“It’s all up to the voters now.”


Readers!
 
For many reasons, mostly political but partly ethical, I do not use Google, Facebook, Twitter. They practice corrupt business policies, while targeting conservative websites for censoring, facts repeatedly confirmed by news stories and by my sense that Facebook has taken action to prevent my readers from recommending Behind the Black to their friends.
 
Thus, I must have your direct support to keep this webpage alive. Not only does the money pay the bills, it gives me the freedom to speak honestly about science and culture, instead of being forced to write it as others demand.

 

Please consider donating by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar below.


 

Regular readers can support Behind The Black with a contribution via paypal:

Or with a subscription with regular donations from your Paypal or credit card account:


If Paypal doesn't work for you, you can support Behind The Black directly by sending your donation by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman, to
 
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652

 

You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage. And if you buy the books through the ebookit links, I get a larger cut and I get it sooner.

“It’s all up to the voters now.”

It always has been up to the voters. Sadly, my baby-boom generation has too often turned to the courts to absolve themselves from responsibility for making tough decisions as voters. With Obamacare, that is no longer possible. If the public wants to get rid of this turkey of a law, which every poll says they do, the public had better come out to the polls in November and vote for candidates who are in favor of its repeal.

Share

11 comments

  • JGL

    Chief Justice Roberts rewrites and “fixes” the Affordable Healthcare Act, and IMO abandons his feduciary responsibility as the Chief Justice

    of The Supreme Court.

    The law was written, defeneded and passed as a mandate with a fine, not as a tax.

    I look forward to the first press conference when the president or his representative is asked:

    1. How did you feel when you realized that the Chief Justice redefined the mandate penalty in the Healthcare Act so as to define it as a tax,

    even though no tax has been collected ?

    And

    2. Don’t you feel as though a fraud has been perpetrated on the American people related to the Supreme Court upholding the Healthcare

    Act ?

    This really amazes me, talk about legislating from the bench, It does not get any more blatant, cowardly and fraudulent then this, what is the

    purpose of the Supreme Court if not to determine when Congress has gone too far?

    Thats thier Damn Job!.

    Let this wake the people.

  • Chris Kirkendall

    Well, if there’s a good side to this, it’s that now the choice this Nov could not be clearer – if we want to get rid of ObamaCare, we have to defeat Obama himself at the ballot box. We need to flip the Senate as well – otherwise it’s going to be nearly impossible to overturn this. Maybe a lot of folks who weren’t too thrilled with Romney will now realize he’s the last, best hope to salvage some measure of sanity. If Obama wins a 2nd term and this terrible law is fully implemented it will be the beginning of the end of this great Republic…

  • Publius 2

    I disagree. I think it was a brilliant opinion by Roberts. First, it creates a firewall between Congress and the ability to require citizens to conduct commerce. Second, it defanged the Democrats’ (fraudulent) argument that five, unelected right-wing judges thwarted the will of the people. And third, it does, as Bob stated, require the electorate to throw out the authors of this monstrosity and replace them with legislators and an executive that will dismantle it. For decades I’ve been arguing with my liberal friends about the value and power of elections. Sure, it’s great when a court rules your way, but what recourse do you have when it rules against you? The answer is the ballot box, where you can elect representatives that will choose wisely when asked to confirm or reject appointees to the federal bench. All in all, Justice Roberts has acted in a conscientious, professional and thoughtful manner. He personifies the wisdom of Rabbi Hillel: “Where there are no men, be thou a man.”

  • JGL

    The law should have been overturned, the Chief Justice rewrote and reinterpereted the law to his own political purposes.

    Its not for the Chief Justice to “play it safe” he is there do do a specific job, properly interperet the Constitution when laws are passed that

    violate its framework and intent.

    Playing political strategy is not his purpose.

    The Chief Justic has failed.

    I appreciate your optimistic view / spin but its a little too high risk for my tastes.

  • Publius 2

    You might want to take a look at what Governor Scott Walker has done. He’s announced that Wisconsin will not implement any ObamaCare provisions before the November elections. How could he do this? Because another facet of the Roberts decisions forbids the federal government from penalizing states that opt not to participate. Essentially he’s invited all of the states to put a stop to it. And, coincidentally, he’s allowing the states to mimic Obama’s tendency to ignore laws with which he doesn’t agree — all of this while removing the Left’s ability to characterize the Court’s decision as political. Not bad for playing it safe.

  • JGL

    He seems more worried about his courts image and not about judging.

    I get your point about a possible strategy but when its for all of the marbles I like to take care of business when it is at hand and not leave it to

    the uncertainty of the future.

  • Patrick

    I was wondering if this law should or even could be rewritten as a tax. Instead of just being called a tax.

    Will this show up on my paystub as a tax, like medicaid/medicare? That would at least show everyone exactly what they are paying for this universal healthcare system.
    As best I can figure it every working American will have to pay over 5 hundred a month in order to cover everyone in the system. Not counting inflation or population fluctuations in the future.
    And that’s not counting paying for any left over medicaid or medicare system.

    And if it is reset as a tax how will it be worked to get the rich to pay more like the lefties want to do?

  • JGL

    Its not about symantics any more the Chief Justice HAS rewritten the law.

    Isn’t his charge to judge law and not to write law?

    I thought law was written by the Congress, isn’t that how the founders wrote it?

    Mabe it’s just me.

  • Patrick

    I think the senate wrote this and not the congress.

    Since all law is to be started in congress could it now be argued that its invalid?

    Or will it take sending back to the SC?
    If they uphold it again, then it will again go against the constitution which states all law is to be written and voted on in congress first, and then passed to the senate for ratification.

  • JGL

    I think your points are unrealistic, the entire law is a fraud, it has been written and defended as one thing and now its something else, that to

    my mind is called a bait and switch at a minimum.

    Keep in mind that most of the Affordable Healthcare act is an empty framework, to be filled in by government beauracrats and industry

    insiders as need be.

    Any piece of legislation more than say 50 pages is to be viewed as suspect, IMO.

    The entire law must be flushed and market solutions with proper government oversight are where the answers lie here, not the government

    and industry working in concert to manipulate and take over an entire industry.

    In any other situation that would be called collusion and conspiracy.

  • JGL

    Let me add, I keep hearing differering talking head opinions on the Chief Justices possible startegic motivations, how he has become a

    liberal, big government justice and on the other side how he is brilliently strategizing a conservative trap that the liberals must fall into.

    Since we have been put on this course lets see where it goes, although like I have pointed out that when its for all the marbles I would

    choose to play it safe and not attempt out think the unknowns of future events.

    High risk can deliver better results, but its high risk.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *