Powered by TypePad

« Taubes And The Emerging CW On Refined Carbs | Main | Somebody Get Team Romney On Message »

July 02, 2012



So, Roberts can be pressured politically and has proven that the pressure works?

Ugh. Ugh. Ugh.

Danube of Thought

Minus 19 at Raz today.

Trails Romney by 2, 46-44.

Danube of Thought

If Roberts thought he was "preserving the integrity of the Court," he made one of the great miscalculations in American history.


Thanks Donald, you were really helpful,


Crikey, didn't he get the memo;


Agreed, DoT. It's like he cut off his right leg, in order not to have to cut off his left one.


It's pretty clear that Robert's 3 priorities were (probably in this order) 1. setting limits to the commerce clause to make clear that Congress can't create commerce and then regulate it and to restate federalism as alive and well; 2. Get control of and keep control of writiing the majority opinion. 3.follow SCOTUS doctrine to infer the constitutionality of a Congressional statute and repeal as a last resort in order to maintain the SCOTUS's 'legitimacy' as the decider of constitional issues, i.e. the SCOTUS's institutional interests. Roberts succeeded in all three. As a conservative, I disagree with Roberts doing #3 by fabricating the tax basis for upholding ACA, that's a terrible form of judicial activism. But, Roberts has 5 Justices ruling that that the commerce clause has limits, and 7 justices to uphold Federalism, and he leaves the politicians to deal with an unpopular law after elections. I'd say that's pretty smart piece of business by CJ Roberts.


DOT - thank goodness for Raz poll today! President Obama seemed to be gaining a bit last week so I am pleased to see that his numbers are falling again. I think his surrogates did him little to no good on television yesterday - the tax that isn't a tax except when you need the SC to say it's a tax and after that, it's no longer a tax:)


So I would basically say, look at the trend;


President Obama seemed to be gaining a bit last week so I am pleased to see that his numbers are falling again.

Yes, I suspect his numbers were rising on falling gas prices. The Obamacare ruling probably killed what ever momentum that was producing.


I know liberals in general have the cognitive ability of pet rocks, but are even they really fooled by this: "It's not a tax, it's a penalty!" stupidity. Whatever you call it, it's still money out of your pocket. I mean, if you have to pay a $3,000 "penalty" to Uncle Sam because you don't have health insurance, are you going to go, "Oh, well, at least it's not a tax, so I'm good with that."

Captain Hate

I agree, derwill, that it's a distinction without a difference other than the Bammybots are insistent on stating that it's not a tax.

So are we really willing to take CBS's word on this matter?


I'm not sure if I posted this and apologize if I did, but this is the story of the day:

2. COMPARE AND CONTRAST: A Tale of One Tragedy and Two Campaigns. First from the Romney Campaign through email:

The severe storms that ripped through Virginia Friday claimed at least six lives across the commonwealth and left thousands without power. It could be several days before power is restored to those affected.
If you’d like to make a donation to the relief effort, please bring supplies to the Romney for President Headquarters located at 3811 N. Fairfax Dr., Suite 750 in Arlington tomorrow between 10am and 7pm.
We will distribute donations to various relief centers in the area.
Here’s what we need:
• Bottled Water
• Non-perishable food items, such as beef jerky, granola bars, peanut butter, etc.
Bring your supply donations to our headquarters tomorrow and we’ll ensure it gets to your fellow Virginians who are in need on Tuesday.
Thank you in advance for your generosity.
Sara Craig
Virginia State Manager
P.S. We know that everyone wanting to help cannot make it to Arlington. If you would like to donate to the Red Cross, please call 1-800-Red-Cross, or visit this link to make a donation online:

From the Obama Campaign Via Twitter:
Keep cool while you’re canvassing this summer, Our Vote Obama Tank Top is a stylish and fun way to show your support

Captain Hate

Jane, that really points out the difference between an executive and a community organizer, no?


