Random Reflections On the ObamaCare Ruling

One: We know a ruling is a going to lead to a holy legal mess when it begins like this:

ROBERTS, C. J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, and III–C, in which GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined; an opinion with respect to Part IV, in which BREYER and KAGAN, JJ., joined; and an opinion with respect to Parts III–A, III–B, and III–D. GINSBURG, J., filed an opinion concurring in part, concurring in the judgment in part, and dissenting in part, in which SOTOMAYOR, J., joined, and in which BREYER and KAGAN, JJ., joined as to Parts I, II, III, and IV. SCALIA, KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., filed a dissenting opinion. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

Another instance where a ruling began this way was in the 1978 Bakke case. In it, Justice Powell could not convince a majority of his colleagues to sign off on his tortured claim that the University of California could not reject white candidates because of their race. But it could give blacks and other minorities extra bonus points because of their race. He was against racial quotas, you see, but thought racial preferences were just peachy – a distinction that his conservative and liberal justice had difficulty seeing. The upshot was multiple opinions with multiple dissents and multiple concurrences without any clear guidance as to which one was applicable. This has lead to 40 odd years of conflict and confusion in the lower courts that the Supreme Court is still trying to sort out (as I noted here.)

The ObamaCare ruling too will trigger a litany of lawsuits as lower courts try to figure out: the new limits to the Commerce Clause; whose plurality opinion is binding on any given issue; whether a law that is unconstitutional under the new reading of the Commerce Clause grounds can nevertheless be constitutional under some other rationale not even fully asserted by either party given Chief Justice Roberts’ injunction that if a reasonable – not good or solid, mind you -- constitutional argument exists somewhere, anywhere, in favor of a duly enacted law, the courts are duty bound to uphold the law.

The upshot will likely be an erosion of public confidence in the Supreme Court’s authority, precisely the opposite of what Roberts intended by splitting the ObamaCare monster in half.

Two: This ruling should put to rest the idiotic notion that conservative jurists are ideologically driven, partisan hacks who never seriously consider the other side’s argument. ObamaCare opponents had a lock only on one justice going in: Clarence Thomas. Who else they might muster was always up in the air given that the conservative justices try to balance multiple competing concerns: originalism; stare decisis; judicial modesty; the court’s legitimacy…yada, yada, yada. Kennedy, who votes often with the liberal wing of the court, was regarded as the most likely swing vote. That Roberts cast that vote on a case of such huge importance to conservatives and libertarians suggests that he is even less easy to pigeonhole ideologically.

What’s more, it should also be equally clear that if there are any ideologically driven, partisan hacks on the bench who never seriously consider the opposing argument, they are the liberal justices. It was a foregone conclusion that they would vote as a bloc to uphold ObamaCare’s individual mandate – and they didn’t disappoint. That two of them actually voted against the constitutionality of the Medicaid mandate is being regarded as something of a shock. However, the fact that not one of them worried about the original intent of the Commerce Clause – their preferred grounds for affirming the individual mandate – says something about whether they regard their ideological agenda as subordinate to the constitution or vice versa.

And what’s true of the Supreme Court is even more true of lower courts and the liberal punditry on the whole. Indeed, two lower court conservative justices voted in favor of ObamaCare but not a single liberal justice voted against it.

Too much fragmentation in a camp can be a sign of intellectual disarray. But too much unanimity can be a sign of intellectual closed mindedness. The former might be the case with conservative jurisprudence right now, but the latter is definitely the case with liberal jurisprudence.

Three: No one should ever again believe that conservative justices are opposed to judicial activism, preferring, instead to read and apply the law as written, computer-like. Justice Scalia proved this in his ruling in the Raich case when he happily signed off on an expansive understanding of Uncle Sam’s Commerce Clause authority to nullify state medical marijuana laws duly passed by voters just because he happened to disagree with them. Had it not been for his misguided reasoning, ObamaCare's constitutionality -- or lack thereof -- under the Commerce Clause would not have even been an issue.

But Scalia at least chose to exercise one of the two options presented to him: uphold or overrule the law as written. Justice Roberts, on the other hand, as many have already pointed out, has rewritten ObamaCare as per his taste. The law itself repeatedly noted that the fine for not purchasing health care was a penalty not a tax, a designation that Roberts accepts in order to determine if the court had standing to rule under the Anti-Injunction Clause (the Clause bars legal challenges to federal taxes before they have gone into effect). But he rejected that designation and redubbed the “penalty” a “tax” in declaring it constitutional. Never mind that, as the Wall Street Journal notes this morning:

The Pelosi Democrats explicitly structured the mandate as a regulatory "penalty." Congress voted down a direct tax in 2009. Supreme Court precedents going back to the 1920s and 1930s define penalties and taxes as mutually exclusive and critically different.

