Let’s just say that I disagree. No, I’ll go further: I believe you’re dead wrong on just about everything you said in this post.

But I’ll stop there, this being your house and all.

I think you presume to understand much more than you actually understand, especially when it comes to the integrity, motivations and scholarship of the Chief Justice.

Not that I necessarily agree with the opinion he wrote in the ACA case, but I also recognize that the amount of information that I actually know and understand in this case is minuscule compared to what I don’t know.

I’m looking forward to it.

FWIW, my opinion here is shared by quite a few quite well respected conservative commentators, including Charles Krauthammer.

Plus, just as I feel free to presume what I like about President Obama or Cher, Justice Roberts is a public figure and I am also free to presume what I like about his motivations.

You may disagree if you like, but there is nothing untoward in my attempt to fathom the motivations of his actions and comment on them.

The lines were really long at Trader Joe’s.

I should clarify what I disagree with. You, and CBS, may be right about the motivations of John Roberts. I just don’t know given my personal challenges with clairvoyance. Over the past few days I’ve heard Roberts described as both a traitor and a genius by those on the Right. And, of course, the Left is delighted with his ruling. All I know for certain is that I’m not thrilled with his ruling.

What I do specifically disagree with is your political calculus. I just don’t see how this ruling increases Obama’s re-election chances by “double digit percentages”. This ruling has been described by some as a Phyrric victory for Obama and I believe there is some truth to that description.

Let’s break it down by voter types.

Republicans are certainly no less likely to go to the polls and vote against Obama in November because of this ruling. Logically, it will have just the opposite effect given that voting Obama out of office is now the only path to abrogating Obamacare. So, to the extent Republicans and conservatives were not energized by Romney’s candidacy they are now energized by this issue. Advantage Romney.

Independents are a tougher call. We do know that independents were already trending toward Romney and Romney has been promising the repeal of Obamacare since day one. It doesn’t seem likely he’ll lose any independent votes as a result of this ruling. We also know that Obamacare is already an unpopular piece of legislation so it is conceivable that some independent fence-sitters will be persuaded to vote for Romney based solely on this issue. But, some independents might decide to vote for Obama to preserve Obamacare. This feels like a wash to me and maybe a slight advantage to Romney.

Democrats and liberals were not going to vote for Romney anyway so I don’t see how this ruling translates into a significant number of additional votes for Obama. As I’ve said before, a repudiation of Obamacare by the SCOTUS would have REALLY energized former Obama voters to ensure the Immaculated One received another shot at nationalized healthcare. I get the sense that the Obama campaign just wants to move on from this ruling as quickly as possible and not talk about it anymore. Feels like a Phyrric victory.

Ultimately, I think this ruling works in Romney’s favor (assuming he effectively seizes the opportunity) by re-igniting some passion in the ranks of the Tea Party, the conservative base, and those that just don’t like Obamacare (which is the majority of Americans). Those that didn’t want to vote for Romney and were threatening to stay home on election day will now have the opportunity to vote against Obamacare by voting for Romney.

We’ll see…

It seems you’ve completely ignored my analysis. Granted, I’m making a lot of assumptions, but I don’t understand how you can completely disregard the argument that this energizes Republicans, conservatives, and the majority who do not like Obamacare while having a dubious impact on those who were already going to vote for Obama. It seems like you’re judgement is being clouded by your new-found distaste for John Roberts.

At worst I think were looking at a wash in terms of impact regardless of what polls may indicate in the next few days. The only poll that really matters will be taken on November 6th…

I suppose it’s fair to say I “ignored” your analysis in the sense that I didn’t address it directly. I’ll do so now.

For every de-motivated conservative, this ruling will motivate a liberal. I read the Lefty blogs, I can tell you that they are frothing at the mouth over this. If you think they aren’t energized, well, let’s just say I disagree.

The “majority” who don’t like Obamacare is a 60/40 split, which is a significant, but not overwhelming majority. That number is already shifting to be more even because of this ruling.

There are a lot of independents who were waiting for the Supreme Court’s ruling on this, and now they are concluding that the law is constitutional after all. I predict you will see Obamacare’s approval numbers climb steadily over the next few months. Especially as the narrative becomes more and more about the law being constitutional and less and less about it being a tax.

At worst I think this is a huge net positive for Obama, and a weak campaign issue for Romney. He might be able to make some hay about the tax increases, but with the full weight of the media against him, I’m afraid that will be a tougher sale than most conservatives think.

Most people only take one thing away from major events like this. That’s why it’s called a narrative. And the narrative on Obamacare will be that it was controversial but ultimately ruled constitutional. The fact that it was sold to the USA on false pretenses and ruled constitutional in a manner that its own writers and political supporters deny will be lost in the daily political shuffle.

Right now the Fast and Furious scandal is Romney’s best hope to gain ground on Obama. Republicans better get on that and start running with it for all it’s worth. It’s orders of magnitude more evil than Watergate was, and I believe it has Obama’s fingerprints all over it.