OMG, Jane! That is hysterical in the most horrible of ways - but, so revealing.


I think it makes a great deal of difference whether it's a tax or a penalty, particularly if we're defining the word "tax" to include punishment for not buying a product the government told us to buy, as opposed to monies we all contribute in order to fund government operations.


Anderson Cooper officially admits that he is gay. Yawn! Will Shepherd Hysterical Smith follow suit? Guess it may be only ratings driven (the admission).


They're insistent on it not being calling it a tax, because they know there's all that video out there of Obama promising he won't raise taxes on anyone making under $250,000, "not one dime." So they're desperately hoping there's some way to blunt the impact of the commercials that will show clips of Obama's promises juxtaposed against stuff like the WSJ's report that ObamaTax's taxes are going to fall most heavily on the poor and middle class.

It's like they're screaming, "I'm not naked! Just because you can see my bare tits and ass, that doesn't mean I'm naked!"

Captain Hate

Maybe Cooper is hoping for the ratings boost that Ellen the unfunny comedienne got.


Which is more important:
1) defeating Democrats, Obama, and Obamacare, or
2) Gripping about and psychoanalyzing CJ Roberts?

Based on what I'm seeing at Conservative sites, 2) is hands-down the winner.


Well it's not one tax, it's more like 23 taxes, including that one on medical equipment.


No offense guys but two anonymous sources in a CBS piece doesn't cut it for me on this or any other story CBS would like me to believe.


Anderson Pooper just admitted that Sheptard Smith is gay??


Well Ellen is kind of goofy, Vanderbilt is just plain clueless.

Captain Hate

Rove's American Crossroads has been extremely good at coming up with timely ads to skewer the JEF. I'd love for them to come up with one that uses that "not one dime" quote followed by a laundry list of how many dimes have been needed.

Jane - Get off the couch your country needs you!

Jane, that really points out the difference between an executive and a community organizer, no?

It is simply priceless.


I basically agree with NK but I want to point out that if I had a radio show and that was my living that is not what I would voice on the air. That would not drive listeners nor urge voter participation in November.

So I am glad they are fuelling outrage against Roberts, the court, Obamacare, the bloc of 4 solid liberal votes. Whatever.

It is in Mark Levin or Rush's best commercial interests to do what they are doing. It is in our political interests for them to stir people up.

Please do not make them the source for why some of us think this may have the greatest long term value for starting back from the abyss.


Which is more important

Why can't we do both? :)

Seriously, this reminds me of all the contentiousness about Romney vs. Newt vs. Santorum. There was no question we were going to rally around ABO, but we could still have lively debates about the candidates. Now we're all on board for Romney and now great harm was done by the earlier discussions.

This is an historic ruling, and there is a lot to puzzle over. Doing so doesn't detract from the goal of repealing the monstrosity.


Well as with CommonCore implementation, or Cameron's blanc Mange Toryism, there is no logic to the decision, Our fishwrap, proudly
urges our governor to fit us with the serf's collars, even though they know not why.


Now we're all on board for Romney and now great harm was done by the earlier discussions.

jimmyk: I am having a hard time comprehending this sentence.


I think jimmyk meant "no great harm."

It does feel a little like the primary battles. And that reminds me, my predictive powers pretty much sucked back then so I'm sure I'm not any better at predicting now.

Thomas Collins

Centralcal, I'm going to guess there was a typo and jimmyk intended the second "now" to be "no", so that the post would read: "no great harm was done".


"Anderson Cooper officially admits"

"I don’t mind gay groups keeping a vast database of anonymously-reported homophobic thought-crimes if they feel that’s a productive use of their time. But it is preposterous that this sprawling directory of cobwebbed flamer cracks and swishy-gait titters will be publicly funded by taxpayers under the Québec Government’s “action plan for the fight against homophobia,” which apparently also includes redesignating Jean-Marc Fournier, the minister of justice and attorney general, as “Minister of Justice, Attorney General, and Minister for the Fight Against Homophobia.”"




I believe the documentary film "Outrage" outed both Charlie Crist and Shepard Smith in 2009.


I think he means no, cc.


Thanks all! I am still tired from a busy weekend, and mentally slow (or slower than usual, ha ha).


Over and over, we are hearing about the "most popular" aspects of Obamatax being something the GOP just must address and promise to keep.

Okay, I get the idea that "pre-existing conditions" is popular and something we could all have reason to fear in our insurance past, present and future. But, keeping "kids" on their parent's insurance plans until age 26? Why is that popular?

What are we basing this "popularity" on - polling? Who is doing the polling? How popular is it? I have a deep distrust of memes - especially when the MFM so relentlessly pushes them in lockstep with the regime.


Why is that popular?

Because otherwise the kids might have to pay a fine.


Ext: Under Obamatax, indeed they would "have to pay a fine." But, if the GOP repeals and uproots it (as Boehner is claiming they will do), penalties or fines would become moot, no? So why do so many Republicans join in the handwringing about keeping this "popular" provision?

As I said, I am tired this morning, so forgive me if I am exceptionally dense.


Me, too, cc, because I think it was always pretty easy to buy health insurance for a 23 yr-old. Cheaper than now, where they're being asked to pick up some of the higher-risk pool's premiums.

Danube of Thought

"Which is more important:"

Most of us here are good at multi-tasking.

There is quite a bit of circumstantial evidence to corroborate the CBS account of Roberts changing his vote at some point in the final month. I am not aware of any evidence concerning what his motive may have been.

This argument is going to pit the Mommy Party against the Daddy Party. The Mommy Party says "free stuff! Forget pre-existing conditions! Stay on Mom and Dad's policy till you're 26!" The Daddy Party has its work cut out for it. And the Daddy Party is also infected with saps who want to keep the "popular" parts of this monstrosity.

Dave (in MA)

pagar, This Fark user apparently figured it out a long time ago.


I think jimmyk meant "no great harm."

Correct, thank you. /brain_cramp


Well, Roberts has done what he has done. So, I think we should concentrate on getting Romney to stop being "wishy-washy."


I get the idea that "pre-existing conditions" is popular and something we could all have reason to fear in our insurance past, present and future.

As with so many "popular" ideas, if a realistic price tag were attached, it might not be so popular. And part of that price tag is, of course, the mandate, since it would be completely infeasible otherwise.

Voldemort Delenda Est !                   Sandy Daze

Health insurance should be a lot like automobile insurance, where ownership is at the individual level, and portability is possible. For a long time I was adamantly against the 26 year old on the family policy. But, my better half explained that, ¨look, young kids/adults frequently change jobs. Putting thier health insurance under an employer makes continuity of coverage more difficult. If the concern is teaching fiscal responsibility, the parents can charge the child as many families already do¨ (eh, you want the car, you gotta buy the gas and contribute to the insurance. . . etc).

Meanwhile the pool of premium payers is expanded. I like the idea and whether we think the fiscal responsibility issue is a societal requirement or not, to me it would be okay if it were worked out under the parents.

What matters much more to me is the ownership of the health insurance (at the individual level), the portability of the insurance (no longer a problem if not employer-supplied, but individually owned) and the ability & opportunity to purchase policies across state lines. Do all of this allows risk pools to be set up, competition between companies and individuals to buy the kind and level of coverage they want rather than having one-size-fits-all health insurance rahmmed down their throats.


Back at the economy:
Blogger Mike (Mish) Shedlock is a pro-RonPaul econ blogger. Cute headline today, as Insty is wont to say..."unexpectedly".

US Manufacturing ISM Contracts for First Time in Three Years; New Orders and Prices Plunge; Perfect Miss: 0 of 70 Economists Polled By Bloomberg Expected Contraction


Oh, I agree jimmyk about the price tag and reality.