Every lower court that heard the health-care cases rejected the taxing argument. Administration lawyers devoted only 21 lines of their reply brief to this argument and it barely came up at oral arguments.

 As Justice Scalia noted in his scathing dissent: “Today the court saves a statute Congress did not enact." 

How much more activist can a justice get? (OK...don't answer that!)

It is hard to believe that Roberts buys his own tortured rationale. So why did he proffer it? The chief theory is that he was determined to find some way to uphold the law to deflect liberal accusations of partisanship by the court. In short, Roberts succumbed to politics in order to show that the court is above politics. He held the court's interests above the rule of law.

Justices are given a life-long appointment rather than being forced to run for elections every few years in order to protect them from the vagaries of daily politics. If the Supreme Court is still going to stick its finger in the political wind before making its rulings, is there any point in appointing justices anymore?

Justice Roberts might have done more damage to the court than he realizes. Sometimes just doing the right thing and letting the chips fall where they may is more conducive to advancing a cause than over clever efforts to please everyone.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Almanian's Evil Twin||

    Also, stop calling it "Obamcare" - it's "Pelosi-ReidCare". Obama did nothing but throw out the idea. Pelosi and Reid did ALL the crafting and heavy lifting.

    Much as I despise them and their cleverness getting this fucking monstrosity passed, they fucking did it. And I respect that, in that awful way you respect watching a bad guy kick the shit out ofa good guy with no talent.

    But they did it - not him. So - "Pelosi-ReidCare", please, clumsy and difficult though it is to say and spell.

    PS Alternative: "P-R Care" - initials, plus clever suggestion of the sell job they still have to do on this piece of shit.

  • WTF||

    Ima gonna vote for "Fuck you, that's why-care."

  • Almanian's Evil Twin||

    Yeah, that works

  • wareagle||

    was if their cleverness, or was it Roberts'? He's the one that turned the law into something neither Pelosi nor Reid was pushing for.

  • SteakFury||

    I can't wait until they remove the "tax exemption" from those of us with insurance in order to keep it solvent.

  • Bee Tagger||

    This.

    "Why are we subsidizing the rich that can afford to buy their own insurance by giving them tax breaks?"

  • Longtorso||

    It's not ObamaCare, it's ObamaTax, a tax on the uninsured. Eat it, Dem bitches.

  • moosecat||

    Roberts didn't rewrite the law. He called a spade a spade. Congress can call it a fee, penalty or anything it wants to but that doesn't make it so. It's pretty obvious that it's a tax and Roberts is correct to clarify that congress has the right to levy taxes.

  • WTF||

    Really? So what is it a tax on, exactly? For it to be part of the income tax, they would have to raise everyone's income taxes by the amount of the (not really a)penalty, and then provide a deduction for those who have the insurance. Otherwise if it is just a straight tax penalty for failure to purchase, it violates the AIA. So what is it, exactly?

  • Another David||

    It's a tax for constitutional purposes because it walks, quacks and tries to bite off old ladies' fingers at the park like a tax, but it's not a tax for AIA purposes because Congress didn't call it a tax and they wrote the AIA so they get to decide what it applies to, even when they draw a distinction that makes no Constitutional sense.

    Or at least that's what Roberts says.

  • SteveBrooklineMA||

    You are right. So is Roberts.

  • moosecat||

    from the decision:

    The exaction the Affordable Care Act imposes on those without health insurance looks like a tax in many respects. The “[s]hared responsibility payment,” as the statute entitles it, is paid into the Treasury by “taxpayer[s]” when they file their tax returns. 26 U. S. C. §5000A(b). It does not apply to individuals who do not pay federal income taxes because their household income is less than the filing threshold in the Internal Revenue Code. §5000A(e)(2). For taxpayers who do owe the payment, its amount is determined by such familiar factors as taxable income, number of dependents, and joint filing status. §§5000A(b)(3), (c)(2), (c)(4). The requirement to pay is found in the Internal Revenue Code and enforced by the IRS, which—as we previously explained—must assess and collect it “in the same manner as taxes.” Supra, at 13–14. This process yields the essential feature of any tax: it produces at least some revenue for the Government. United States v. Kahriger, 345 U. S. 22, n. 4 (1953). Indeed, the payment is expected to raise about $4 billion per year by 2017....

