It has it all: the truth of the basic situation (Obamacare is a TAX), the willingness of Barack Obama to admit it (he is NOT), and the way that this entire situation is leaving the taste of ash in the mouths of more perceptive liberals everywhere (they REALLY didn’t want to get limits on the Commerce Clause*). Pretty good cartoon.
Moe Lane
*To reference AoSHQ: I understand a certain skepticism towards Congress is warranted at all times; but, really, there was a reason why the administration avoided admitting that it was a tax in the first place.
NOVEMBER.
Only sorta on topic. But I love this picture so much I can’t stop smiling.
http://blogs-images.forbes.com/aroy/files/2012/07/189×3001.jpg
It goes with this Forbes story – The Inside Story on How Roberts Changed His Supreme Court Vote on Obamacare
http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/07/01/the-supreme-courts-john-roberts-changed-his-obamacare-vote-in-may/
Well, dang. The program thinks my last post was spam. Maybe because I put a couple of links in it.
I’ll try again and separate the links. This picture makes me smile – http://blogs-images.forbes.com/aroy/files/2012/07/189×3001.jpg
It goes with this Forbes story – The Inside Story on How Roberts Changed His Supreme Court Vote on Obamacare
http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/07/01/the-supreme-courts-john-roberts-changed-his-obamacare-vote-in-may/
Saw that. Let me know when Jan Crawford coughs up a name to back that accusation.
Needs spikes.
Mew
What do you think happened, Moe? What explains it?
(That’s not a challenge. It’s a real question I’ve grappled with.)
eager to tell me a story that just happens to be potentially damaging to conservative morale.
Is there any explanation that doesn’t do this?
:shrug: I think that we all assumed that because neither the Democrats nor the Republicans really wanted to argue Obamacare was a tax, we assumed that the courts would let us get away with it. I also think that it’s entirely possible that Roberts changed his mind halfway through the decision on whether or not to let the politicians get away with it. But, truthfully? In hindsight it should have occurred to all of us that the Court might have had a reason for making sure that the tax argument was represented in oral arguments.
And I really don’t trust anonymous sources. Particularly when they just happen to hammer our side. 🙂
By the way, my major mistake in all of this was assuming that the Anti-Injunction Act was more of an obstacle than it turned out to be. If I had really realized that there was a way around it I would have estimated the chances of [the tax argument] being brought up to be a lot higher than I ended up doing. Ach, well, IANAL.
Well, I’m staying mad at Roberts anyway. And really having trouble thinking what his path to redemption might be.
Beej: No skin of my nose if you’re mad at him, of course. He ain’t my uncle or anything. 🙂
Yeah, I’m pretty sure one or both of those anonymous sources was Aaron Sorkin.
Moe, I believe it. Several of the folks over at the Volokh Conspiracy apparently believe it, too, and they set forth some evidence that makes it seem very plausible. And then there was the intense media barrage against the legitimacy of the Supreme Court that erupted a couple of days after close of oral arguments … and then fell strangely silent a few weeks later. (Drudge headline: “WHITE HOUSE STRANGELY SILENT”.) This indicates to me that (1) Chief Justice Roberts did originally intend to vote with Justices Kennedy, Scalia, Alito, and Thomas, and (2) somebody (Justice Kagan? Justice Sotomayor? A clerk?) leaked that fact to the White House.
And I really don’t trust anonymous sources. Particularly when they just happen to hammer our side.
Unfortunately, what Chief Justice Roberts did is what just happens to hammer our side.