Voldemort Delenda Est !                   Sandy Daze

Is Voldemortcare a tax ?

Americans for Tax Reform says Voldemortcare is at least 20 new or increased taxes (read amount: new or increased tax source):

$123 Billion: Surtax on Investment Income (Takes effect Jan. 2013): A new, 3.8 percent surtax on investment income

$86 Billion: Hike in Medicare Payroll Tax (Takes effect Jan. 2013)

$65 Billion: Individual Mandate Excise Tax and Employer Mandate Tax (Both taxes take effect Jan. 2014)

$60.1 Billion: Tax on Health Insurers (Takes effect Jan. 2014)

$32 Billion: Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans (Takes effect Jan. 2018)

$23.6 Billion: “Black liquor” tax hike (Took effect in 2010)

$22.2 Billion: Tax on Innovator Drug Companies (Took effect in 2010)

$20 Billion: Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers (Takes effect Jan. 2013)

$15.2 Billion: High Medical Bills Tax (Takes effect Jan 1. 2013)

$13.2 Billion: Flexible Spending Account Cap – aka “Special Needs Kids Tax” (Takes effect Jan. 2013): Imposes cap on FSAs of $2500 (now unlimited)

$5 Billion: Medicine Cabinet Tax (Took effect Jan. 2011)

$4.5 Billion: Elimination of tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D (Takes effect Jan. 2013)

$4.5 Billion: Codification of the “economic substance doctrine” (Took effect in 2010)

$2.7 Billion: Tax on Indoor Tanning Services (Took effect July 1, 2010)

$1.4 Billion: HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike (Took effect Jan. 2011)

$0.6 Billion: $500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives (Takes effect Jan. 2013)

$0.4 Billion: Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike (Took effect in 2010)

$ Negligible: Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals (Took effect in 2010)

$ Negligible: Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2 (Took effect in Jan. 2012)

Read more:

So, I say yes, see duck, hear duck, watch duck walk.


Iggy: You might check again on whether your insurance plan's premiums will be much affected by Obamacare.

From link:

The CBO estimates that [Bronze Level] policies will cost $4,500-$5,000 per person and $12,000-$12,500 per family in 2016, with the costs rising thereafter"

Point 1: The CBO is not likely to have underestimated costs - I'd expect actual policy prices to be significantly greater

Point 2: The Bronze level is being promoted as lowest-cost/only mandatory services/max deductible option from "the exchange". The same package offered by Private Insurers will almost have to be priced the same - if not because of the market, then because regulations will appear making it so.


What is a medicine cabinet tax?


Re: the 26-year-old on the parents' insurance... The way I see it the 2x yo can buy his own insurance, which in the present market (not the ObamaTAX market)should not be too high, since the 2x yo falls within a low risk demographic. Or he/she can stay under the parents' policy whose premium should increase accordingly. The difference is who pays, and the fact that the 2x yo is encouraged to have some insurance whereas he/she might otherwise have accepted the risk of carrying no insurance (in which case Mommy & Daddy would probably have filled the void, anyway).

I ran the above rationale through a cousin who is retired from the insurance business to see if he saw it differently. Fundamentally, he didn't.

Bottom line: the 26 yo insurance carrot looks to me like a big red herring until you invoke ObamaTAX, and since no one knows how that will work anyway, it still looks like a red herring.


Well this topic is the story on FOX right now (Megyn Kelly) and this is the story on Rush.

It may be unfair, but CJ Roberts is now the story.


derwill: over the counter medicines, I think - those that I used to be able to purchase with my HSA visa card, I no longer can.


The pre-existing conditions part of all of this mess is what concerns me.
I'd like to know what percentage of healthcare pre-O-tax were pre-existing costs.


From the article I linked at 1:15.

A"Medicine Cabinet Tax" that eliminates the ability to pay for over-the-counter medicines from a pre-tax Flexible Spending Account. This started in January 2011.