  • WTF||

    Thanks moosecat, you basically just repeated Another David only in lawyerspeak.

  • moosecat||

    no prob. glad I could help. wasn't sure what A.D. was getting at.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Yes that is what Robert wrote.

    And he is wrong.

    What's up with all the Roberts fellators invading Reason?

  • ¿Ex Nihilo?||

    What's up with all the Roberts fellators invading Reason?

    They are happy because now their team will win (or so they think) in the elections. Fuck freedom, it is about teams.

  • ||

    There is a huge distinction between a penalty and a tax. But I wouldn't expect a brain dead mooseturd to understand that.

    Oh and this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=related

  • Another David||

    That header reminds me of cracking open the Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision in an undergrad law class and immediately deciding that I never want to be a lawyer.

  • ChrisO||

    Yup. I was in law school shortly after Casey was decided, and I couldn't believe what a morass of indecision that was. This decision will have the same problem. In future Commerce Clause cases, there will be a real issue whether the Commerce Clause discussion in this case is dicta or precedent.

    And the Court's inane logic in calling it a tax for constitutional purposes but not so regarding the Anti-Injunction Act is going to lead to decades of confusion and uncertainty.

  • Gray Ghost||

    Piling on, while striking down the clause allowing the feds to impound state Medicare money is nice, there's very little guidance in that part of the decision as to how this situation is distinguishable from Dole. For Chrissake's, at least O'Connor would give you a balancing test to use when she pulled a decision out of her ass; Roberts here just says this much money makes it different than Dole, and doesn't give any guidance about where the line might be.

    I am baffled at people who praise the majority opinion for being well-written. The dissent's reasoning and writing is much clearer and elegant. I honestly would have less of a problem with the majority opinion if they'd just came out and said that the CC authorizes this, game over, than the incredibly circuitous reasoning Roberts ended up using. cont.

  • Gray Ghost||

    Again, I can't think of another SCOTUS opinion where they completely reconstrued legislation to make it Constitutional. They often put in dicta, "if you'd only done this, then we'd have found for you. But since you didn't..." Something like this though? I'm at a loss.

    That Kagan was allowed to rule on material she helped create is absolutely galling. I mean, that's Judicial Ethics 301. It's been awhile since professional responsibility, but IIRC, it's an ethical breach for lawyers to litigate against materials they'd helped create. How much worse is it when you ask a judge to do much the same thing?

    The whole point of a Supreme Court is that they give guidance to litigants and lower courts about where the lines are. When you have reasoning like Roberts's opinion, it makes everyone think (even more than they already did) that the Court is simply making it up as it goes along, without guidance from any document or work that we the people can follow. And the Court is doing it badly. You're supposed to hide the rabbit better than that.

    All the Court has is respect for their judgments; the idea that 9 dispassionate people can find the answer through reasoning from first, Constitutional principles, and that we should follow those answers. If instead they pick a winner and then torture/ignore precedent to support their choice, it, IMHO, kills any respect people have for their institution.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    That Kagan was allowed to rule on material she helped create is absolutely galling.

    Who was going to stop her? Why do you think she's on the Court in the first place?

  • Another David||

    whether the Commerce Clause discussion in this case is dicta or precedent.

    Yeah, that part makes absolutely no sense. Roberts and the dissenters all agree that the CC doesn't authorize a mandate, but they couldn't be bothered to work out section to that effect that all five could sign onto? It'd make the header even more confusing, but at least the precedent would be clear – Roberts and the liberals agree that it's a valid use of the taxing power because of X, Y and Z, while Roberts and the conservatives agree that it's an invalid use of CC power because of A, B and C. It's all binding, and everybody gets something to be pissed off about.

  • Lord Humungus||

    and yesterday was the day that I lost what little respect I had left for the governing institutions.

  • db||

    That's OK, they don'really need your respect or consent anymore, as a practical matter.

  • Lord Humungus||

    'cactly

  • ¿Ex Nihilo?||

    and yesterday was the day that I lost what little respect I had left for the governing institutions.

    You still had a little respect for them? Wow, have you not been paying attention.

  • Lord Humungus||

    very very little respect. or perhaps low expectations but with wishful thinking. At least it hardened my libertarian heart.

