As of now, I am in control here, in the White House

Why Don’t We Call it JohnRobertsCare?

As the chances for repealing Obamacare recede – with the states beginning to set up the Obamacare “health exchanges” and the putative leader of the Republicans, Speaker John Boehner calling the nationalization of health care the “law of the land” – I think it’s time to pay homage to the spineless jurisprudence of the man who allowed all this to happen, Chief Justice John Roberts.

Roberts did this, I believe, because he was tired of weeping late at night at the thought of President Obama and the Democrats villainizing his precious Supreme Court in the manner they do all their perceived enemies.

I think Obama intimidated the apparently fragile Mr. Roberts with his April 2 appearance in the Rose Garden – after the Court had heard the arguments but before a decision had been reached.

Ultimately, I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.

Obama probably knew that Roberts had not yet decided, perhaps informed via Justice Elena Kagan, the former solicitor general who is close to many people in the White House. And he knew of Roberts’ precious regard for the Court.

This was accompanied by a drumbeat of Obama allies popping up on TV to suggest that the Supreme Court would enlist itself in the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy if it dared depose Obamacare.

Please join in the applause, won't you?

And lo and behold, Roberts actually changed his original opinion, in which he had sided with the Court’s conservatives to strike down the law, deciding to rewrite the measure in his own brain and consider the Obamacare’s penalty for non-compliance a tax.

Congress was explicit that the enforcement measure was a penalty, which even Roberts knew would be unconstitutional because it would amount to compelling commerce by forcing you to buy something.

But Congress has a clear right to tax. And so Roberts pretended it was a tax, and gave us Obamacare.

And now Roberts won’t have to defend the Court, and he can eat out at Washington restaurants without having other elite Washingtonians give him a look like he’s just another savage, dull-brained conservative.

And so, in honor of the Chief Justice, White House Dossier asks that – at least during the holiday season of thanks – we call the Socialization and eventual ruin of the nation’s health care system JohnRobertsCare.

38 Responses to Why Don’t We Call it JohnRobertsCare?

  1. Let’s face it…John Roberts did more to write/rewrite this law than Barack Obama ever did. At least Roberts read the law.

    It’s in the bizaro world we live.

  2. There have been a lot of theories of why JusticeRoberts changed his mind and the one I like best is that he believed that calling it a “tax” would cause Americans to vote against MrObama for foisting this huge tax on everyone.
    He expected the MSM to follow the decision with massive negative coverage of how the public was duped into believing it was about health care, not a new taxing program. He was wrong, nothing much was said in the MSM except to call the decision a “victory” for MrO. Epic fail.

    Obamacare will eventually collapse upon itself as court decisions cut away some of the most unpleasant parts and the public finally realizes that it doesn’t improve healthcare but has made it worse.

    • “…and the public finally realizes that it doesn’t improve healthcare but has made it worse.” -srdem65

      Let me rephrase that in Obamaese;

      ‘…then the public gets angry enough to remove the obstructionist Republican Congressmen from the house, handing the gavel back to Speaker Nancy Pelosi so Obama’s good works can go “Forward”.’

      By and large, if “The Public” become aware of anything outside of their own precious selves, they will blame the Republicans that remain in the House for Dear Leader’s failures, along with George Bush and The Evil Rich. As they have been trained and conditioned to do all these years. Public perception will be that only John Boener denied everyone the Utopia that the wise and kindly Obama promised.

      Don’t expect any help from that quarter. The barbarians have won. History informs us what happens next, it’s as predicatable as the very tides Obama was supposed to reverse. It’s going to get very ugly before it’s over.

      America has saved the world from tyranny many times over. Who will save America?

      • I’m afraid no one will. There was a time when America did the saving.
        Those that we helped can only look at us, shake their heads and wonder, why did they do this to themselves?

    • Obviously, nobody gave any thought to how to implement this monstrosity. Governors cannot get answers about the insurance exchanges. The conspiracy types say that’s because we won’t like the answers. Actually, nobody in DC knows the answers. That’s what you get when you elect a fraud to the presidency. Please don’t whine! It’s poor form.

