So, Chief Justice Roberts says that it's not a penalty, and it's not valid under the commerce clause, but it IS a tax.
Gee, what did Obama say about whether it was a tax or not??? (via Gateway Pundit, from an ABC News interview):
Ace went nuts:
It wasn't a tax for purposes of getting it passed politically, also wasn't a tax for purposes of delaying judgment based on the Anti-Injunction Act, but then magically became a tax in order to be upheld.
If the government now has the power under the taxing power to enforce its preferences regarding how citizens live their lives, Ed Morrissey proposes, modestly, a new tax on those who refuse to buy a gun.
Allah considered a similar question yesterday: Whether the government could put a punitive tax on you for owning a gun. Gun ownership is a right, he thought, so the ObamaTax logic wouldn't fully apply. You can't burden a right.
Well, owning a gun is a right, but not owning a gun is not a right. Or at least it's no more of a right than not owning insurance.
We can pass a great many laws like this, enforcing our preferences in any area that isn't an explicit (or penumbra-ish) right under the Constitution.
Don't go to Church regularly? Why, we can tax that. And before you say it's your right not to go to church -- of course it is, but we can compel all Americans to spend at least two hours each week on philosophical contemplation, whether it be at church or in Quiet Home Study of non-religious philosophical texts.
If a temporary majority in Congress thinks it's a good idea -- tax away!
The Constitution apparently gives the government the right to dictate almost all of our personal choices, so long as it enforces these preferences via punitive taxes. So let's get started.
Real Clear Politics also has a lengthy analysis on what they term "The Roberts Gambit".
Erick at RedState posted 24 hours later and points out the fact that the sleeping giant (The Tea Party) has been rudely awakened, and will make it's collective voice heard come November.
The US Catholic Church is NOT happy with the decision as it stands right now. The HHS mandate has already riled them up.
For those who compare the ObamaCare mandate to auto insurance and fire insurance, there's this response.
On March 23, I posted this analysis about that same point:
[F]irst of all, it's the states that mandate auto coverage, not the federal government. Second, you are required to only have coverage for others and their property if you are at fault in an accident. You are not required to have coverage on yourself. And you are only required to have coverage on your own vehicle if you are still making car payments, and don't own the car outright (it's a required coverage not by the state but buy the financier of the vehicle to protect against any potential loss).
The same with home owner's insurance. You are only required to buy it if you still have a mortgage to pay (it's, again, a requirement of the bank to protect against a potential loss). If you own your home outright, you're free to not have HOI.
The Republican Party just got energized. So did the Romney campaign. So much so that in just 24 hours they've raised over $4.6 million from 47,000 donors.
Santelli chimes in.
So does Bachmann, who states that they only need 51 votes in the Senate to repeal ObamaCare, not 60.
The Republicans plan to bring up a repeal vote on July 11 to get set the record on who and who is not for the continuation of ObamaCare, and to set the stage for the November elections.
And LA Governor Bobby Jindal vows to never implement ObamaCare in his state. (I reeeeally like him as a VP choice).
It's been a crazy 24 hours.
The RNC already has up another new ad:
The AFP also has a new ad:
The Daily Caller tries to read the tea leaves of Roberts' decision.
Justice Thomas had this to add in his dissent.
And Ace of Spades continues along the reasoning that, yes, this can be voted down with a simple majority vote in the Senate as a reconciliation...because it was a tax bill. (hehehe)