  • Alan Vanneman||

    The real point that Shikha unintentionally makes is that Supreme Court justices contradict themselves all the time. Scalia says that the Commerce Clause gives the federal government power to nulllify state marijuana laws but not to regulate health care. Roberts says that upholding the ACA under the Commerce Clause would ruin America but upholding it under the taxing power, well, not so much. As for the "liberals," they voted to allow Uncle Sam to lock up "perverts" not for the crimes they committed but rather the ones they haven't committed yet. Which suggests that public policy should be made by people you can get rid of every two years.

  • Bardas Phocas||

    Small florets of broccoli
    Circle the drain
    Nation of serfs weep

  • Brian from Texas||

    Looks like Roberts is going to join that little social club of Republican-appointed Justices who become more hated by the Right than the Left, Souter and O'conner being two other such former Justices.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy...

  • LibertyMark||

    Yes. And thus the vacuousness of Republicans who plead, "We must vote for this shit-for-brains, big-government, do-nothing Republican president because, SUPREME COURT!!!"

  • ChrisO||

    Yeah, the batting average isn't very good there, is it? Thomas is the only Justice remotely interested in liberty, it seems like.

  • Another David||

    Scalia likes liberty just fine as long as it stays out of the criminal justice system.

  • ||

    Devil's advocate: the batting averages of Democratic presidents is 100%. Their SCOTUS appointees all stay liberal. Any potential Obama or Clinton appointee would have sided with the majority here.

  • sarcasmic||

    If Roberts had gone with the dissent, then Obama would have a weapon in the election.
    Instead Roberts upheld Obamacare as a tax. The biggest single tax increase the world has ever seen.
    Brilliant move!
    Now the Republicans can campaign against people who supported a massive new tax!
    Roberts gave the election to the Republicans!

    Will the Republicans gain enough seats to pass a repeal, and have the balls to do so?

    I doubt it.

    But it was a nice play Roberts!

  • ¿Ex Nihilo?||

    Roberts gave the election to the Republicans!

    This was said yesterday, but I don't think that is a lock. If the Rs had nominated anyone other than who they did, you could use that argument. BUT, with Romney it is going to be more difficult. Since both (O and R) can't lose, I hope you are right.

  • sarcasmic||

    I'm thinking Congress. Roberts gave big ammunition to those seeking to unseat Democrat incumbents.

  • ¿Ex Nihilo?||

    I'm thinking Congress. Roberts gave big ammunition to those seeking to unseat Democrat incumbents.

    Ok, I can see that. However, I think if that is what he is trying to do, he must be retarded. This is just like SS, it will never be overturned by congress. It will be 'tweaked' to make it 'better.' But it will not go away until the collapse of the U.S.

  • wareagle||

    and if Roberts were the Repub campaign planning chief, this would be good palace intrigue. But, he's not. He's also not in charge of crafting rulings that speak to SCOTUS image-making. In a practical sense, you are right about the outcome but doesn't mean I have to like the way in which it came about.

  • moosecat||

    there's more to the November elections than the presidential vote.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • ||

    Ugh. What a dumbass girl. She is crying because she voluntarily went into a hornet's nest and got stung? What the fuck did she think was going to happen?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    In the article, she reproaches herself and says "I understand people saying, 'It’s your own fault, you brought it on yourself'." She says she should have worn a headscarf.

    Her excuse was that she was doing a documentary for a class assignment as part of training to be a journalist. Getting in dangerous situations is part of the risk of journalism, and you can't just tell the boss, "gosh, I thought it might be dangerous."

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    And to see the milieu she's dealing with, I was talking to a progressive who mentioned Egypt, and I said that hopefully the Egyptian Brotherhood will put some of its craziness behind it and become moderate.

    The progressive reproached me for even presuming to suggest that there was anything crazy or extreme about the Brotherhood - either there wasn't anything, or as Americans we weren't entitled to mention it.

  • wareagle||

    so you got a close-up lesson in moral relativism. Did you tell the progressive to fuck him/herself, that are damn well 'entitled' to render whatever opinion you wish since the MB has yet to be elected here.

  • Whiterun Guard||

    I would have just laughed at you for even considering that was a possibility.

  • ||

    Yeah, I posted before I read the article. Still....

  • ||

    IMHO, this is an illegitimate opinion. One that I am not bound to obey. 4 justices ruled the mandate was unconstitutional. 4 justices ruled that the madate was constitutional but this isn't the majority opinion. There then, only one judge has decided that this is a tax and not a penalty, despite 1) precedent that says yeah it is a tax.

