Showing posts with label obamacare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label obamacare. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 9, 2013

Catholic hospitals accept birth control compromise

By Rachel Zoll, AP Religion Writer

NEW YORK (AP) -- In a split with U.S. bishops, a trade group for Catholic hospitals said Tuesday it can accept the Obama's administration latest compromise on birth control coverage by religious employers.

"We are pleased that our members now have an accommodation that will not require them to contract, provide, pay or refer for contraceptive coverage," said the Catholic Health Association.

Under President Barack Obama's health care law, most employers are required to cover birth control as a free preventive service for women workers. Churches and other houses of worship are fully exempt from the mandate. But religiously-affiliated hospitals, universities and social service groups are not.

The compromise, in a final regulation from the administration, attempts to create a buffer for these employers. It requires insurers or the health plan's outside administrator to pay for birth control coverage, and creates a mechanism for reimbursing them.

However, U.S. Roman Catholic bishops are suing to overturn the entire requirement, saying it trespasses on freedom of religion.

Sister Mary Ann Walsh, a spokeswoman for the bishops, said the hospital association had notified the bishops' conference about its stand late Monday.

Walsh said the bishops "did not contribute to the (group's) analysis or the statement itself." Catholic dioceses, charities and universities are among the plaintiffs in more than 60 lawsuits challenging the rule. The cases are expected to reach the Supreme Court.

The regulation has become another contentious issue in the health care overhaul Obama signed into law in 2010.

The Catholic hospitals' group, led by Sister Carol Keehan, joined other prominent Catholics in defying the bishops to support passage of the health law at a critical stage of the congressional debate.

More recently, the group had joined the bishops and leaders of other faiths in pressing the Department of Health and Human Services for a broader religious exemption from birth control coverage.

The birth control coverage requirement was widely praised by women's groups, and supported by medical societies as good for both mothers and children.

The administration's original birth control rule, introduced early last year, exempted churches and other houses of worship. However, faith-affiliated charities, universities and other nonprofits were required to comply.

After a public outcry, the Obama administration floated a series of compromises that resulted in a final accommodation June 28.

The latest version of the regulation attempts to create a buffer between the faith-affiliated charities and contraceptive coverage by requiring insurers or another third-party to provide contraceptive coverage instead of the religious employer.

New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan, president of the bishops' conference, said in a statement last week that the bishops were still studying the regulation, adding that it does not appear to address all their concerns about religious freedom. The bishops have also sought a religious exemption for owners of for-profit businesses.

The National Association of Evangelicals, which represents Protestant churches across the country, announced Monday it also rejects the compromise.

The Catholic Church prohibits the use of artificial contraception. Evangelicals generally accept the use of birth control, but some object to specific methods such as the morning-after contraceptive pill, which they argue is tantamount to abortion, and is covered under the policy.

The hospital trade group's decision was first reported by the National Catholic Reporter.

Link:

Tuesday, January 22, 2013

Justice Antonin Scalia Wears Saint Thomas More's Hat to Inauguration


From Fr. Zuhlsdorf at WDTPRS:
Kevin Walsh of the University of Richmond School of Law writes:
The twitterverse is alive with tweets about Justice Scalia’s headgear for today’s inauguration. At the risk of putting all the fun speculation to an end . . . The hat is a custom-made replica of the hat depicted in Holbein’s famous portrait of St. Thomas More. It was a gift from the St. Thomas More Society of Richmond, Virginia. We presented it to him in November 2010 as a memento of his participation in our 27th annual Red Mass and dinner.
Wearing the cap of a statesman who defended liberty of church and integrity of Christian conscience to the inauguration of a president whose policies have imperiled both: Make of it what you will.
Link:

Friday, January 11, 2013

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli says jail may be effective protest to contraception mandate


Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli said on a radio program Wednesday that going to jail may be an effective way to protest a mandate tied to ObamaCare that requires employers to provide contraceptive coverage.

Appearing on on Iowa conservative radio host Steve Deace's syndicated show, the Republican gubernatorial candidate said civil disobedience is one way to attack the federal health care law's requirement.

The so-called contraceptive mandate is now being challenged in a federal lawsuit by the Hobby Lobby stores. The company is primarily concerned about coverage for the morning-after pill, which some consider an abortion-causing drug.

Cuccinelli called the mandate an attack on the Roman Catholic Church and religious freedom and suggested that opponents fight back by forcing the feds to crack down on those who don't comply.

Cuccinelli, who is Catholic, said he had spoken to a bishop who suggested he'd go to jail to protest it.
"My local bishop said he told a group, `Well, you know, I told a group I'm ready to go to jail,' and I told him, `Bishop, don't take this personally - you need to go to jail," Cuccinelli said, trying to balance levity with seriousness.

Hobby Lobby and Mardel Inc., a religious book seller owned by the same conservative Christian family, plan to defy the federal health care law that requires employee health care plans to provide insurance coverage for the morning-after pill and similar emergency contraception. The company risks fines up to $1.3 million a day.

The companies are suing to block the requirement in the federal law, claiming it violates their owners' religious beliefs. They say the morning-after pill is tantamount to abortion because it can prevent a fertilized egg from becoming implanted in a woman's womb.

In three years as attorney general, Cuccinelli has pursued aggressive efforts to restrict abortion in Virginia. Last year, Cuccinelli forced the State Board of Health to reverse a decision to exempt existing abortion clinics from a new law that required them to meet the same architectural standards as new hospitals by saying the board overstepped its bounds and refusing to certify the board's regulations.

He was also the first state attorney general to file a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the 2010 federal health care reforms. In September 2011, a federal appeals court rejected Virginia's challenge to the law, saying that the state didn't have the right to bring a lawsuit.

In his interview with Deace, Cuccinelli said employers who want to challenge the law may have to make the hard decision to go to jail to "provide an example of what tyranny means when it's played to its logical conclusion."

"Abraham Lincoln has many good quotes, but one of them is `The best way to get rid of a bad law is to enforce it vigorously," Cuccinelli said on the show, which is carried in several states.

Democrats and abortion-rights groups blasted Cuccinelli starting Wednesday evening after Politico reported Cuccinelli's comments from the night before.

"For Virginia's chief legal officer to suggest that citizens break the law is not only reckless, it's dangerous," said Democratic state Sen. Mark Herring, who is running for the office Cuccinelli will vacate.

NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia, the foremost reproductive rights lobby in Richmond, tweeted: "Ken Cuccinelli thinks ppl (people) should go to jail to oppose better access to birth control. And he wants to be our Gov?!"
Efforts to mandate vaginally invasive ultrasound exams before all abortions produced angry state Capitol protests in Richmond last winter and subjected Cuccinelli, Gov. Bob McDonnell and other Republicans in an election year to nationwide unfavorable headlines and ridicule by television comedians.

Link:

Thursday, September 13, 2012

First non-Catholic business sues HHS over contraceptive mandate

AP Images

By

(The Washington Free Beacon) An arts and crafts business with more than 500 stores across the country launched a lawsuit against the U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) implementation of Obamacare’s contraceptive mandate Wednesday, the Becket Fund announced.

Hobby Lobby is the first non-Catholic business to file a lawsuit objecting to the mandated coverage of certain contraceptive drugs that it considers abortion inducing.

Hobby Lobby “should never be put in a position of choosing their faith over their business,” Kyle Duncan, general counsel for the Becket Fund, said this morning in a conference call with the press.

“We simply cannot abandon our religious beliefs to comply with this mandate,” said David Green, CEO and founder of Hobby Lobby.

Hobby Lobby will have to comply with the mandate or face fines totaling over a million dollars.

Green emphasized to reporters that his family’s Christian faith is important to his business.

Duncan pointed out that the business closes on Sunday and provides spiritual counsel to its employees.

The government under Obamacare requires employers to provide their employees health insurance that covers contraceptive drugs, including morning-after and week-after pills that some consider abortion inducing.

Hobby Lobby is not the first non-Catholic institution to file suit over the mandate. Wheaton College, an evangelical college in Illinois, sued in July. The federal court subsequently dismissed Wheaton’s suit because the Justice Department expanded the “safe harbor” accommodation that gives nonprofit institutions longer to comply with the regulation. That rendered the suit premature.

Hobby Lobby, however, is the first non-Catholic business to file suit against the mandate. Duncan pointed out that the only other business to file suit received an injunction.

Duncan said that the Justice Department has not issued any comparable accommodation for for-profit businesses. What’s more, Hobby Lobby is self-insured, so the so-called “accommodation” for nonprofits that requires the insurers to cover the objectionable drugs would not provide relief to the business.

The Becket Fund, which represents Hobby Lobby, describes itself as “a non-profit, public-interest legal and educational institute that protects the free expression of all faiths.”

Link:

Friday, August 10, 2012

"President Obama to be honored guest at Al Smith Dinner"


According to Catholics for Obama, President Obama will be an "honored guest" at the Alfred Smith Dinner.
"Catholic Right in Meltdown of Rage at Cardinal Dolan’s Invitation

Judie Brown, a right wing activist has demanded that Catholic Charities, known for freely feeding whoever comes to them, give “no dinner for Obama.” According to Judie, “Cardinal Dolan’s invitation to Obama is an outrage.” Others have called Cardinal Dolan “scandalous” and the Right-wing and sometimes racist “Catholic Culture” website fears this will help continue the strong support the President has among many Catholics.

The reaction is further evidence that too much of the Catholic Right is based on hate and extremism.

The Archdiocese of New York has ignored and belittled the critics."
h/t to Diane

Related:

Wednesday, August 8, 2012

Nancy Pelosi Says Spirit of Susan B. Anthony Spoke to Her in White House




(CNSNews.com) House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) told a recent gathering of the Women’s Political Committee that the spirits of suffragists Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Alice Paul spoke to her at the White House.

Pelosi said she heard them say: “At last we have a seat at the table...”

Pelosi says, “He’s (Bush) saying something to the effect of we’re so glad to welcome you here, congratulations and I know you’ll probably have some different things to say about what is going on--which is correct. But, as he was saying this, he was fading and this other thing was happening to me."

“My chair was getting crowded in," said Pelosi. "I swear this happened, never happened before, it never happened since.

"My chair was getting crowded in and I couldn’t figure out what it was, it was like this," she said.

"And then I realized Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucretia Mott, Alice Paul, Sojourner Truth, you name it, they were all in that chair, they were," said Pelosi. "More than I named and I could hear them say: 'At last we have a seat at the table.' And then they were gone..."

Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton were activists in the women’s rights movement during the mid to late 1800’s. The Susan B. Anthony List, which works for pro-life women’s leadership in government, uses her as a namesake. The organization claims Anthony and Stanton were strong pro-life supporters.

Link:
Related:

Friday, August 3, 2012

Clear as MUD! (Obama Invited to Alfred Smith Dinner by Archdiocese of New York)



From Michael Voris of ChurchMilitantTV:

Hello everyone and welcome to The Vortex where lies and falsehoods are trapped and exposed. I’m Michael Voris.

What’s the problem? What’s the problem with the various levels of leadership in the Church in the United States these days? Clearly something flat out stinks .. and those in charge look the other way.

The issue is this. While certain bishops tromp up and down the nation preaching and speeching about the desperate need for Catholic identity .. admitting the failures of the past in presenting the faith clearly .. at the end of the day .. THEY DON’T DO a blessed thing about it!

And more to the point .. they actually DO DO things that that send clear signals of mass confusion to the faithful. Need an example .. the annual Alfred Smith dinner in New York.

A fundraiser for the Church .. various politicians are invited for a night of lampooning.

Each presidential election year .. generally the major party candidates are invited as well.

Not every time .. but most.

So this year .. right in the middle of a lawsuit over OBAMAcare .. who does he sponsoring Archdiocese of New York invite other than the mastermind of Obamacare himself .. Obama.

Imagine the photo op that will make. Cardinal Dolan shaking hands with Obama .. each all smiles and happy faces. Wanna take a guess at the caption?

And talk about an awkward moment. What on earth do two bitter legal adversaries say to each other .. one proposing himself to be the defender of religious liberty and the other the destroyer of them.

“Hey Mr. President nice to see you again. Get ready for a beat down in court next week.”

What makes this photo op even more weird is that it happened because the Archdiocese of New York MADE it happen. It didn’t have to come close to being a reality.

Imagine .. 83 bishops protest Obama’s appearance at Notre Dame back in 2009. A massive internet protest petition is organized and hundreds of thousands of Catholic laity sign it.

They don’t want Obama being recognized because of his virulent culture of death political poison. AND THEN .. out of the blue .. he turns up at a Catholic fundraiser dinner at the invitation of the most recognized Cardinal in America.


JUST HOW EXACTLY is that picture that will be splashed across millions of headlines

and internet pages be interpreted by the tens of millions of people who see it?

The only logical way it could .. which is .. well .. this whole Obamacare birth control thing can’t possibly be THAT BAD a problem.

And when Obama stands up to make his jokes .. what exactly does he say to a room packed with people who disagree with him on child-killing .. what does he say .. “a funny thing happened on the way to Supreme Court today”?

There is a never ending stream of this “say one thing, do another” approach. It never ends. Bishops freely disregard canon law about giving holy Communion to pro-abort, pro-same sex marriage catholic politicians.

They allow dissdent nuns and university professors and homosexual clergy to run hog wild all over the faithful.

Their precious SO-CALLED social justice initiatives have been for decades little else than a thinly-veiled disguise for pushing every modernist progressive agenda that came across their desks .. all in the name of fighting poverty.

Now the latest dustup with the Catholic Relief Services scandal where 5 million dollars was given to CARE .. an international organization which promotes contraception. CRS quickly rolled out their hair-splitting argument that .. CARE also does nice things and the money is never used for bad things and we never do anything against Church teaching.

OH REALLY?????

Turns out .. yes they do .. and they do in SPADES. CRS is a dues paying member of a group called CORE which actively promotes and pushes family planning contraception programs all over the world. We’ve attached relevant links to the story.

You heard right! They just don’t pay dues to the group .. give Catholic money to it ..

officials of CRS ACTUALLY SIT ON THE BOARD OF THE GROUP.

As such .. they MORE than just sit on the board .. they actually OVERSEE programs supporting the culture of Death.

More than that .. they actually have INPUT in the programs .. thats right .. CATHOLIC Relief Services personnel .. sitting on the board of an outside group .. directing and delivering input into programs DIRECTLY opposed to Catholic Church teaching.

This type of rotten behavior has been going on for decades inside the Church in America .. from the top down and its revolting.

Remember that the Bishops Conference funded ACORN .. the community organizing group that was eventually busted up because by the feds .. but not before millions of Catholic dollars had been funneled to it .. again .. all under the name of fighting poverty.

And the song and dance press releases and speeches that come out in defense of this garbage .. with all their nuanced hair-splitting, double speak is even more revolting .. its down right disgusting.

It’s high time those in charge make a clear definitive statement one way or the other .. are you with the Church or are you not? And if you are .. it’s time to get a great big broom ..

the one you’ve been using against concerned faithful Catholic laity for years .. and clean out your liberal offices from their modernist progressive staffs.

And .. please spare us all the speeches and books and articles and interviews and the PR media blitz about how we have to reclaim Catholic identity and fight the anti-catholic forces in the world.

You got enough anti-Catholic forces in the Church.

GOD Love you,

I’m Michael Voris

Related:

Tuesday, July 24, 2012

Fr. Rutler: Post-Comfortable Christianity and the Election of 2012

By Father George Rutler
 
(Crisis Magazine) Shortly before he died in Oxford in 1988, the Jesuit retreat master and raconteur, Bernard Bassett, in good spirits after a double leg amputation, told me that the great lights of his theological formation had been Ignatius Loyola and John Henry Newman, but if he “had to do it all over,” he’d only read Paul.  “Everything is there.”  There is a temptation to think that God gave us the Apostle to the Gentiles in order to have second readings at Sunday Mass, usually unrelated to the first reading and the Gospel.  But everything truly is there.  Paul was one of the most important figures in human history, and a great character to boot.  That is, a character in the happiest sense of the word.  “But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain” (1 Cor 15:10).

Tragedy and comedy intertwine, ultimately issuing in glory, whenever he is on trial.  He longs to live and to die in the same breath: ”For to me to live is Christ and to die is gain” (Philippians 1:210).  Whenever he is on trial for his life, he invokes a forensic brilliance to save the very life he is willing to sacrifice.  Just as Jesus who had come into the world to die, slipped through the mob in Nazareth because his hour had not yet come, so does Paul become his own defense when on trial, ready to die by God’s calendar and not man’s.

In Caesarea, he confounds Antonius Felix, the Roman governor of Judaea and Samaria, and a little later he does the same  to the successor of Felix, Procius Festus.   The best court scene is Paul before Marcus Annaeus Novatus, who had taken the name of his adoptive father Junius Gallio, the rhetorician and friend of his father Seneca Sr. whose son Seneca, Jr. was the noble Stoic.  Nero forced Seneca’s suicide, but before that, in Achaia where Gallio was proconsul, Paul was bit of a Rumpole of the Bailey, in how he played the jury like a piano to the frustration of the judge.  The point is this:  Paul, both innocent and shrewd, was willing to suffer and did so regularly, as he was not loathe to recount at length, and he was also ready to die, but as death comes but once, he wanted it to be at the right moment.

There is in Paul a model for Catholics at the start of the Third Millennium which began with fireworks and Ferris wheels but is now entering a sinister stage.  Like Paul, it is not possible to be a Christian without living for Christ by suffering for him, nor is it possible to be a Christian without willing to die for him when he wants.   The Christian veneer of  American culture has cracked and underneath is the inverse of the blithe Christianity that took shape in the various enthusiasms of the nineteenth century and ended when voters were under the impression that they finally had a Catholic president.

This new period is not “Post-Christian” because nothing comes after Christ.   We can, however, call it “Post-Comfortable Christian...”  (continued)


Link:

Sunday, July 22, 2012

USCCB Catholic Relief Services Special Report Episode of the Vortex


Special Report - Catholic Relief Services (CRS)

Hello everyone and welcome to the Vortex where lies and falsehoods are trapped and exposed ..

I’m Michael Voris coming to you from Vatican City with this special report.

Some kind of institutional schizophrenia has apparently seized hold at the American Bishops headquarters in Washington DC – and its being recognized over here in Rome.

It was recently reported by the wonderful folks at Life Site News that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops “official overseas relief and development agency” .. Catholic Relief Services recently doled out over 5 million dollars to CARE .. “an international “relief and development organization” which actively promotes contraception around the world.

Let’s boil it down .. The US bishops are suing over the Obamacare mandate in the United States because it forces health insurance payments for contraception. YET .. OUTSIDE the United States they are handing money to international organizations that promote and advance contraception .. the very thing they are fighting AGAINST on the other side of the Atlantic.

What in the heck is going on at USCCB headquarters. When Our Blessed Lord said .. do not let you right hand know what your left hand is doing .. it’s pretty certain THIS is not what He was talking about.

For years .. decades actually many people have been questioning the whole purpose of the USCCB .. its reason for being. For many on the outside .. it’s this massive 140 million dollar a year bureaucracy that is completely mysterious in its inner workings.

Apparently .. it mysterious for the people who work on the inside as well. Listen to the excuse or reason that the Communications Director of the CRS gave for handing 5 point 3 million dollars to a pro-contraception international organization.

John Rivera said CRS doesn’t so much give the money to the organization as act as a “passthrough” for federal funding to such groups, and that the money is given only to projects in line with Catholic teaching.

Oh. So unlike the Catholic Campaign for Human Development Office at USCCB headquarters which gives Catholic collection plate money DIRECTLY to pro-gay, pro-abortion, prohomosexual groups as has been for years .. this is different because CRS is just funneling your government tax dollars to the group. GOOOT IITT!!!

Just for the record .. how is that ONE BIT DIFFERENT than what Obama is doing already .. sending Hilary Clinton around the globe with sacks of cash for governments that will promote contraception? Seriously.

When asked further why it was OK to give money to CARE .. Rivera basically responded that CARE does all kinds of work .. not JUST promote contraception. Uh What!?! Yea. An Mussolini got the trains to run on time and Hitler built good roads. C’Mon!

This whole embarrassing and scandalous episode .. which folks in Rome have become aware of .. is just one more example of how the Church in America has totally sub-contracted the business of the corporal works of mercy to the US government.

It’s also demonstrative of the institutional madness that keeps occurring at the Bishop Headquarters when the lay .. mostly liberal staffers are running the show. Exactly who is Communications Director John Rivera speaking for when he says this practice is perfectly acceptable and moral?

The national conference seems to be unhinged. Take for example Obamacare. During the debate in Congress the Bishops conference was voicing full throated support for national health insurance. The all of a sudden .. when the truth abut abortion funding came out .. they slammed on the brakes.

Didn’t anyone at the conference READ the legislation before telling the bishops to back it?

Obviously they were too busy looking for the next liberal cause to fund.

Then .. when Obama came out with his HHS mandate .. again .. total shock and awe at USCCB Headquarters .. again .. is no one reading this stuff and strategizing BEFORE the disaster hits?