RSE-- I agree, Levin and Limbaugh are businessmen-- they talk about things to interest and entertain listeners in order to sell advertising time. Nothing wrong with that-- but nobody should not forget how they earn their big incomes.

Jane - Get off the couch your country needs you!

Now we're all on board for Romney and now great harm was done by the earlier discussions.

I've looked back on that a number of times in wonder. We are a good group.

Apparently the secret service just shut down the Eric Holder protest at the WH. No free speech there.


Okay, thanks. It didn't sound good, and now I see that it isn't.


The economy and taxes-- more lousy manufacturing economic numbers today, and there may be another lousy jobs number friday. Jobs, taxes and debt-- that should be what this election is about as far as Conservatives are concerned. Making the Dems defend Obamacare as a tax is a very fine place to be in this election IMO.


$0.6 Billion: $500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives (Takes effect Jan. 2013)

And this is legal, too?


Normally mild mannered Jay Nordlinger tears Roberts a new one at the Link Under Name


It is worth mentioning the Charlie Rangel Fraud/Recount that is now front and center on FOX and compare it to the Racine Recount.

From listening to the comments about Rangel that are being reported they appear to be the very same sort of Fraud complaints that we have read about in Racine;

In the Rangel case ---802 votes separating the competitors and more than 3,000 votes remain unaccounted for.

In the Racine case---820 votes separating the competitors and between 2000-4000 voters illegally given Ballots in Racine.

On FOX I believe I heard allegations that Ballots were unsecured in the Rangel case after the Election concluded.

Ditto in Racine.

Overall point I'm making is that the situation on it's face seems quite similar, yet only one of these elections is getting Media attention.

That's probably due to the importance and name recognition of Rangel as opposed to some unknown State Politician in Racine, but it also seems to me that the Media is probably examining it because Rangel in many ways is an embarrassment to the Left, and it would be a good story overall if he was put out to pasture.

Updates please Henry as they happen.


Heard a little bit on the radio today, mostly rehash of what we know and speculation on what Wanggaard will do next. A couple libs called in and said since the MSM isn't covering it, it's all Tea Party lies. Chavez Center precincts at the heart of it all -- I want a court ordered audit of all voters there.


Pixels and airtime going to waste gripping about CJ Roberts.

I can guarantee you that he will not be reelected!

But maybe we can impeach him - while Obama is still President?


Ah,Wanggaard issued a statement.

"Unfortunately, rather than clarify the myriad of issues that surfaced on June 5, the recount uncovered even more suspicious activity," the Racine Republican said in a statement, pointing to "missing pages in poll books, missing signatures, wrong voter numbers, wrong and unverified addresses and most shocking of all, unsealed and sealed and reopened ballot bags."

He will wait a couple days to decide the next step.

Captain Hate

Speaking of homos in the MFM, Rocky Maddow discusses her "cyclical depression" in Rolling Stone.

Danube of Thought

From the Nordlinger item linked by peter:

"Conservative, or Republican-appointed, justices are always crossing over to the liberal side. We have seen Roberts. You had Burger, O’Connor, Souter, others. You have Kennedy. Do the liberals ever cross over to the conservative side? Aren’t their votes pretty much in the bag, rock-solid predictable? Isn’t all the 'swingin'” action from the right, so to speak? Conservatives are always 'surprising' us. Do liberals ever surprise?"

He left out Blackmun, Stevens and, of course, Earl Warren.


Madcow is going to have a Marianna Trench low come early November. They dont make strong enough medicine for her depression then...

Dave (in MA)

CH, I wonder if it flares up every 28 days or so. The article doesn't say. It does say that she has a hard time lining up conservative pundits as guests. I can't imagine why.

Captain Hate

Rove must lurk here because Tammy Bruce just played an American Crossroads ad on Bammycaretax breaking a campaign promise.