    As Shikha points out in #1, this is a clusterfuck of an opinion. And basically that has been agreed on is that the ACA is constitutional. But without a majority agreeing to "the opinion." 5 justice have to agree on a reason as to why it is constitutional. They don't get to say, like a parent, "because we said so."

    With the tortured status of the opinion of this case, Roberts has just made SCOTUS even more irrelevant.

  • Whiterun Guard||

    It's over dude, you're stuck with it. Just like when the refs obviously gave the Superbowl to the Steelers (TWICE!), there's no panel that will review the game footage and overturn the score.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Well, maybe one of the deep red states will secede. I mean, I wouldn't waste a wish on it, but if I got away with wishing for a million wishes...

  • Whiterun Guard||

    True, though I think at this point, I'd move that into my top 10.

    Of course, once I have my armor- plated, fire-breathing giant rhinocerous mount, I really don't care what happens in the country.

  • Pip from the forge||

    Huge importance to conservatives and libertarians

    I keep seeing this. Conservatives and libertarians.
    Is this a new alliance? Are you serious?

  • ||

    Pip, the huns are inside the gates. Roberts/Wormtounge let them in. They are going to cook us and eat us. We will take whoever we can get.

  • ||

    Wormtongue Roberts....hmmm. I like it.

  • ant1sthenes||

    This isn't our pip, it's a libtard troll who was drawn here yesterday by the sweet scent of despair.

  • Pip from the forge||

    It's a serious question. Libertarianism, already marginalized and taken seriously by so few, is joining up with the ideologically bankrupt conservatives? This alliance smacks of desperation, if it is indeed an alliance. I don't believe it, personally. The only thing conservatives and libertarians have in common is hatred of Obama and the left. If hate is all you have going for you, you've already lost.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    The only thing conservatives and libertarians have in common is hatred of Obama and the left. If hate is all you have going for you, you've already lost.

    I LOL'd.

  • Zeb||

    I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not joining anyone. If a justice or politician does something I approve of or says something I agree with, I'll say so. That doesn't mean I'm joining their team.

    And there is plenty to hate both right and left, but I make my judgements on a case by case basis.

  • Pip from the forge||

    The prevailing, overwhelming, drearily repetitive atmosphere emanating from this site is one of sarcasm, cynicism and hate. How's that working out for libertarians so far? Good?

  • Zeb||

    How it is working out is immaterial to me. I believe what I believe because that's what I think is right. It's not about winning.

    Sarcasm, cynicism and hate seem to common to all political blogs. I don't think it is so special here.

  • ant1sthenes||

    No, conservatives are joining libertarians in opposing a policy whose endpoint is totalitarianism. Roberts' mistake was believing that the threat was in an unbounded commerce clause. The true threat is that ObamaCare is designed to destablize the third-party-payer system to trap Americans into supporting "single payer", which is a euphemism for complete government control of all medical decisions.

    Eventually, this will be expanded (much like Wickard expanded the Commerce Clause to something nearly unbounded) to grant the government the power to regulate any activity or decision that can potentially impact the need for medical care -- which is to say, almost anything a person does. What you eat (or don't eat), drink and smoke; how much you exercise; what sports or activities you engage in; who and how you fuck. Progressives are addicted to control, and don't have any principles that would limit their use of or desire for power. Their love of abortion and homosexuality is historical baggage from their stint undercover among liberals. It will be forgotten as soon as it starts to limit them in any way.

  • ||

    It's not an alliance so much as we both don't agree with certain things. I don't believe Santa Claus is real but that doesn't mean I'm forming an alliance with militant atheist.

  • ||

    "One that I am not bound to obey"

    Seems to be a lot of that going around. The president of Louisiana College was on the news this morning ranting about tyranny with a contorted face. It is a baptist college and he says he will shut it down before complying with obamacare. I assume he means that not only will the college not comply, but none of the staff will either.

    "They are commanding us to commit murder and we will not do it!" The guy looked like he was about to lose it on camera.

    I dont think these fuckwits in DC realize how many people are dusting off the pitchforks and torches.

  • Whiterun Guard||

    There's no rage that won't be quelled with a few choice cuts of bacon.

  • West Texas||

    This is what I think.

    The Dems started recognizing it more quickly than the Fox News demographic, but now lots of right pundits are starting to see the gift that Roberts handed them, by gutting congressional power and handing them a bloody shirt for November.

    I still think it was simply brilliant what he did... Marbury v Madison scale stuff.

  • R C Dean||

    I disagree.

    First, affirming OCare for a maybe advantage in one election is a terrible trade. OCare and this opinion will be with us forever. Assuming this hands the election to the Repubs, well, that will be over anddone with in four years.

    Second, nothing was gutted. The Commerce Clause discussion may or may not (I'm thinking not) be stare decisis. The Medicaid decision applies pretty much by its terms only to Medicaid, not to other mandates on the states.

    The discussion on the penaltax affirms that the taxing authority can be used for any social engineering scheme that enters Congress's empty little head.

    And, this case enshrines an extreme deference to Congress, under which courts are to disregard the plain language and express intent of Congress if necessary to beat back a Constitutional challenge.

  • Gray Ghost||

    Even if the CC discussion is binding precedent---let's say that it is---why do people think this won't be distinguished away in subsequent litigation just like Lopez? If I'm reading Roberts's test correctly, he states that the fed Gov't can't use the CC to compel activity. But it doesn't say anything about not being able to use the CC to authorize regulation if there's existing activity that tenuously relates to the subject of the regulation. Especially considering this Court's mindset of finding legislation Constitutional by any means necessary. In short, I don't see Roberts's long discussion of the CC in any way hindering Congress from passing whatever they want.

    R.C., IYO, does the Medicaid section only apply to Medicaid because of its unique subject matter, because of the sheer size of Medicaid relative to other state expenditures, or both?

    It's aggravating. The dissent is so much more elegant than this opinion.

  • Reformed Republican||

    The discussion on the penaltax affirms that the taxing authority can be used for any social engineering scheme that enters Congress's empty little head.

    I think this right here is worse than Obamacare being upheld. This is ultimately a huge expansion of the power of Congress. I just hope we end up with a conservative Congress that uses the power to do something that really pisses off the liberals.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    R C Dean is right. How does this gut congressional power? If anything it hands them a new precedent for extreme deference by the court. It also offers little guidance to lower courts on the commerce clause. A majority opinion overthrowing the mandate and law on commerce clause grounds would have been much clearer. It also clears the path for all kinds of tax abuse shenanigans.

    The thing is, Democrats will keep working to subvert the limitations of the commerce clause regardless of this ruling, but now they have a blueprint for another way to get around it. Future bills will include both the commerce clause and taxing authority as authorization, and suddenly the IRS will look like a mighty fine tool for getting all kinds of neat stuff done. This is not good.

  • TJ Bigelow||

    Does anyone know if the OBCare penalty/tax applies to expats? Just curious, given our unique tax system.

    Similarly, would a Canadian living in Detroit have to pay the tax if he always drove across the border for his medical needs?

  • tarran||

    Similarly, would a Canadian living in Detroit have to pay the tax if he always drove across the border for his medical needs?

    Fuck yeah! If you live in the U.S., they will squeeze you.

    The IRS is like Patience in Whitefall. They never let go of money unless they absolutely have to.

  • Paul A'Barge||

    Complete hooey.

    Roberts is Souter in loafers.

    Boosh 41 gave us Souter.
    Boosh 43 gave us Roberts.

    No more Booshes.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    No more leftists, either.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Romney has promised to select more justices like Roberts. What an ass. We are SO fucked.

  • SB||

    A quote I recently came across:

    "The Republican party is not a void waiting to be filled with good philosophical principles. It is a void that is ideologically committed to being a void, and will fight to the death to preserve its pristine emptiness. That is why in an election year when so much is at stake, they have put forth Mitt Romney, their finest representative, the emptiest Empty Suit they could find."

    While I'm at it, I'll add my own two cents to the mix:

    The Republican establishment poses more of a threat to freedom because they posture as its defenders, which they aren't.

    Note (just a few of the highlights): the Republicans
    controlled Congress from 1896 to 1910 again from 1918 to 1930.
    A Republican first proposed the Sherman Anti-Trust Act; Repubs established the foundations for the Federal Reserve
    Act during Taft's Administration; they proposed the fundamentals of the New Deal during the Hoover Administration; they recognized Red China and
    kicked Taiwan, a founding Security Council member, out of the UN
    while enacting wage price controls during the Nixon Administration; and in their last occupation of the White House, they trumped LBJ and his Great Society spending on Medicare, pushing the nation closer to
    socialized medicine, something a wildly popular Democratic
    President and his power lusting wife could not do.

    So it was with Roberts, who just sold America into slavery. Perhaps someone ought to send him 30-pieces of silver.

  • Kat||

    Isn't "over-clever effort" pretty much the job description for lawyers?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement