Obamacare in whole or in part, and only 24 percent would keep the law in place.

Thankfully, the duty to defend the Constitution is not given solely to the Supreme Court—it is one shared by Congress and the President.  It is now Congress’ turn to do what’s right both for the Constitution and policy reasons: repeal Obamacare.

The American people know this year will be a turning point in American history.  We have a big decision between constitutional, limited government on the one hand and Leviathan on the other.

This law fails American families—it raises premiums and taxes, drives up spending and debt, undermines the doctor-patient relationship, tramples on religious liberty and expands the role of government in our daily lives.

It is time for full repeal.

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/28/a-clarion-call-for-the-american-people/

Overview provided by Rush Limbaugh

The economy of this country remains a disaster.  And we, the American people, have just been deceived in ways that nobody contemplated.  And what we now have is the biggest tax increase in the history of the world.  What we have been told by the chief justice of the Supreme Court and four liberals on the court: Obamacare is just a massive tax increase.  That's all it is.  Obama lied to us about that.  The Democrats lied. "It wasn't a tax. There was no way it was a tax."

The chief justice was hell-bent to find a way to make this law applicable, so he just decided, you know what, as a tax increase, it works, because there's no limit on the federal government's ability to tax.  And it's right there in the preamble of the Constitution, right there, Article 1, Section 8, the general welfare clause, it's been established Congress can tax whatever, whoever, whenever, how much they want.  Even when they don't ask for it, the Supreme Court is gonna find a way to make what they want to do legal because John Roberts said it's not our job here to forbid this. It's not our job to protect people from outcomes.  It's not our job to determine whether it is right or wrong or any of that.  We just get to look at it. We can't forbid this. This is what the elected representatives of the people want.

No, the elected representatives of the people were deceived.

So Obamacare is nothing more than the largest tax increase in the history of the world.  And the people who were characterizing it as such were right and were telling the truth.  We have the biggest tax increase in the history of the world right in the middle of one of this country's worst recessions.  In fact, as the vice president said yesterday, a depression for millions of Americans.  The chief justice of the United States Supreme Court, John Roberts, said, "It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices."  Not our job. 

Well, what about when we are deceived?  The court upheld a law that was not what we were told it would be.  What has been upheld here is fraud, and the Internal Revenue Service has just become Barack Obama's domestic army.  That is what we face now.  We were deceived.  Obamacare was a lie.  It was a stealth tax on all Americans, and nobody knew it until today.  Not officially.  Obama told George Stephanopoulos it wasn't a tax.  And Stephanopoulos was trouble-making for trying to suggest otherwise. 

We are being forced to purchase something, whether they want to twist this as coming under the Commerce Clause or the whole thing being a tax. But you just heard: Obama told us it wasn't a tax. Congress told us it wasn't a tax. Pelosi told us it wasn't. And we have to pass Obamacare to find out what was in it. The Supreme Court just told us what's in it. It's a massive regressive tax on all Americans.

I remember Obama saying that couples making less than $250,000 a year would never see a tax increase if he was elected while he served. That's out the window. It was a lie. We were all deceived. You can call it a tax; you can call it a fine. No matter. You can say it's a power of the Commerce Clause or not. No matter. What happened today is all that matters. And what happened today is that we were bludgeoned with a tax that requires us to do as the government mandates. We must do what they say.

Not the government. It's the insurance companies, the health insurance companies. For as long as they last, the health insurance companies are the ones that collect the tax. The IRS is going to enforce it; we have to buy health insurance. This is essentially being forced to pay a tax. It's just been called a tax. Insurance premiums have just been called a tax, folks. Premiums to buy health insurance. We must buy it. The government has the ability to levy that tax. We are going to buy health insurance from insurance companies mandated by the government.

The Supreme Court told us today that this is a tax. So our health insurance premiums essentially are a tax. There's no limit here! What if insurance companies want to tax us for not buying a new car? It is a stealth tax, and that's what it was all along. It's a massive behavior-modification program. Either behave as directed or suffer the loss of private property. If you don't buy what the government tells you to buy, you're going to be taxed. You're going to fined. So even without the Commerce Clause, the federal government can virtually dictate what we do with our so-called private property.

The administration and the Congress said, "No, it's not a tax!" Arguing before the court, they said, "No, it's not a tax!" Then a couple of whispers, "Yes, it is a tax." The chief justice says (paraphrased), "I can't forbid this. It's not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices. I gotta find a way. Congress wants this, so I gotta find a way to make it happen. Okay, we'll call it a tax, and that makes it perfectly legal." So today the sovereign nature of the individual wasn't just weakened; it was eviscerated.

Between the Arizona and Obamacare decisions, America is a very different concept than it was just a week ago. In the United States of America, you either purchase what central authorities tell you to purchase or they will punish you with taxes. In America, states are not allowed to fully protect their citizens from the slow-motion invasion across their borders. The Feds opted out of the program in Arizona. States are powerless. And don't forget Obama just granted de facto amnesty to over one million illegal aliens.

November is the chance to get rid of the people who did this, and then put in place people we hope mean it when they say they're going to repeal it. That's it, folks. That is all that remains. Because, as of today, the American government can and will seize your private property if you don't purchase and/or sell what's been ordered. It's really breathtaking, what happened today. And it is breathtaking to watch ignoramuses who don't really understand what happened celebrate it. We have been betrayed and deceived by Congress. We have been betrayed and deceived by the Supreme Court.

It was never contemplated that Obamacare was a massive tax increase. Can you imagine them selling it on the basis of it being a massive tax increase? You heard Obama. He went out of his way to tell everybody it wasn't a tax increase. That was the death knell for the bill to call it a massive tax increase! He's running around telling everybody that nobody is gonna pay increased taxes. So we've been spent into deficit hell. We've now been taxed into disposable income hell. The Constitution's under assault, and so is every individual living here under assault.