I read that piece, I didn't think that was the takeaway, just her general cluelessness,
only dimly surpassed by the interviewer.


As I posted, I don't find credible any of the alleged rationales for Roberts' switching... for the simple reason that he would have to be stupid to think that any of them would accomplish what he allegedly thought to accomplish...

For example, how could have thought that his switching votes wouldn't have become public, thereby making him look like he gave into pressure, the exact opposite of what he wanted to do?

Or that he voted to approve Obamacare in order to keep the Commerce Clause from being improperly used to justify the mandate? He didn't need to vote 'yes' in order to do that, he had the five votes to limit the applicability of the Commerce Clause.

And since none of the official hypotheses make sense, I (half tongue in cheek) offer up some of my own... such as Roberts, thinking that Kennedy was going to vote yes, wagered all his family money betting on Obamacare being upheld, only to have to scramble after finding out Kennedy was a no vote?

Any other possibilities?

(Another) Barbara

Daniel Foster on NRO this morning:

"But I don’t believe, as some on the right hope and the left fear, that the decision contains some esoteric affirmation of cherished conservative constitutional thought that Roberts can deploy in future cases to defend the cause of limited government. Any limiting principle Roberts established with respect to the Commerce Clause is outstripped by his dubious assertion that the federal government can punitively tax you for any decision you make — or don’t.

"These buck-up-now righties and worrywart lefties seem to share the belief that if Mitt Romney is elected president in November, the act is likely to be repealed. This is a belief I do not now and have never shared. The list of federal redistributive programs to have been passed and then repealed is diminutive. People who begin receiving checks tend to want to continue receiving them. And the full panoply of health care industries co-opted by the bill’s corporatist regulations is already producing the new class of stakeholders (and their lobbyists) whose livelihoods will depend on the act’s permanence.

"No, Roberts’ decision means Obamacare will be with us, in one form or another, until either it — or our entire entitlement apparatus — collapses of its own actuarial girth."


Steve, maybe he got a call in the middle of the night saying, "We know where your kids go to school."

Yes, I'm joking, but a part of me would put nothing past this Chicago Mafia crowd.


Our entitlement apparatus is going to collapse anyway, Mr. Foster.

Perhaps this will hasten it.

Or perhaps the majority of states will elect not to expand Medicaid and the number of new "people receiving checks" due to Obamacare will be minimal.

This isn't like Social Security. In my view the worst aspects of the law do not lie in the redistributive measures but in the punitive taxes and regulations - to businesses, to the insurance industry, to the medical device industry, to individuals, and prior to the Roberts decision, to the states. Not to mention the First Amendment problems.


weren't their twitter messages to that effect,


Roberts didn't switch in the last week, or the last month as the CBS story says, which may be untrue.

Roberts really took his position months ago when he, aka "the Court" sui generis appointed a lawyer to argue the "tax" issue. The deal was already done by then, he was contacted by lawyers or forces claiming justice but really being Big Pharma (or other) agents who stood to lose on failure of Obamacare, and they presented him with a solution. Ginsburg might be behind it too, she's senile enough to be manipulated by the money posing as progressives.

Looking at what Kennedy did for the past month or not will get you nowhere. Start with the appointment of the lawyer. That is the beginning of the cover story. Work backwards. Cui bono?


It's starting to look like a contest now between which will come first--the election or a double dip recession. Is that a silver lining--yes, we're sinking, but at least we get to blame the iceberg on Obama?


"Any limiting principle Roberts established with respect to the Commerce Clause"

Gosh, this is such B.S. The same thing could have been done in a real case or different ruling. The case that he did it here is not proof of the benefit, but proof of the coverup--it's hand-waving, a distraction. Any attention to it is an example of the money's success, not Roberts' integrity.

The commerce clause ruling is just sprinkles on a turd. Like Obamacare's "benefits" promoted to hide the fact that it is a health industry raid on the American public.