But we see this in microcosm in many different diocese round the States.

Who could forget the debacle that was gay marriage in New York? Cardinal Dolan said in a TV interview AFTER the fact that the bishops of New York were caught totally off guard by the passage of gay marriage .. led by Catholic governor Andrew Cuomo and finally championed by the votes of two Knights of Columbus state assemblymen.

He said .. they had been misled or relied on bad advice from their counselors who said gay marriage didn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of passing. Really? When every public poll showed support for it and the governor had campaigned ferociously on this very point. Not the slimmest chance of passing? Not even enough to fake mustering some kind of assault?

"We must not forget that episcopal conferences have no theological basis, they do not belong to the structure of the Church, as willed by Christ, that cannot be eliminated; they have only a practical, concrete function. [....] No episcopal conference, as such, has a teaching mission; its documents have no weight of their own, save that of their consent by the individual bishops.”
- Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger
At every turn .. practically every week .. USCCB liberals are publishing statements about the economy .. immigration .. social justice .. blah blah blah. At the same time .. some other office down the hall is handing money out the door to pro-contraception groups.

Just who runs the USCCB? Who makes the decisions? Who sets policy? More importantly – who enforces policy? Who follows up? Does anyone on staff have to take an oath of loyalty to the Faith? Does anyone care?

In the bishops’ lawsuits against Obamacare and the HHS mandate promoting contraception .. it would be interesting to see how much money is being paid to Church lawyers for their services and then compare that number to the 5 million the CRS is paying out to pro-contraception agencies?

Perhaps this is a good time to scrub the whole thing .. re-think exactly what the mission of the organization should be and start over .. if that.

As long as this staff-led nuttiness continues to reign supreme and the forthcoming explanations from lay staff are just as spacey .. the moral authority of the bishops will continue to be sneered at and made fun of .. and that is a situation that Catholics today can simply not brook.

GOD Love you ..

I’m Michael Voris.

Link:

Friday, June 29, 2012

I Am Literally Sick Over This Obamacare Travesty

By Rush Limbaugh

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT


RUSH: Okay, folks. I now know what happened yesterday. I've had time to dig into this. Time that I did not have prior to yesterday's program and did not have during the program. And I can't tell you how sick I am. I am literally sick over what happened yesterday. I don't know how else to describe it. Literally sick. ...
A giant total fraud was perpetrated on this country yesterday. The Supreme Court  as an institution is forever tarnished. There are now no limits anywhere on the size, scope, the growth of government. We were the victims of a purposeful, intentional fraud yesterday. There is no way, were anybody in Washington concerned about the Constitution, there is no way Obamacare gets anywhere close to being law in this country. There is no way it even approaches constitutionality.  And the chief justice of the US Supreme Court  knew that.  He felt it was his duty, however, to save the legislation.


I don't even care about motivation. I don't care if it's because he wants the New York Times and Washington Post in love with him. I don't care if he wants to be the next John Marshall. I don't care.  All I know is that we were defrauded in front of our eyes, wide open.  We were taunted, defrauded, mocked, laughed at. I guess 5-4 court decisions are perfectly fine now. Oh yeah, hey, we'll take whatever we can get, we'll take it however we can get it. Even if they have to invent law, even if they have to rewrite a statute that was so poorly written, it wouldn't have gotten past a first grader who understood the Constitution.

Folks, having now learned what happened, and by the way, I can't take much more reading the faint praise for Justice Roberts. There are a lot of conservatives who are trying to find some comfort in all of this by pointing out that justice Roberts ruled that the Commerce Clause isn't a catchall that justifies anything Congress wants to do. "Hey, Rush, we got to look at what we won here." I understand that theory. You do want to try to take the best of things that you can. But this is theft!  Theft of liberty and freedom right in front of our eyes. Okay. So the Commerce Clause has been limited, so? Now we get to pay a tax for something we don't do. But it's worse than that. It really is akin to going into a 7-Eleven, and saying to the clerk, "No, I really don't want to buy any gum."

"Well, okay, tax on that is $2.35."

That's what's happened here. I see all these people running around now thinking they've got free health care, and for the next year-and-a-half that's what it's gonna look like. Michelle Obama, "Guess what, contraception is now free." She's got a list of all the things that are free. AP has a list of all the things that are free for everybody.  What happened here basically is that Justice Roberts stretched the limits to avoid being accused of activism.  He wanted to avoid being accused of activism. Activism, in this case, would have been finding the law as it is unconstitutional. So he succumbed to fear that doing that, upholding the Constitution, would have resulted in him being accused of activism. So what he did, he stretched the limits to avoid being accused of activism, and in the process, he became more activist than any justice in recent memory.

He actually wrote this. It makes going without insurance just another thing the government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning income. That's all it is here. He's got this law, Congress wants this law, the president wants this law, it's entirely unconstitutional. And they all knew this. Other than the four liberals, they all knew the whole thing was unconstitutional and Justice Roberts decided to rewrite it. He rewrote the legislation in a way that Congress never intended it. It would be like a judge making up for an incompetent lawyer in court and finding somebody who's guilty totally innocent just because the judge wanted to appear magnanimous. Or vice versa. It makes going without insurance just another thing the government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning income.

Well, there's a big difference. You don't have to buy gasoline. And for 48% of the country, you don't have to earn an income. But we are all going to have to pay a tax for not doing something. And that starts a limitless universe of activity or lack of activity that can be taxed. There's a doctrine of law that says you don't reach constitutional issues if there is an alternative basis to decide the case. Do you recall we talked yesterday toward the end of the program, and I was admittedly confused because I hadn't had time to read the decision, nor read any analysis of it. Things were happening lickity split here, rat-tat-tat. But something yesterday that had me constantly confused was Justice Ginsburg's dissent. She's in the majority, what was she dissenting against?

Then after the program, I go home and I'm starting to do show prep for today's show, and I find out that a bunch of liberals are ticked off at Roberts, because of what he did with the Commerce Clause. So now I'm really confused. They won and they're complaining about Roberts and Ginsburg wrote a dissent. What was she dissenting from? So I looked into it. They're ticked off at Roberts, essentially she criticizes Roberts for violating the principle that you don't reach constitutional issues if there's an alternative way to decide the case.  So Roberts contended that the mandate was unconstitutional, but it could be upheld as a tax. And Ginsburg said, well, if you're going to do that, there's no need to even talk about the mandate and the ruling. If you're going to say that the mandate could be upheld as a tax, then you don't have to even get to the mandate, constitutionally, you don't have to talk about it. You don't have to rule it unconstitutional.
The four libs wanted this case on the mandate, not the tax increase. They wanted the Commerce Clause to be stretched to include unlimited government power. And they were ticked off at Roberts for limiting that. They say if you're going to find this as a tax case, leave it at that. So when I found that out, that really aroused my curiosity, because they thought Roberts then started answering an unnecessary question. And that, according to Ginsburg and the left, makes Roberts an activist judge. You know, my head is swimming, because all of this is gobbledy gook.  All of this is total BS, folks. And yes, I'm going to explain this as the program unfolds, I'm just setting the table here.

