Note: The Ads that appear
on this page are under the
control of Google Ads,
which is a non-partisan site.
"Chief Justice Roberts Is A Genius"-Commentary!
Summary of the eRumor: This a forwarded email with an
article that says owing to his decision on the Constitutionality
of the Affordable Healthcare Act or the law known as "Obamacare",
Justice John Roberts is a genius.
The Truth: This is a political opinion
that was written on June 28, 2012 and posted on the conservative commentary web site, I.M.
Click for article.
Nine Supreme Court Justices heard arguments in the form of four
questions inquiring if the Affordable Healthcare law is Constitutional.
We found an article that explained it "In Plain English," in a June 28, 2012 article found on the
Supreme Court of the United States Blog.
The article said that the primary question was if it was legal for
Congress to require that Americans purchase health
insurance by 2014 or be penalized. It said that "the
government’s primary argument was that Congress can require everyone to
buy health insurance using its power under the Commerce Clause of the
Constitution, because the failure to buy insurance shifts the costs of
health care for the uninsured to health care providers, insurance
companies, and everyone who does have health insurance." The
article went on to say that five Justices, Chief Justice Roberts
along with Justices Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, "all rejected
that argument. But the government still won, because a different set of
five Justices – the Chief Justice, and Justices Ginsburg, Breyer,
Sotomayor, and Kagan – agreed that the mandate was constitutional, but
for a different reason." That being the power of Congress
"to regulate commerce assumes that there is commercial activity to
regulate and in the view of Chief Justice Roberts "the mandate creates
activity, rather than regulating it."
The article continued to say that Chief Justice Roberts did reject the
government’s Commerce Clause argument but "agreed with one of the
government’s alternative arguments: the mandate imposes a tax on people
who do not buy health insurance, and that tax is something that Congress
can impose using its constitutional taxing power. He acknowledged that
the mandate (and its accompanying penalty) is primarily intended to get
people to buy insurance, rather than to raise money, but it is, he
explained, still a tax. If someone who does not want to buy health
insurance is willing to pay the tax, that’s the end of the matter; the
government cannot do anything else."
Denying the Court's claim of a tax, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney
told reporters in a briefing the following day that the fine is still
just a penalty. In a
July 2, 2012 Fox News article GOP Presidential candidate Mitt
Romney's campaign was quick to toss a challenge to President Obama to
make a decision to either call this "an unconstitutional penalty or a
'constitutional tax,' but not both."
While promoting the Affordable Healthcare Law, President Obama said that
the individual mandate is not a tax.
Video of Obama Interview on ABC found on YouTube
The genius status of
Justice John Roberts might be settled by the results of the November
2012 Presidential election.
A real example of the eRumor as it has
appeared on the Internet:
Subject: Chief Justice Roberts Is A
Posted on June 28, 2012 by I.M. Citizen
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
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
through his windshield. Oh, and he’ll be home in time for dinner.
2 For 1
Special! SUBSCRIBE to
Our Email Alerts, Advisories, and Virus Warnings!CLICK HERE