((The pre-existing conditions part of all of this mess is what concerns me.
I'd like to know what percentage of healthcare pre-O-tax were pre-existing costs.))

"...being able to force an insurer to pay for a preexisting health condition is like being able to buy fire insurance after your house has burnt down, and then forcing that insurer into having to cover your losses." --Peter Schiff


"--Peter Schiff"

Did Mr. Schiff investigate whether this is just a minor sop to cover up who Obamacare really benefits, or does the fact that health industry lobbyists wrote the bill is just to troubling to his sense of the order of the world to consider that?


Debra Saunders on Dennis Miller sez she agrees with Robert's ruling-- as a political decision to try to make the decision Non-Political. I believe she thinks it has failed.

Dennis sez Robert's Ruling is the Equivalent of the Brit General in The Bridge On The River Kwai helping the Jap's build the Bridge.

A good conversation, but it appears to me that all the fire has been knocked out of Dennis's belly, and it appears to me that he is resigned now to shrugging like Atlas.

Cavuto now has on Mark Levin.

So far I have seen no one on the National scene as a pundit, Talker, etc, who had a negative opinion from the git-go who has changied their mind. They may exist and I may just have missed them., but instead I sense anger is growing at Roberts and at the decision.


I agree with Nordlinger's friend, the judge:

“Incompetent,” he said. Roberts’s ruling was incompetent. “Silly, absurd, not worthy of respect. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was far more reasonable in her argument.”

The question is why,


"Dennis sez Robert's Ruling is the Equivalent of the Brit General in The Bridge On The River Kwai helping the Jap's build the Bridge."

That's funny!

"who had a negative opinion from the git-go who has changed their mind."

Yes, but there are plenty of liberal bloviators who are not complete Obamabots who hailed the decision, Obamabotically at first, but then realized a lot of Democratic insiders were praying for the Court to take Obamacare off the plate. Oops!


((Did Mr. Schiff investigate whether this is just a minor sop to cover up who Obamacare really benefits,))

I don't think he had to investigate anything because he understands that 1+1=2, i.e., how the insurance business works, and the new model for health care won't and can't work.


Beckel on the Five.

In response to all the panel's chatter about lying about it being a Tax etc.

Beckel: "Whatever it took to get it passed."

Danube of Thought

"...he was contacted by lawyers or forces claiming justice but really being Big Pharma (or other) agents who stood to lose on failure of Obamacare, and they presented him with a solution. "

Who's "he?"

The CBS guy claims to have two sources. How about you?


'was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor;


"how the insurance business works, and the new model for health care won't and can't work"

Really? This seems disjointed, and you don't work in insurance. The bill works if it brings in the money. It brings in the money in Massachusetts. It will bring in the money in the USA. That "works." Creating some other standard of what "works" is near gibberish. What "works" is what brings in the money. That's what the health industry paid for. They probably also paid for the lawyering that thought up the tax angle for Roberts and put it in his hand, the disguise was the court's hiring of a lawyer to argue the tax angle. Roberts was already gotten to and done, although various Repubs and Democrats might have thought he was still wavering.


Danube? Blue? :)

""Who's "he?""

Roberts. At a lunch, meeting, wherever his old buddies or someone else meant.

"The CBS guy claims to have two sources."

Please. National Review already says something else. Whatever it is, Roberts was decided at least as early as March. Any thing after is just a distraction. If Kennedy hassled him for a month after, it was because Roberts was pretending it wasn't a done deal. If Leahy is on the Senate floor in May threatening Roberts, it was likely that liberal court staffers misinterpreted Roberts too. Everything that really matters goes back to March and earlier. Thereafter is just drama.

"How about you?"