If you want my opinion, based on Boehner’s and Issa’s comments today, they are aware of that and are moving to try to change the debate from Obamacare and into muderous malfeasance and ideological criminality in the DOJ.

That might still be a winner for Republicans.

But Obamacare is, imho, not.

Dadman, I don’t disagree with any of your analysis of what Obamacare is, or what impact it will have on the financial basis of this country.

Where you and I are not seeing eye to eye is the political and cultural impact.

If being unsustainable and financially destructive were critical political and cultural issues, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid would have been repealed or significantly modified years ago. The fact that they have not been modified (in fact they have been called the “third rail of American politics”) is not because they are wise, but because they give people free stuff and therefore provide politicians with a way to buy votes.

That’s precisely what Obamacare will end up doing.

I wish I could agree with you that the voters of this country will look around and say “Oh crap! This can’t go on!”

But that does not seem to be consistent with history. People will not do anything about the unsustainable financial situation until it causes them more pain to live WITH it than it does to live WITHOUT it.

And right now, that is not the case.

Your entire approach to this assumes that the nation, the culture and the voters are rational, intelligent, forward-thinking people.

All evidence I have seen my entire life is entirely to the contrary.

To be clear, the advantage I see for Obama is mostly in the loss of a potential advantage for Romney. Had the law been overturned I think the chaos would have been substantial, and the blame for all that chaos would have been rightly pinned on a President and Congress that wrote and pushed through an unconstitutional law. By finding some narrow and, imho, implausible way to make it “constitutional” by calling it a “tax” the law will move forward and all that chaos is averted. So consider the “benefit” I accrue to Obama to be mostly in the form of lost benefit to Romney.

I think people greatly underestimate the chaos overturning Obamacare would have created.

I don’t know why I’m even so disgusted with this whole thing. I think the war was lost when GW Bush tried to revamp Social Security and the Democrats pretty much destroyed his Presidency over it.

There is no way this country is going to right it’s financial course until the pain is such that the public demands it.

And that ain’t gonna be for a while, and by the time it does, it’s likely going to be too late to avoid some serious, life-crushing shit to fall on our children and grandchildren.

Yeah, I’m not what you call an optimist. I think the America I knew has collapsed under the weight of the unintended consequences of misguided good intentions coupled with the raw and unbridled search for power by our elected officials.

Pretty much everything Washington and Jefferson warned us about has come to pass. It’s all over but the crying and bleeding now.

It’s a political calculation based his experience with Romneycare in Massachusetts and the risk of being labeled a hypocrite.

Personally, I don’t think it matters if it’s labeled constitutional or unconstitutional. Just labeling it an onerous federal penalty or mandate that will be ENFORCED by 16,000 new IRS agents is enough to get the hackles up on a lot of voters. Romney should be able to make that case effectively…

You seem to be forgetting that the majority of Americans didn’t like this law before the SCOTUS ruling. What’s changed? Well, it is now clear to a lot of voters that the only way to repeal or change Obamacare now is by voting Obama, and hopefully a good number of Dem senators, out of office.

BTW, I still think Romney’s chances of success in this campaign are at best 50-50. I just believe this SCOTUS ruling likely helps him more than it hurts him…

Probably beating a dead horse here, but here’s another editorial attempting to explain (better than I did) how John Roberts REWROTE Obamacare in his opinion. This is from The Washington Examiner:

Memo to Mitt Romney: Obamacare is a tax because the Supreme Court rewrote the law to make it one. The Supreme Court did not uphold Obamacare’s individual insurance mandate as a tax.

This is a difficult legal distinction to explain, but one that matters nonetheless.

In Obamacare, the mandate was called an “individual responsibility requirement.” To “save” the rest of Obamacare, the Supreme Court deleted the “requirement” part. So the mandate is gone. What’s left is a tax.

What’s the difference? Under Obamacare, all Americans (who were not exempted) had to buy health insurance. Under the Supreme Court’s ruling, no American has to buy health insurance, though some Americans will pay a tax if they don’t.

Under Obamacare, millions of Americans who did not have to pay the penalty because they don’t pay any or enough income taxes were still required by law to get insurance or be a law breaker. Under the Supreme Court’s revision, they don’t.
Under Obamacare, those Americans who paid the penalty but did not get health insurance were still outlaws because they disobeyed the “requirement.” Under the Supreme Court’s ruling, if you pay the tax, you’re cool with the feds.

Again, I stand by everything I wrote in this post. I think I not only got it RIGHT, I got it right FIRST. My comment was made before the CBS story, before Charles Krauthammer and before this editorial.

Roberts was bullied into changing his vote. He rewrote the law to make it work. He did so, IN MY OPINION, strictly to try (in vain) to protect “his courts’” reputation after being attacked viciously by Obama, academia and the media.

Frankly I think Roberts should resign.