Justice Roberts’ resurrection
WASHINGTON The Supreme Court ruling on health care reform was like Palm Sunday in reverse: First they crucified Chief Justice John Roberts, then, upon his ruling, they hauled out the palm fronds.
“They” would be the various pundits, academics and others who let Roberts know in advance that if his court overturned “Obamacare,” he would be revealed and remembered as a partisan hack.
But then: Hosanna, Eureka and Praise Jesus, Allah and Abraham! Roberts, a conservative, devout Catholic who probably doesn’t personally like any part of this law, sided with the liberal wing of the court and upheld the legislation. Cue Handel’s “Hallelujah” chorus.
And the skies parted, the tides receded and climate change became a sidebar to the blessings of Roberts’ brilliance. Now we pause to caffeinate. What follows is a bit complicated, as bureaucracies would have it.
First, let’s be clear: All arguments that the court is a far-right cudgel hovering over our delightful, evenhanded, fair-minded, nonpartisan democratic Republic are off the table. And celebrants of the court as just and true and lovely only when it suits their personal agendas should put their bumper stickers and sparklers in a lockbox.
Sometimes the law is what it is—an ass. By communal consent, we tolerate outcomes that don’t always suit us because the alternative of settling disagreements in the streets is less appealing.
One of several ironies of Thursday’s ruling is that liberals are crowing about winning something they didn’t actually win. Yes, the court ruled that Obamacare is constitutional, but not on the basis of the Commerce Clause, as proposed by the Obama administration. Instead, the court ruled that the individual mandate to purchase insurance falls under Congress’ authority to tax and therefore is constitutional.
In other words, according to the high court, Obamacare constitutes a tax, which the administration and the legislation’s authors repeatedly insisted was not the case. It is considered a tax because the government will “tax” those Americans who decline to purchase health insurance. This alone is the reason Obamacare passed constitutional muster.
Meanwhile, the Commerce Clause remains intact, which is cause for conservatives to celebrate. It is not as elastic as it might have been had the court embraced Obama’s justification for the mandate. We will not, in fact, all have to eat broccoli, as Justice Scalia proposed in one of his characteristically humorous hypotheticals during oral arguments.
And what Obama insisted was constitutional was, in fact, in error. So says the court.
Here’s what else the court said. When a tax is a tax, you have to call it a tax. No more pretense or doublespeak to fool or mislead people. This is a victory for all Americans, no matter what one’s political leaning, because it is a victory for plain speak. If we could summarily order all politicians to say exactly what they mean, we would all be better off.
We also probably wouldn’t have Obamacare. If Americans had heard from the beginning that health care reform meant a new tax, the legislation probably wouldn’t have gone far. This is especially so given that the tax primarily will be on the backs of middle-class Americans who can least afford it. Who else, after all, is going to be hardest-pressed to find extra funds to purchase insurance?
The Obama administration knew this. The legislation’s authors in Congress knew this, which is why you may not have heard it before the Supreme Court ruled. This is to say, Obama won the day almost by accident—and not at all because his Commerce Clause justifications were constitutionally sound.
During oral arguments, the taxation aspect of the mandate was made almost as an afterthought, according to sources close to the action. Yet it provided the basis for the final ruling. This is what Roberts apparently saw as the compelling (or perhaps convenient?) argument that led him to rule against expectations. Congress doesn’t have the authority to expand the Commerce Clause to force people to buy something they don’t want to buy, but Congress does have taxing authority.
For now, Americans can’t be forced to buy broccoli but they will have to ante up more of their dough—either to insurance companies, the real victors, or to the federal government. No wonder Roberts looked so sad when he entered the chamber Thursday. He also knows that the palm fronds usually precede the crucifixion and it’s only a matter of time before his worshipers become his tormentors yet again.
Kathleen Parker is a columnist for the Orlando Sentinel. Her email address is kathleenparker@washpost.com.


Jul 2, 2012 at 8:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
How much do you know about the law? Take the quiz and find out: http://healthreform.kff.org/quizzes/heal...
Jul 2, 2012 at 3:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
If I am a big mean corporation, as most are by liberal standards, I will drop my employee's health care that costs me $20,000+ and pay the $7,500 tax. Which will make my employee's have to buy insurance or pay a tax if they do not. I can even give them a $7,500 health insurance voucher to help them pay for a $20,000 policy, and still save money. If everybody does it I don't even have to worry about it affecting employee retention.
I propose taking away the option of "not for profit" or "non profit" status for health care providers. Then de-regulate the insurance industry.
Jul 2, 2012 at 2:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
You mean more folks will be employed vato? Or maybe more will be expected of the current government employees already on the payrolls? From what I keep reading and see the non-compliance tax/fee whatever you want to call it is supposed to be close to a wash, any numbers that anyone tries to provide in this cae are nothing more than estimates, period. To say this WILL be some massive spending increase is just another ludicrous fear tactic that is based in the land of projections, not reality.
Besides the trillions we spend as a nation imposing our will around the world SHOULD be spent here taking CARE of our own citizens.
Again, if you want to make big assumptions about what this will and what it wont cost, you are just playing a game you cannot win, at least not until this law has been in effect for a few years. Either way its hysterics, on both sides.
Jul 2, 2012 at 1:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
And the right wing answer is and always continues to be , torte reform. Which in itslef is laughable, as if frivolous lawsuits is even less than a fraction of whats wrong with this nations health care.
Hysterics from the right are no different than those on the left Dave. I can point out thousands of examples of how and why socialized care works far better than this immoral, corrupt system that you suggest we continue with. The hysterical comments "Our freedoms are now gone" to suggest that we are no longer free people, is as silly as it is hysterical. Quite frankly its becoming a tactic that just isnt working.
I am not a real fan of this act at all as it is merely a gift to insurance companies, nothing more. None of you people talking about reforms have offered anything in the way of a solution. Just hysterics and generalizations.
One thing I can say Vato is that the addition of 45 million new customers certainly wont drive prices up!
Jul 2, 2012 at 1:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
So how much is my new tax? I have a normal average plan carried by my employer.
Jul 2, 2012 at 12:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
And because the taxes don't fully kick in until long after the election, people who aren't paying attention will continue to blindly vote for empty platitudes instead of substance.
Jul 2, 2012 at 12:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
One sad aspect of this whole fiasco (the Orwellian-named Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) is that people who support it invariably don't understand it. There is no free healthcare if you have none now. There is no guarantee you will keep your current healthcare or current providers if you do have it now. You will be much more likely to be audited by the IRS - this is the enforcement mechanism. There are death panels - not by that name of course, but some bureaucrat will make life/death decisions and that will include letting people die, as they do today in the UK:
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/...
There will be waste, fraud and abuse - again, here's an example from the UK:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/health...
It's just another Big Government program that expands government size and control, which by definition takes away more of our rights and freedoms.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.