I have the greatest witness of all. John Roberts himself. When he ordered a lawyer in March to argue this weird tax issue that neither litigating side argued, that was the "tell." He likely already expressed to old partners, or whomever, that the Commerce Clause route was a no deal. So the lawyers thought up this tax angle, and either told him of it, or handed him a brief on the side. There is no way that he just dreamed up the tax angle and decided on a whim to get a lawyer to argue it. It was likely a package given to him, probably also sold on the idea of being responsible to the people or whatever cover story. The hired lawyer was certainly a cover to make this junk look like it was properly litigated and argued.

So I don't care what CBS says Roberts was saying or pretending later, except for that it was part of the show. The deal was done in March and earlier. I think it was Pharma, not Obama, because the Obama lawyers seemed to be against the argument until nearly the last moment when Roberts set up the special oral hearing session for the "tax" issue.

Danube of Thought

"I have the greatest witness of all: John Roberts."

I don't think you know what the word "witness" means.

Who are the witnesses to the fact that "he [Roberts] was approached by lawyers or forces claiming justice but actually being Big Pharma (or other) agents...?"

Nothing like a little secret ex parte meeting with the Chief Justice of the United States to get your financial interest advanced, right? (How and where was this "approach" made?)

Sure beats the hell out of filing an amicus brief...

Danube of Thought

"He likely already expressed to old partners, or whomever, that the Commerce Clause route was a no deal."

Happens all the time. And then the lips of the former partners, or whomever, are always permanently sealed.


We thought it wasn't possible, who were we kidding;

Danube of Thought

While we're discussing Bartow Farr's appointment, we might as well include what it was he was asked to argue to the Court, and why.

He was asked to argue the position taken by the 11th Circuit, namely that the law could be severed from the mandate and upheld even if the mandate were struck down. Neither side had argued such a position, so it was appropriate to have it represented. In the event, the position was moot.

But secret meetings with the Chief are a lot more fun.

Danube of Thought

When he ordered a lawyer in March to argue this weird tax issue that neither litigating side argued, that was the "tell."

He did not order a lawyer to argue that tax issue, the lawyer did not make it, and the argument the lawyer did make was mooted by the decision.

Other than that, it's a hell of a theory.

Carol Herman

What's really amazing is how Roberts (when he was in the majority. As Chief. He could assign the opinion. But he didn't assign it to himself! He assigned it to his arch rival: Anthony Kennedy.

While Ginsberg was tasked by the liberals to write the dissent.

Anthony Kennedy, as the writer of the conservative's opinion, kept addressing what he knew to be Ginsberg's dissent. Even tough Kennedy KNEW Roberts wasn't on board! (He just probably figured Roberts had no choice.)


Someday? The story might be told. Gosh knows, I read books (like the BRETHREN. And, the "SCORPIONS" ... which went on to describe how FDR's picks ended up hating each other.) In other words. Philosophies can be the same. But in fighting is typically the "rule."

Who will end up being identified as the genius? My guess KAGAN.

Kagan may be as smart as Frances Perkins. It's just that how brilliant females operate (in the hostile enviroment), is not taught in school.

But somebody got Roberts ear. And, repeated the Justice Harlan Stone "story" from 1934.

Plus Stone's "reminder" to Perkins that the 16th Amendment added Income Taxation Powers to the Federal Government.

You want to know the name of the legislation that passed in 1934? Social Security.

You don't see the word 'tax' in Social Security. And, you don't hear the sizzle. But it's the 3rd rail when politicians attempt to take it away.

Did you know lots of people who pay into Social Security die before they turn 65?

The Affordable Care Act has its detractors. But will it be enough to help Romney win?

While lots of money is being shoveled into the November election campaigns. Shoveling money IN is good for the economy! (But ya know, Pepsi never pulled ahead of Coke! Did Dr. Pepper?)


Lookit Libs/Progs-

Here is the deal--

You sold this whole shebang as something everyone in the country was going to get--all kinds of healthcare without having to pay for it.

Someone is going to have to pay for healthcare and there isn't enough money to do all that you promised.

That's the mess you are left with and will have to deal with.


OT, how do they know this;

The comments to this entry are closed.