  3. Roberts did more to harm the Republic with that opinion than legalize Obamacare – he legalized the theft of our individual sovereignty. In my opinion, Mark Levin had the best analysis of Roberts betrayal of America and the Constitution of the United States…

    Our last line of defense against Obamacare is with the states. The Republican governors need to stand strong on their commitment not to implement the exchanges. The feds hands are tied because of a loophole in that 2000+ page theft of our liberty. The feds can’t force the states to establish the exchanges and they can’t come in and do it on their own.

    • There was a very robust “state’s rights” movement in the mid-19th century. I’m pretty sure the culminating arguments in Lincoln vs. Davis settled the law in favor of Federal supremacy.

        • True, to the extent the feds are law abiding. This administration, however, has shown nothing but contempt for rule of law, whether civil or criminal, and even ignores the Constitution. What you’re left with is a tyrannical Federal government vs. a hodge podge of semi-defiant states that are not unified even with themselves as to how or whether to defy the Federal government. The Obama strategy has always been divide and conquer. He will suceed with this for the implementation of Obama Care as well.

          The specific principle you seem to be pointing towards is nullification. Simply stated, the theory is that people (or states) have the right to overturn laws that are not beneficial to the public. There was a lively discussion about this in the 1820’s, when the Federal government passed tariffs that would be damaging to Southern interests. South Carolina passed an ordinance of nullification. Then-President Andrew Jackson responded by threatening the nullification of South Carolina. The crisis was defused, for a time, only because a congressional compromise was accomplished.

          This was all before the Civil War established Federal supremacy in all things, and a host of Federal power grabbing since. This President is far more dedicated to his agenda than was Southerner Andrew Jackson to tarriffs, and has much more military might at his disposal. Do you really think he would respect the will of a few Republican Governors of some weak and divided states, when he can simply claim that force is needed to help “his” people within those states? Read up on the justification of the Anschuss and Germany’s “protection” of Sudenten Germans in Czechoslovakia before you answer that. Do you think THIS President capable of any less?

          At the end of the day. the law is what the enforcers of the law say it is. Only in union can we hope to match them. As long as the enemies of tyranny remain disunited and divided, the laughter of Chicago is our only reward.

  4. So very sad and so very true, I had been a supporter of Roberts all along up until this bizzaro ruling. It demonstrate the immense power of scorn and ridicule particularly over those who are disproportionatly victims of egomania. That the Republic itself would suffer virtual dismemberment as a result of one man’s weakness is catastrophic but not unforeseen, the founders enshrined the 2nd Ammendmant!

  5. Robert’s decision, along with many others in many places reinforces my opinion that hubris, ego and sense of legacy and self …rules and in Robert’s case rules “supreme”.


    Some days I feel like the anti-Gewande, above. I feel like launching into a crazy-half-thought-through rant on the bad doctorin’ out here in AZ. Esp Phoenix–I know someone who says even Tucson is better! I don’t know why–but in my 16 yrs here, I bought my own insurance (until Medicare last 3 yrs) and never could afford the copays or had faith in the doctors if I did pony up…one offered to pray instead of tests, another said even if it is cncer, it’ll be slow come back in six mos (it wasn’t cancer–but I had to hire a consultant to tell me what test to get), I have had a doc who prefaced every comment with “If you were in the Navy…If you were in the Navy, you could not get this test…etc (He had never been in the Navy, we checked, but so what, anyway). Mom’s hosp record said she was diabetic–she wasn’t but they could not change it. I once went to the ER two days in a row and was about to be sent home again when they said, “Wait, you think there is something wrong?” Uh–yes… The came back in–“We were looking at yesterday’s x-ray–sorry–you have a blocked intestine.” On and on. I can’t even remember it all. So now all these docs will get paid and there won’t even be enough of them to go around…ACK! PS I am getting both copays back from two trips to urgent care bec they did the wrong tests–that’s today’s.

