Politics

Conservatives Try to Find Bright Spots in John Roberts' Obamacare Ruling

By: Kevin Derby | Posted: July 3, 2012 3:55 AM
 Flickr - Mcconnell Center - cmbforo - Gage Skidmore

Chief Justice John Roberts, Sarah Palin and Hermain Cain

With Chief Justice John Roberts offering the swing vote on the Supreme Court of the United States to uphold most of the Obamacare law, conservatives are throwing jabs at the Republican-appointed chief justice, trying to find bright spots in his ruling.

Dana Perino, who served as White House press secretary under President George W. Bush, said on “Fox and Friends” on Fox News Monday morning that she discussed the case with the former president who appointed Roberts to the court. While she did not reveal what Bush thought of the decision, Perino added that she and conservatives remain surprised and saddened by Roberts saving the law.

“Every conservative said he's a solid guy, he's the one we want, and now the level of disappointment among a lot of people, including myself, is really high,” Perino said on Monday morning.

But some conservatives said there were aspects to the decision and Roberts’ legal logic that they could take some solace from.

Businessman Herman Cain, who won national prominence during his bid for the Republican presidential nomination, also slammed Roberts in a message to supporters sent out on Monday.

“I was as disappointed as anyone else by the Obamacare ruling, and I remain deeply troubled by Chief Justice Roberts’ assertion that the federal government has the power to do virtually anything, so long as it calls it a tax,” Cain wrote in an email to supporters, adding that conservatives had to “get over the punch in the gut and the feeling of betrayal.”

Still Cain did see a bright side to Roberts’ decision in ruling the mandate as a tax instead of under the Commerce Clause.

“For one thing, by reclassifying the individual mandate as a tax, Roberts made it much easier for a Republican Congress to repeal it without having to worry about a Senate filibuster," Cain maintained. “Tax matters can be passed via reconciliation with a simple majority of 51 votes, so Republicans no longer have to worry about finding 60 voters to end debate. That’s huge. It still requires the Republicans to keep the House, take the Senate and elect Mitt Romney president – but that’s still far more doable than finding 60 Senate votes to get rid of Obamacare.

“Roberts made an interesting statement when he said it’s not the court’s job to save the nation from the consequences of our political choices,” Cain continued. Indeed, elections do matter. When the voters elected President Barack Obama and gave him huge Democratic majorities in Congress, they needed to understand we would likely have something like Obamacare shoved down our throats. This is what Democrats do.”

Conservative activist Gary Bauer, best known for leading the Family Research Council and running for the Republican presidential nomination, also found some positives in Roberts’ decision but insisted he was “shocked and deeply saddened” by it. Bauer now leads the influential Campaign for Working Families PAC.

“I confess I was surprised by Chief Justice John Roberts' opinion to uphold Obamacare as a tax. But some conservatives I respect are suggesting that there is a silver lining in his opinion,” Bauer noted late last week. “First, he slammed the door on the continued exploitation of the Commerce Clause to justify every whim of the left. Second, he defined Obamacare as a massive tax. And lastly, he helped to focus this campaign by making it clear to the country that elections have consequences. Is this really the change people voted for?”

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, best known for being John McCain’s running mate in 2008, offered a similar take when she appeared on Fox News on Thursday after the ruling.

“Basically what Chief Justice Roberts did for us, for the American people, was put this issue Obamacare and the individual mandate back into the hands of the people via our representatives,” Palin said. “Congress has an opportunity to act on this tax, as this has been deemed a tax as opposed to Obama’s insistence it wasn’t a tax.”

Bauer, Cain and Palin are not alone in trying to find some pluses from the decision. A host of conservative columnists -- including Erick Erikson, Charles Krauthammer and George Will -- are also pointing to some small triumphs in the Roberts ruling while still opposing the federal health-care law.



Reach Kevin Derby at kderby@sunshinestatenews.com or at (850) 727-0859.



Comments (1)

Albert Maslar
2:20PM JUL 9TH 2012
I read Erick Erickson and generally agree with him on principle. Erickson’s take on the Roberts decision has much merit leaving not much if anything to dispute. However, at least one lawyer constitutionalist, I lost track of his name for now, explains that the Roberts decision is a clever ploy that will come back to bite the Obama team and Liberals, painting them into a corner as far as other future decisions and policies are concerned, and that it is really a favor to Conservatives. The claim was that Roberts conned the four SCOTUS Liberals to go along with his written majority opinion that could be a red herring.

Erickson is high on Obama and I agree that a vote for Romney, regardless of all else, is superior to a vote for Obama. Is Romney the GREATER GOOD or The LESSER EVIL? One of my own original mantras:
“Striving for the GREATER GOOD Is superior to settling for the LESSER EVIL.” Is America ever to survive as long as it constantly settles for the lesser evil?

Unfortunately, Romney is on the same page as Obama in that he also would not need Congressional approval to attack Iran. G.W. Bush already made that type mistake with his pre-emptive attack on Iraq, though at least he had Congressional approval that Obama did not bother with when he preemptively attacked Libya, undermined Egypt, turned a friend of the U.S. and protector of Israel into an enemy, and is actually conducting secret wars in various North African countries and other sovereign countries.

Erickson is high on repealing ObamaCare, BUT without winning the presidency, that is simply not going to happen. Even if Republicans sweep the House, senate, and the Presidency, there is not sufficient unanimity to assure full repeal of ObamaCare. Republicans have been big spenders and proponents of big government so why should there be reason to believe that if put back into power, they will suddenly get religion.

Erickson writes that Roberts probably just handed Mitt Romney the White House. It might be just the opposite as Obama can and has repeatedly said that ObamaCare is modeled after RomneyCare and its related taxes in Massachusetts.

Herman Cain as quoted by SunshineStateNews.com saw a bright side to Roberts’ decision in ruling the mandate as a tax instead of under the Commerce Clause. By reclassifying the individual mandate as a tax, Roberts made it much easier for a Republican Congress to repeal it without having to worry about a Senate filibuster…Tax matters can be passed via reconciliation with a simple majority of 51 votes, so Republicans no longer have to worry about finding 60 voters to end debate.” ---Albert Maslar amaslar2@yahoo.com

Leave a Comment on This Story

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.