Roberts did not say this in his opinion, but he knows it. Congress and the president insisted up and down this was not a tax. That the only power that they were relying on here was the Commerce Clause power. That's how the law was presented.  That's how it was enacted.  That's how it was intended.  Obama ran around telling everybody there were no taxes in this, it was not a tax increase. In fact, people's taxes are gonna get cut. The legal controversy was the Commerce Clause. And Justice Roberts thus had to address it, but is an utter travesty.  It is an utter travesty that a member of the court, I don't care if it's a chief or whoever decides, that it's up to him to save an unconstitutional piece of legislation under the guise of not being an activist judge.

The Supreme Court wrote legislation, they rewrote this legislation to save it. In the real world, Realville, what used to be, what everybody thought they could count on, what everybody thought and hoped one more time they could depend on, even though we know we really can't, we learned it in Kelo, we learned it in McCain Feingold, we've learned it a lot. We can't count on the Supreme Court to uphold the Constitution, and that's why I'm sick. If we can't count on the Constitution being upheld in the Supreme Court, and furthermore, if the Supreme Court is going to take over the duties of the legislative branch and write legislation in order to save incompetent, unconstitutional, faulty work, then we've got pure fraud right before our very eyes.

Byron York went and looked at the first day of oral argument. When you hear this, you are going to be angrier than you even are right now. You're going to relive the first day of oral arguments where they talked about this as a tax. And the court allowed the government to argue both ways, that it was a tax one day, and they allowed the government to argue the next day that it wasn't a tax. First two days of oral arguments are where you find the answer to all the inexplicable questions here.

RUSH: Byron York wrote his piece at the DC Examiner yesterday: "No one knew it at the time, but the key moment in the Supreme Court Obamacare case came on March 26, the first day of oral arguments, when few people were paying close attention.  Before getting to the heart of the case, the justices first wanted to deal with what seemed to be a side issue: Was the penalty imposed by the individual mandate in Obamacare a tax?"

The first question the justices had for the lawyers: Is this a tax?

"If it was, the case would run afoul of a 19th century-law known as the Anti-Injunction Act, which said a tax cannot be challenged in court until someone has actually been forced to pay it." Well, the Obamacare taxes don't implement until 2014. So on the first day of oral arguments, if Obamacare is a tax, the court would have to throw it out because nobody had paid the tax yet. So the first day of oral arguments, the justices want to know, they asked the government, is this a tax? The government said no. Because everybody wanted the case tried, everybody wanted it adjudicated and they wanted it adjudicated now.

"Since the Obamacare mandate wouldn't go into effect until 2014, that would mean there could be no court case until then." So on the first day of oral arguments, the government said no, it's not a tax. Well, we could stop right there if we wanted to. We could stop after the first 30 minutes of oral argument, back on March 26th, skip everything that happened between then and yesterday, and then go to Justice Roberts' ruling, where he found it to be a tax.


That, of course, is not what happened. They kept arguing. "No one had challenged Obamacare on that basis; the challengers wanted the case to go forward now. The White House, having argued strenuously during the Obamacare debate that the penalty wasn't a tax, wanted to go ahead as well. So the court, on its own, tapped a Washington attorney to make the argument that the penalty was a tax," just to cover their bases.  The government wouldn't say it was a tax. The anti-Obama lawyers would not say it was a tax. So the Supreme Court went out and they brought in, they hired their own lawyer to argue that it was a tax. The court on its own tapped a Washington attorney to make the argument the penalty was a tax, and, therefore, the case should not go ahead.

"'The Anti-Injunction Act imposes a "pay first, litigate later" rule that is central to federal tax assessment and collection,' said the lawyer, Robert A. Long, on that first day of oral arguments. 'The Act applies to essentially every tax penalty in the Internal Revenue Code. There is no reason to think that Congress made a special exception for the penalty imposed by [Obamacare].'"  So the lawyer hired by the court affirmed it's not a tax. Nobody in the regime thought it was a tax. Nobody in Congress thought it was a tax. And nobody in Congress made a special exception for the penalty imposed by Obamacare as a tax. It was all in the Commerce Clause.

"After Long made his case, it fell to the administration's lawyer, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, to argue that no, the mandate was not a tax, and therefore the case was not subject to the Anti-Injunction Act." And that's what happened on the first day. The government hired a lawyer to make the case it was a tax; and Verrilli, the Obama lawyer, made the case that it wasn't. This is just so the justices could have arguments on the table that they could then decide.

"At the same time, everyone knew that the next day, when Verrilli planned to argue that the mandate was justified under the Constitution's Commerce Clause, he had as a backup the argument that it was also justified by Congress' power to levy taxes -- in other words, that it was a tax.  Justice Samuel Alito saw the conflict right away.  'General Verrilli, today you are arguing that the penalty is not a tax,' Alito said. 'Tomorrow you are going to be back, and you will be arguing that the penalty is a tax. Has the court ever held that something that is a tax for the purposes of the taxing power under the Constitution is not a tax under the Anti-Injunction Act?'  'No,' answered Verrilli.  At the time, some observers found the whole thing a little boring; the real action would come the next day, when the court got to the question of whether the Commerce Clause could be stretched to include the individual mandate."

But the first day is where the fraud happened. The first day the government says it isn't a tax. The second day, the government, as a backup, said, "If you don't like the Commerce Clause, we also think it's a tax." The government was allowed to argue this both ways. The first way they were allowed to argue that it wasn't a tax so that the case would go on. The next day they were allowed to argue as a back stop, if the commerce part of it fell apart, that it was a tax. But a lot of these observers who were bored on the first and second days of oral arguments were then shocked yesterday when the chief justice rejected the Commerce Clause argument and ended up "agreeing with Verrilli that the mandate simultaneously was and was not a tax, and that therefore Obamacare would stand. Roberts joined the court's four liberal justices, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan, who seemed prepared to uphold Obamacare under any circumstances.

"Roberts' sleight of hand drove his conservative colleagues nuts. 'The government and those who support its position on this point make the remarkable argument that [the mandate] is not a tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act, but is a tax for constitutional purposes,' wrote dissenters Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. 'That carries verbal wizardry too far, deep into the forbidden land of the sophists.'"

So from the get-go, this case was allowed to be sloppy, bent, shaped, flaked, and formed, however ultimately the left wanted it to be in order for it to be found constitutional or good. And, by the way, on this Commerce Clause business, folks, they didn't limit anything. They said Obamacare is not permissible under the Commerce Clause. But they didn't limit the Commerce Clause per se here. The anti-injunction act says that you cannot do a court case over a tax until it's been collected, levied and collected. Well, the tax hasn't been levied and collected. And by gosh, if the chief justice himself didn't find that the whole thing is kosher as a tax increase, a tax increase on what we don't buy, and a point that I made yesterday that I want to make again, when you pay taxes, where do you pay the money? Government gets the money. These taxes are gonna be paid to insurance companies. Is that even a tax?

You have to buy health insurance. If you don't, there's a fine. So the money that you're spending that you otherwise wouldn't, the tax, being spent with insurance companies. The tax anti-injunction act was codified title 26 US code. It was enacted in 1867. It is the law. It's never been found to be unconstitutional. The Obama administration was allowed to argue it both ways. So that however it ended up being most beneficial to them was the way the court was going to decide.