    • Star, you have every right to rant. When and where possible, always bring an advocate with you to keep asking questions. All the systems are held together with spit and glue. I’ve heard variations of your experience over and over again and they all didn’t have happy endings.

        • I am the advocate–I do a daily health blog and this still kicks my fanny everytime!! My sister used to come in with me until the bad eye surgeries–she offered to testify against me if I sued bec the doctor had been so “nice.”

          • Wish I could increase the font size for you. SCREW nice doctors – I don’t hire personalities, I hire the best medical mechanic I can find. I lost my newborn second son from a really “nice” doctor many, many years ago.

            Are you sure she’s your “REAL” sister?

  7. So John Roberts is the problem. Another day, another person to blame.

    And Roberts did none of what you wrote about. None. Instead he acted like what conservatives want, a non-activist judicial member. And what he said was this – Don’t turn my court into a circus by challenging every damn law, no matter how stupid it is on the grounds of it being unconstitutional. If you don’t like a law, when a damn election and change it. Laws are written and passed NY congress along with the presidents signature. Not a kangaroo court.

    I wish more judges had that kind of fortitude especially when Roe vs Wade came to the court.

    • It also should be noted that Roberts was the one that swung the court into striking down the provisions that dealt with the federal government forcing states to set up exchanges and pay for it. The court said the federal government does not have that right whatsoever therefore it gave states the right to say no.

      Right now there are 30 GOP governors and all of them along with some moderate Democratic governors are indicating they are saying no. If ObamaCare is as unpopular as you say, then these governors should win reelection easily in two years. Ditto for Congress. Take back Congress and ObamaCare cannot be funded so its not even worth the 2400 pages its written on. Again, win elections and you will get rewarded.

      Oh and your TEA party favorite Alan West just conceded for good. And they mapped out a district he should have easily carried. Is any of this seeking in yet?

      • FWIW, The district Col. west lost had 174,000 eligible voters and 247,000 people voted (rounded to 000). Ya think maybe a little vote fraud happened here?? This obviously happened nation wide, mosy notably in OH, where, like other states that didn’t require ID, He won, and states where ID was required, he lost-All of them!

    • That is your interpretation. Many would disagree with your assessment. The SCOTUS is responsible for upholding the Constitution as it is written and to prevent laws from being enacted if they are deemed unconstitutional.. This legislation certainly invited scrutiny and numerous lawsuits were filed. The ACA is a violation of the commerce clause, inspite of Robert’s ruling. And the ACA cannot be defunded by the House, even if the House was 100% Republican.

      • ObamaCare is not unconstitutional. Neither is most laws that conservative judges want to become actives ones and use the court to make law. Stupid law does not mean its unconstitutional. Read Roberts decision on it.

  8. Nancy is still fuming her bill wasn’t named CruellaCare and that whelp of a president gave her no credit. JohnRobertsCare should really piss her off and send over the edge. Not like she’s already there anyway. Look at her district, her constitiuents want to walk around in public naked. Maybe she’ll join them.

  9. The issue that’s just not going away, to quote/ paraphrase the great Mark Levin, is that “Obamacare isn’t the law of the land; the Constitution is the law of the land”. That inconvenient fact will persevere.

  10. If you read the bill, and the Constitution, you will find that the tax in the bill does not meet Constitutional requirements for a tax Since that was not the issue in the law suit, Roberts couldn’t do anything. But if someone brings a suit challenging the Constitutionality of the tax, then he can strike down the entire bill as the tax is un-Constitutional. When he said it was a tax. he was giving a huge hint on how to handle the situation. Someone should take the hint.

  11. However, if the Supreme Court said it was a tax, then wouldn’t ObamaCare have to originated in the House? I thought it was originated in the Senate.

    If that is the case, then is not ObamaCare unConstitutional by definition (whether you agree with it or not).

    • The devious crooks in Congress have that covered. They used the “shell bill” maneuver. Reid took a tax bill that had already passed in the House, stripped it, and inserted the text of Obamacare to get around Article I, Section 7.