Why Chief Justice Roberts Made the Right Long-Term Decision With ObamaCare > > > > This article, written by I.M. Citizen, gives a much different > > perspective of Justice Robert’s decision. > > > > > > > > Before you look to do harm to Chief Justice Roberts or his family, > > it’s important that you think carefully about the meaning – the true > > nature — of his ruling on Obama-care. The Left will shout that they > > won, that Obama-care was upheld and all the rest. Let them. > > > > > > > > It will be a short-lived celebration. > > Here’s what really occurred — payback. Yes, payback for Obama’s > > numerous, ill-advised and childish insults directed toward SCOTUS. > > Chief Justice Roberts actually ruled the mandate, relative to the > > commerce clause, was unconstitutional. That’s how the Democrats got > > Obama-care going in the first place. This is critical. His ruling > > means Congress can’t compel American citizens to purchase anything. > > Ever. The notion is now officially and forever, unconstitutional. As > > it should be. > > Next, he stated that, because Congress doesn’t have the ability to > > mandate, it must, to fund Obama-care, rely on its power to tax. > > Therefore, the mechanism that funds Obama-care is a tax. This is also > > critical. Recall back during the initial Obama-care battles, the > > Democrats called it a penalty, Republicans called it a tax. Democrats > > consistently soft sold it as a penalty. It went to vote as a penalty. > > Obama declared endlessly, that it was not a tax, it was a penalty. But > > when the Democrats argued in front of the Supreme Court, they said > > ‘hey, a penalty or a tax, either way’. So, Roberts gave them a tax. It > > is now the official law of the land — beyond word-play and silly > > shenanigans. Obama-care is funded by tax dollars. Democrats now must > > defend a tax increase to justify the Obama-care law. > > Finally, he struck down as unconstitutional, the Obama-care idea that > > the federal government can bully states into complying by yanking > > their existing medicaid funding. Liberals, through Obama-care, > > basically said to the states — ‘comply with Obama-care or we will stop > > existing funding.’ Roberts ruled that is a no-no. If a state takes the > > money, fine, the Feds can tell the state how to run a program, but if > > the state refuses money, the federal government can’t penalize the > > state by yanking other funding. Therefore, a state can decline to > > participate in Obama-care without penalty. This is obviously a serious > > problem. Are we going to have 10, 12, 25 states not participating in > > “national” health-care? Suddenly, it’s not national, is it? > > Ultimately, Roberts supported states rights by limiting the federal > > government’s coercive abilities. He ruled that the government can not > > force the people to purchase products or services under the commerce > > clause and he forced liberals to have to come clean and admit that > > Obama-care is funded by tax increases. > > Although he didn’t guarantee Romney a win, he certainly did more than > > his part and should be applauded. > > And he did this without creating a civil war or having bricks thrown > > threw his windshield. Oh, and he’ll be home in time for dinner. > > Brilliant.