So we, who cannot be protected from the political choices we make, spend all this time debating and arguing against a piece of legislation based on the Commerce Clause. The court admits they can't find it constitutional, so guess what? We're gonna make this thing legal by calling it a tax increase. Government can do that. There's a reason nobody predicted this outcome. And the reason is nobody was thinking outside the boundaries of the law.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: My friend, Andy McCarthy, has a piece on this at PJMedia.com. His headline is: "Obamacare Ruling: Pure Fraud and No Due Process." Here's how he opens: "Led by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court decided that Americans have no right to due process. Indeed, the court not only upheld a fraud perpetrated on the public -- it became a willing participant." That's exactly right! This whole law has been presented fraudulently. The whole thing was a fraud.

Obamacare passed in Congress through trickery.

 

They used reconciliation.

They tried all kinds of tricks.

They were even thinking of "deeming" it to pass.

There was the Cornhusker Kickback.

They tried all kinds of things that ultimately didn't work because the people weren't gonna put up with it. It was upheld by the Supreme Court through trickery. "Had Obamacare..." This is Andy writing. "Had Obamacare been honestly presented as a tax, or had the court acted properly by striking it down as an illegitimate use of the commerce power and telling Congress that if it wanted to pass the bill as a tax it would have to pass the bill as a tax, our dire financial straits might have forced this much-needed debate about the limits of congressional welfare power.

"We have now lost that opportunity through fraud: Fraud in the legislative action, and fraud in the judicial review. Due process would not allow this to be done to a criminal, but the Supreme Court has decided that Americans will have to live with it." The administration presents a case to the Supreme Court that is based entirely on an individual mandate that is said to be legal because of the Commerce Cause. If Congress had wanted to pass a bill that got the same thing done with taxes, it would have done that.

It didn't do that on purpose!

They didn't want to go anywhere near tax increases on this.

Obama was out promising tax cuts to everybody. He promised lower premiums, greater health care coverage and treatment. There was no way that they wanted to talk about this as a tax, a tax increase, or anything of the sort. So the court should have adjudicated this on the basis of what was in the bill -- period -- and they didn't. Again, the chief justice wrote what I'm gonna read to you here: "Under my theory, the mandate is not a legal command to buy insurance. Rather, it makes going without insurance just another thing the government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning income."

"Under my theory, the mandate's not a legal command to buy insurance."

That's the stretch that he had to make in order to get to where he ended up. "Under my theory, the mandate's not a legal command to buy insurance." It most certainly the hell was! And that's all it was. And that's not constitutional. It was a "command" by the federal government that we buy something. They don't have that power! The chief said, "Eh, it's not a legal command. It just makes going without insurance another thing the government taxes, which the government can do, like buying gasoline or earning income."

(sigh)

It makes you sick.

It just makes me sick.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Roberts says that he thought it was his duty to save the Act no matter what. It was his duty to save the Act no matter how bad it was. He had to write it to make it legal. Sorry. I feel like the police chief in my town just had a press conference and has announced that the police force will now be assisting criminals in breaking into my property. That is how I feel.

END TRANSCRIPT

Link:
Related:

Thursday, June 28, 2012

Mark Levin Eviscerates the Obamacare Ruling



“This decision I would go as far to say is lawless. Absolutely lawless!” Listen to his First Segment from June 28’s Show

Click below to hear:


What Happened to John Roberts?

By Rush Limbaugh

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH:  I want to go back to the Grooveyard of Forgotten Favorites.  Our archives.  By the way, I think this is important.  Doesn't mean anything now.  It does not have the force power, but the four judges, justices who dissented -- Scalia, Alito, Thomas, Kennedy -- made it plain in their dissent that this was nothing constitutional about this act.  They found nothing in it.  They plainly said, in their dissent, the whole thing should have been tossed out.  You can't have a greater divide than what we had.  You've got the four libs, who, it's never even considered that they might change their tune.  And the chief justice, who we know now I think is a creature of the Washington establishment, a creature of the notion that government is the center of the universe.  It's pretty obvious.  But the four justices who dissented, they didn't even want to get into the idiosyncrasies of the majority opinion.  They found the whole thing tossable.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Now, a lot of court experts are saying that the dissent actually reads like a majority opinion but with criticism of the actual majority tacked on at the last minute. In other words, the dissent is just... Again, this is speculation. These so-called court experts are looking. They are now reading both opinions and they say, "This dissent sounds like it was the majority opinion, like it started out as the majority opinion." And some of these Court Watchers are now saying, "It looks like Roberts was somehow convinced to switch sides along the way."


Ah, this is just gossip. It's interesting for the sake of it. But back in May, there were rumors floating around relevant legal circles that a key vote was taking place and that Roberts was feeling tremendous pressure from unidentified circles to vote to uphold the mandate. And that's all they were. They were just rumors. I don't know who was applying the pressure and don't even know if it's true. It's just gossip. This is the kind of stuff you can expect a lot of in the aftermath. (interruption)

What do you mean, "No"? (interruption) Well, okay. Snerdley reminds me... (interruption) You're talking about Leahy? Senator Leahy went to the floor of the Senate and did... Eh, you might say he threatened Justice Roberts. There were senators that went to the floor. It was unprecedented. There were really intimidating things said. We reported on it this week, in fact. There were intimidating things said about and to Justice Roberts. And I remember the reaction, "Ah, he's not gonna care about that, Rush! Come on, now. He's the chief justice Supreme Court. That stuff happens all the time."

You're gonna be reading about this kind of gossip. You probably will see it intensify as the afternoon and evening wear on that Roberts switched. This is a theory. Remember, now: Everybody, everybody thought the mandate was going down. Everybody did! The media was sure. In fact, the media was writing stories on what a worthless court this was. Roger Simon of Politico. It was really intense. All last week and early in this week, everybody thought it was history. That's why there was utter shock.

By the way, this wasn't the only decision. Are you ready for this? The Supreme Court struck down the Stolen Valor Act today. Do you know what the Stolen Valor Act is? Essentially the Supreme Court just said it's perfectly fine to lie about medals and awards that you receive in combat. "The Supreme Court struck down the Stolen Valor Act on Thursday, saying that the First Amendment defends a person's right to lie -- even if that person is lying about awards and medals won through military service. ...

"In its 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court justices said [today] that as written, the act is too broad and ignores whether the liar is trying to materially gain anything through his or her false statement, which would be more akin to fraud." So, if your neighbor starts running around saying he got the Medal of Freedom, Medal of Honor, the Purple Heart, whatever, it's perfectly fine. He can go make a fake medal and he can hang it around his neck. It's perfectly fine. No problem. Now, if he tries to make money off it...

Well, no. He can still do it. Justices said that only if these liars were trying to profit materially would they have struck down the law. But the First Amendment gives them the total right, the freedom to lie about it.

(interruption) I know. You CAN make it up! You can literally go out and you can make it up. Purple Heart, Medal of Freedom, Medal of Honor, whatever. (interruption) See, if you go out... (interruption) I don't know. There might be "hope for Sandusky." It depends. I don't know if they'll legalize pedophilia or not.

We'll have to wait and see if it's in the health care bill.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: When I said "court watchers" earlier, I should have cited it's a blog. The Volokh Conspiracy. There's a blogger who is talking about the pressures that were put on John Roberts to change his vote. They're analyzing this, and through much of the dissent, they've got Scalia referring to "the dissent," and there were notes that Ginsburg was writing the dissent. I remember reading earlier in the week that Justice Ginsburg was writing the dissent. The clear impression from court watchers was that the mandate was struck down.


And now there's a theory that somebody got to John Roberts. I really hate even passing this on. When I say, "Somebody got to John Roberts," one of the guesses is Obama's public assertions that the court was going to marginalize itself and become irrelevant is something people were speculating might have influenced Roberts. Not that somebody threatened him. I don't want anybody putting words in my mouth. It's just going around a blog and it will probably be amplified on as the day goes on.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: It doesn't matter as to the outcome whether or not Chief Justice Roberts was intimidated and threatened, but it does matter. Finding out conclusively won't change anything, but it will be quite eye-opening for people if it is established that the public intimidation of the chief justice by Obama and senators and so forth resulted in a changed vote. That will de-validate the court in terms of people's respect more than any decision could, whatever it would be.

Time will tell.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: I mentioned earlier the Volokh Conspiracy.  It's a blog that circulates in legal circles, and apparently, ladies and gentlemen, a lot of people are doing what you and I are doing.  "What in the name of Sam Hill happened here?"  It was thought, and nobody knew for sure, but there were tea leaves, and I'm an expert now in the tea business.  I know tea leaves, and there were tea leaves out there that the mandate was going down. The White House thought it was going down.  The media thought it was going down.  And, in fact, the first announcement today was the mandate was ruled unconstitutional.  That was the first thing that got reported.

And then it was a few short seconds later that the first "uh-oh" came.  Wait a minute, the mandate's unconstitutional, but the whole thing stands because Chief Justice Roberts is calling it a tax?  So after the shock wore off, people started trying to figure out what in the heck happened.  And all the news networks, even CNN got it right, reported that the mandate was struck down.  Fox reported it was struck down. AP reported it struck down. Washington Post reported the mandate was struck down.  It was a cruel trick to play on the American people.  Mandate struck down, and mere seconds later, "uh-oh."

Now, the Volokh Conspiracy.  It's a post by gentleman named David Bernstein.  Scalia’s dissent, at least on first quick perusal, reads like it was originally written as a majority opinion (in particular, he consistently refers to Justice Ginsburg’s opinion as 'The Dissent')."  Earlier this week there were stories that Ruth "Buzzi" Ginsburg was writing the dissent.  That did leak.  And these guys are referencing it here at the Volokh Conspiracy blog, and they say that in his dissent, Scalia consistently refers to Justice Ginsburg's opinion as the dissent.

"Back in May, there were rumors floating around relevant legal circles that a key vote was taking place, and that Roberts was feeling tremendous pressure from unidentified circles to vote to uphold the mandate. Did Roberts originally vote to invalidate the mandate on Commerce Clause grounds, and to invalidate the Medicaid expansion, and then decide later to accept the tax argument and essentially rewrite the Medicaid expansion to preserve it? If so, was he responding to the heat from President Obama and others, preemptively threatening to delegitimize the Court if it invalidated the ACA? The dissent, along with the surprising way that Roberts chose to uphold both the mandate and the Medicaid expansion, will inevitably feed the rumor mill," which it is doing.

Now, I want to be very careful, 'cause none of this matters in terms of the outcome today.  If people found out, if they could prove that Roberts changed his vote because of intimidation, it won't change anything about this outcome.  And I don't think anybody is ever gonna be able to firmly establish that this happened.  So I don't want to be misunderstood here.  But this decision is so shocking to people.  Folks, there's nothing constitutional about this law.  It is utterly shocking.  What happened today is disgraceful, and that's why the rumor mill is ginning up, because people are trying to find a logical explanation because the Constitution effectively didn't exist today when this decision was announced.


And the people trying to figure this out are obviously going to look into the rumor mill and try to find some way of explaining it.  It's not gonna change anything.  So you might say it's pointless to focus on it, other than it being gossipy and interesting in that regard.  However, if it were ever confirmed as true that a chief justice, any justice, was motivated by virtue of threat and intimidation to change a vote, if the threat of intimidation and whatever else can result in vote changing or a vote, period, then of course you'd have to conclude that essentially you got organized crime running the show, not the Constitution.  Organized crime definitionally, not literally.

There's another blog out there that is rolling with the same theory.  It's called Legal Theory Blog, and they've come up with the same thought.  And they've got an article: "Evidence that the Votes Shifted After Conference (Initial Vote to Declare Mandate Unconstitutional)." They're looking at this.  And, by the way, all of this is permissible.  They can vote, change their votes whenever they want, up until the time of announcement, or whatever limit they place on themselves.  The justices in the court are not bound by their first votes, by their original votes.  It has a larger meaning, obviously, and it takes me back to Artur Davis.  I'll read you the second paragraph of Artur Davis' e-mail today.

"But there is a larger story: this result shows the left’s continuing capacity to shape elite opinion by marginalizing positions that roughly half the country holds."  What he means, conservatism has been marginalized to be kookville.  "Just as the left has caricatured opposition to same-sex marriage and abortion as retrograde and extreme, it just pulled off the same feat in the context of Obamacare: the case was made, and Roberts bought it, that a Court that has struck down 169 congressional statutes would somehow be dangerously activist if it added a 170th one to the mix. Its an undemocratic, disingenuous sleight of hand that the left is practicing, but it is winning: the cost is that it only widens the gap between Middle America and the elite."

So his point here, is that whatever intimidation was used on Roberts, it was, "Hey, Judge, do you really want to be thought of as a nutcase kook right-wing extremist?"  And that's what Artur Davis said, whatever the pressure was, and if there was such pressure, that's how it manifested itself.  Anyway, folks, I feel nervous even mentioning all this stuff to you because it gets into the area of pure speculation and gossip, and I want you to understand that that's what it is.  And there's a reason for it.  This is inexplicable to people, and they're trying to understand it.  What in the hell happened here?  What happened to the Constitution?  That's why all of this is being visited the way it is.  But no matter what the speculators come up with, it's not gonna change the outcome today.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Okay. Look, let's cut to the chase here, folks. The reason that I'm nervous with all this speculation that Chief Justice Roberts "caved" and who "got to him" and who intimated him is simple. The reason I'm having trouble with this is that I don't think that's what happened. I believe I mentioned earlier this week (it might have been yesterday or the day before) that I had been warned years ago. I was in a conversation about justices on the court and how they respond to public pressure in the Washington Post Style Section.

You know, the usual obligatory way you go and discuss the way that the media tries to influence outcome of votes on the Supreme Court. And all those conversations centered around Justice Kennedy as the swing vote. And I was warned, "It's not Kennedy you have to look out for. It's Justice Roberts." I can't tell you who told me. No, no! I know who it is. It's not that I've forgotten. It's that I can't mention it. I think really what happened here is not a cave. I don't think there was a cave, folks.

I think Chief Justice Roberts is establishing his legacy. I think it's what he wanted to do. I think this is his imprimatur. This is The Roberts Court, like we had The Warren Court and we had The Rehnquist Court.

This is The Roberts Court. This is his stamp on it. I know it's fun to think about the intimidation that might have occurred and who succeeded with it and so forth. There's also... I don't want to mention any names on this, either, because I don't mean to embarrass anybody. But the other thing going on that you might have seen or heard yourself is this:

"Hey, wait a minute, Rush! Rush, wait a minute! Didn't this tax increase originate in the Senate? Aren't the taxes in the Obamacare from the Senate and therefore they're unconstitutional?" Well, where are we gonna go on that? We gotta go back to where? The very same court that just said it's okay! So what do we do? Okay, even if that's a valid point. I understand this kind of stuff is gonna happen on a day like this. People are grasping at straws. They're trying to look at something, anything they can grab onto to explain this and to give us some hope that we can reverse this.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: I have my wits about me, folks.  I always do.  I am not sidetracked. I am not diverted. I am not distracted, nor am I intimidated.  I'm gonna tell you exactly what happened here, and it's not what the rumor, speculation is.  I understand that.  This decision's inexplicable to people.  They're desperately trying to come up with an explanation that would fit in their minds.  "My gosh, what happened here?"

Here's what happened.  The Supreme Court, a majority of the Supreme Court, found Obamacare unconstitutional.  They found the mandate unconstitutional.  The chief justice, John Roberts, kicked into activist mode and found a way around that.  I don't care if he found a way around it because he was intimidated by Obama, or Patrick Leahy, or somebody in the media.  I don't care.  Because I don't think he was.  I think he did what he wanted to do.  He has sided with the liberal justices more often than not in previous decisions.  I just throw that out as a statistic, not as evidence.  I think he's building a legacy.  This is what he wanted to happen.  He found a way for it to happen.  And so now, folks, it's game on.  And I know some of you may get sick and tired of always being in this position. Why is it always game on?  Why is it always us that have to do -- well, it's the way of the world. It's simply the reality we face today.

We are up against people who believe in tyranny.  We are up against people who do not want there to be individual freedom and liberty in this country.  That's what we face.  We don't face people who like a level playing field with the will of the people being the determining factor.  It's not the people we're up against.  We're up against people who do not like the US Constitution. We're up against people who do not like this country as founded.  We're up against people who want to change it.  They have not liked it for a long time or they've never liked it.  We don't have time to try to analyze why.  We don't have time to try to figure out how they ended up being this way.

We now are governed by a monstrous assault on our personal liberty and freedom.  We are governed by it.  We are living under its thumb.  Jackboot.  And it is now time to wrap this monstrosity around Obama's head.  He will not tell anybody what this bill means.  It's up to us.  And we can't even count on Romney to do this.  All we can do is hope that he gets it right.  We have to tell people what this bill is, and we have to be able to show them and tell them that's what this bill is and explain it.  This bill is death panels.  This bill is massive taxes on our behavior.  We have to be able to explain that what happened today does not mean free health care for the poor.  If anything, it means the poor will lose their health care, what with this Medicaid expansion.

We have death panels now.  We have massive taxes, tax increases.  We have taxes on our behavior.  We have a tax if we choose not to have health insurance.  You young people who don't want to buy health insurance because you don't need it yet.  Too bad.  If you don't, you pay a fine, and there are 16,000 IRS agents newly hired who are going to be enforcing this thing.  There are 2700 pages in this monstrosity.  There are going to be regulations that haven't even been dreamed up yet because, as the bill states countless times, "As the secretary shall determine."  The secretary of Health and Human Services can pretty much write the law as he or she goes.

There will be denial of care.  Not everybody's gonna get health care, whether they're insured or not.  It's gonna be determined that some people's health care is not worth the cost, either the disease is too far advanced or the disease is too far advanced and they're too old, or perhaps they're not of the right political party.  Don't you dare discount that.  We are up against people who want us -- Artur Davis is exactly right -- marginalized.  Half of this country they want marginalized as extreme wacko alien kooks.  These are people that would be happy to deny your grandmother health coverage if you didn't vote for Obama, and I am not exaggerating.  These are people who itch, bureaucrats and so forth, who itch for that kind of power over people.  This law provides it.

Rationing, it's all part of the mix.  We're $16 trillion in debt.  Not everybody's gonna get health care.  And I don't care what Obama says, not everybody's gonna get the best health care.  Not everybody's gonna get equal health care.  Not everybody's gonna get equal insurance.  Nothing Obama says about this has very much relationship to the truth.  You're not gonna hear about any of this stuff that I'm telling you.  But it is game on.  We're gonna have price controls, because premiums and things, prices of health care are going to skyrocket.  And these experts, these statists, the people who want total dominion and control over your life are gonna be shocked, because some of these people are true believers and they really believe all the propaganda.

They believe it's gonna be cheaper. They believe it's gonna get more plentiful, and when it doesn't they are going to be shocked and stunned and they're not going to understand it, just like when every other program of theirs fails, they're clueless.  All they want is credit for their good intentions.  But they're gonna have to deal with the failure. They're gonna have to deal with the problems this bill creates.  So there will be rationing.  There will be price controls.  There will be massive deficits.  And all of this needs to be wrapped around the head of Barack Obama and every Democrat running for reelection who supported this thing, which is every one of 'em.  That's where we are.  That's what this is, and now this precedent, set by this ruling today, where the government can tax behavior, not just your income, not just your user fee at a public park or a federal park, or not just your gasoline tax.  Now sky's the limit.  Whatever they want to tax, they can.  That was just affirmed via this decision today.

Now, I must say there are some people out there... It doesn't matter who. And this is quite natural, too. I understand this psychologically. There are people who are trying to point out positive aspects in the Roberts ruling. There are people who are saying, "We gotta be very careful, Rush! John Roberts is a George Bush appointee. We don't want to dump on John Roberts." Um, sorry. This is an appalling, disgraceful decision -- and it's going to be remembered as such.

This decision, this ruling originally was found to be unconstitutional. According to the Commerce Clause, it was unconstitutional. And what happened was the chief judge found a way, going activist, to make sure this bill survived. And it was the chief justice who accepted a very little used administration argument that, "Hey, it's tax," even though we played the tape where Obama said it wasn't a tax. He went to the mat telling George Stephanopoulos in 2009, "It's not a tax increase, George."

They knew that if this bill were sold as a tax increase, it'd fail.

Obama was out there saying, "Nobody who makes under $200,000 a year will see their taxes go up as long as I'm president." Everybody's taxes go up and sometimes monstrously high here. Obama went to the end of the world trying to convince people this is not a tax increase. And when the mandate was running into trouble, then they tried to say, "Well, maybe it is a tax." They sent their little Verrilli up to the court to argue, "It could be a tax." They weren't excited about it. They didn't want to sell it that way.

It turns out they didn't have to. The chief judge found it! He said (summarized), "You know what? I'm just gonna call it a tax. The government can do that. They can't make everybody buy health insurance with the mandate, but they can with the tax code." That's what happened today. It's an appalling, disgraceful decision.
END TRANSCRIPT

Link: