Mark Levin analyzes SCOTUS ruling upholding Obamacare


Mark Levin took his first segment to explain why Roberts’ opinion upholding Obamacare was so ludicrous. I will post subsequent segments on his analysis of this ruling as he completes them:




PART FOUR: Mark Levin debunks George Will’s article

Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.
  • NHConservative0221

    Best host on the radio hands down!!

    • aZjimbo

      Yes indeed.

    • Captain_Maynard

      Wrong again! That accolade goes to the Savage Nation hands down! Levin is wrong so many times and when he’s caught out on it he just rants or pretends never to have made the statement which turned out to be wrong in the first place. Michael Savage is au naturale. He doesn’t pretend to be a know-it-all and doesn’t take himself too seriously. Even though some of his opinions might change week to week, you can still see that he’s approaching things from the right perspective.

      • NHConservative0221


        Weiner nation doesn’t pretent to know it all? All he does and rant and rave about how much smarter he is than everyone else for being a nutritionist!

        He criticized kids with autism saying “the brat won’t just shut up”.

        He badmouthed Palin in 2008.

        And he’s a smear merchant. He joined the left in smearing Hannity over the Freedom Concerts. Savaage is jealous of eveeryone else and all he can do is smear them out of spite!

        He’s a joke.

        BTW: The Great One has forgotten more about the Constitution than Weiner nation will ever know!!

        • Captain_Maynard

          1. All he does and rant and rave about how much smarter he is than everyone else.
          Dude, come on. That’s for effect. And it’s worked for him for the most part: third most listened to I believe. Much higher than Levin. Last I checked he was eighth.

          2. for being a nutritionist!
          Well, the guy does have a PHD in it. And as a conservative radio host, if you’re not going to use such a credential as material (when the left is always telling us how dumb and hillbilly-ish conservatives are) then you’d be a Mitt Romney or a Mike Huckabee of a host. I mean, does Levin keep quiet about the fact he worked in the Reagan administration and Landmark Legal? No. And fair game to him for it. Why should Savage be quiet about his PHDs?

          3. Criticizing kids with autism is him speaking out aloud on what many people go round thinking in their heads. He explained himself many times over: The condition is over-diagnosed and falsely so in the majority of cases. My brother’s son had a stammering condition. Now that’s something which is much easier to spot outwardly as a condition. Did my brother say ‘o well, my kid’s got a disability. I’ll just have to teach him how to make others feel sorry for him and not “bully” him?’ No! He scolded it out of him. Today you wouldn’t see a trace of it on my cousin. Am I saying this is the solution for all stammerers? No. I’m just saying if a more conspicuous disability such as that can be dealt with using old fashioned correcting and parental scolding, how much more many cases of bad habits and behaviour that lazy doctors and paediatricians today simply diagnose as autism. Many people sympathised with Savage’s statement and saw where he was coming from. I was one.

          4. He badmouthed Palin.
          Seriously? You do realize she isn’t God. Many conservatives seem to think every person ready to shout out conservative slogans at the top of their voices behind a podium is to be worshipped as the next Abraham Lincoln. There are many issues I dislike Mrs Palin’s position on or her lack of it. And as Savavge is no shill, he’s going to point out who he thinks is wrong and where he thinks they are wrong, Even Palin. In my opinion, she comes across as sincere but doesn’t have things right a lot of the time. Sorry to disappoint you and the other Palinites.

          5. About Hannity. He’s probably one of the major reasons conservatives in America still believe Obama is just another Jimmy Carter and that in the end we’re all going to be fine when in fact we’re dealing with a reincarnated Mao Tse Tung in BHO. Hannity fraternises with the left on his radio show so much its embarrassing, inviting them on to come and talk crap while he makes the most feeble attempts to call them out. And when he faces lefty callers who are just about on their game, his dearth of intellectual power and knowledge on the conservative ideology is there for all to see. I cringe so hard everytime I happen to tune in (which is hardly ever) that my face begs for mercy after 5 minutes of him. I’m sorry but whatever Savage said about him whenever he said it was probably well-deserved. “Wallbanger” I think he calls him. Again, well-deserved.

          6. Finally, having said all the above: I don’t think I agree that Dr Savage is “jealous” of anybody.

          7. Again, having stated the above, I do not believe Savage is a “joke”.

          8. Finally, Levin is not as great as you think he is but let’s agree to disagree. I’ll admit though, I listen to them both.

          • NHConservative0221

            1. Hasn’t Weiner nation been around much longer? He was taken off the air in NH, which is a good start.

            2. Weiner never shuts up about being a nutritionist and seems to have it out for modern medicine.

            3. He comes across as saying there are NO legitimate cases of autism. He’s an obnoxioius clown.

            4. I never said Palin wasn’t above legitimate criticism. What Weiner did was call her a buffoon and basically an unqualified hick during the 2008 election. Face it, Palin is one of the more principled conservative leaders we’ve had and all Weiner could do is badmouth her during a huge election.

            5. I agree that Hannity can be too mainstream, but you ignored my main point. Hannity did a good thing donating to the kids of the fallen soldiers for the Freedom concerts while Weiner joined the left in smearing Hannity over it. PRetty despicable.

            6-8. Really Weiner isn’t jealous?? All he does is badmouth Hannity, Levin, and Rush!

            Finally you said Levin has been wrong so many times, name one.

            • Arguing over who is best or worse is petty. Your efforts are better spent getting the truth out to people who cannot see it.

              • NHConservative0221

                THanks for the advice, but I can multitask!

      • E. Lee Zimmerman

        Sorry, but no.

      • BS61

        I like them ALL for bringing the truth!

      • LOL, I loved hearing Savage say ” Where’s Waldo.” I do believe Savage has finally seen the light on Mitt.

      • destroyer_of_moonbats

        Michael Savage saw this 100miles away. 99.99% accuracy to the microscopic detail. My loyalty towards Levin and Rush is fading fast.

    • E. Lee Zimmerman

      Agreed, though I can only listen to Levin in fits and starts. He gets yelling too much sometimes, and I have to turn that off.

      • brendawatkins

        He has what A LOT of others don’t have, and that’s passion.. I for one appreciate it.

    • absolutely…not a broadcast goes by without him teaching me something.

  • Rshill7

    I don’t think Levin though it through. Here’s another opinion and the last time I will post this link, so please don’t get mad at me. This is a short, worthy read.

    • NHConservative0221

      Meant to be a joke I take it??

      • Rshill7

        No, read it.

        • NHConservative0221

          That’s really bad dude. I usually like your posts.. but that article is just downright stupid!

          There is NO WIN here!!

          Roberts could’ve invalidated the commerce clause and struck down the whole [email protected][email protected]# thing this morning — could’ve done both at once!

          So now it’s supposed to help us politically and set a precedent for limiting the commerce clause? Since when did liberals ever care about precedence? They’ll go along with whatever to push their statism.

          Also what about the precedence of allowing the feds to tax anyone for anything? Forcing individuals to buy something from private companies?

          Finally do you realize how hard it will be to repeal obamacare? It’s going to take alot to take back the Senate to even get a repeal bill drawn up. Even if it gets repealed you still have the lawless precedence I mentioned above of the feds being able to tax us for not buying insurance, for not buying a new car, for not eating broccoli, for going to the gym.. where does it end??

          This thing was on the table to be completely destroyed today and Roberts saved it!

          I hate Roberts more than Maobama!! At least with Maobama we know what to expect, roberts stabbed us all in the back on the biggest scotus issue of all time!!

          • NHConservative0221

            And to add one more thing… from that ridiculous article:

            “Chief Justice Roberts actually ruled the mandate, relative to the commerce clause, was unconstitutional. That’s how the Democrats got Obama-care going in the first place. This is critical. His ruling means Congress can’t compel American citizens to purchase anything. Ever. The notion is now officially and forever, unconstitutional. As it should be.”

            So??? So the gov’t can’t technically force you to buy anything, they can just tax you for not doing so! What is the point of many taxes, like sin taxes? To tax people for unwanted behavior. So it will force many people to simply do what their superiors want them to do!

            Roberts sold his soul today!!

            • GiantM

              Boy he sure did. Or they [The Left] did a good job of threatening.

          • Rshill7

            We’ll see. Thanks for sharing. You are no doubt a scholar of the highest order 🙂

            • NHConservative0221

              Right back at ya genius!!!

              Now go celebrate the survival of obamacare when the whole effing thing was about to be struck down!!!

              What a great victory for us all!

              See how stupid that sounds??

              • Rshill7

                It would sound even more stupid if you added a few more exclamation points. You must be a checker player. If you can’t handle that, try tic-tac-toe.

                • NHConservative0221

                  The truth is you’re clueless. Richard McCreedy ripped apart your ridiculous argument above.

                  And feel free to make fun of my exclamation points and passion all you want, you won’t ever see me claiming that some activist judge saving obamacare is a win for conservatives!!

                  You should be embarrassed for posting something so pathetic!!!!!!!!!!!!

                  And a few more (!) just for you !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                • Rshill7

                  He did? It doesn’t appear that way to me.

                  See, you don’t even know the difference between up and down. I think it’s below actually. Yeah, I thought it was dumb. Pedestrian at best. He’ll get run over that way.

                • NHConservative0221

                  Ok George Will.

                • Retired_Coach

                  Still on your team NHConservative!

    • aZjimbo

      Mark Levin has NOT thought it through? That is one of the most hilarious statements I have ever seen here.

      • Rshill7

        Well then laugh your ass off, but read it and THEN decide. OK?

        Also, one should not worship human beings as infallible Gods. They are not.

        • aZjimbo

          Yea you know more than what Levin does. It’s an assinine statement what you said. Simply stupid and assinine.

          • Rshill7

            OK. By the way, I didn’t write the article I linked to. So someone else might qualify as “stupid and assinine”. I don’t think it is I though.

            • NHConservative0221

              By linking to it and promoting that trash… saying that Roberts single handily allowing obamacare to survive is actually a win for conservatives makes YOU look pretty stupid.

              • Rshill7

                You’ve already “established” that, haven’t you little camper? All by yourself? No. I don’t think you have. Bring some others with you. I can take it. For some reason, I’m just not very impressed with you. Gonna need much, much, more 🙂

                • NHConservative0221

                  Explain to me genius:

                  How does supposedly being in a better postion in the future to repeal obamacare better than actually repeally it TODAY???

                  You’re assuming the libs on the court will buy into the argument that the commerce clause won’t apply. They won’t, they’ll do anything to keep this garbage. Plus if this was ever brought up again in the future, there could always be more lib judges on the court!

                • Rshill7

                  We lose Obama after one term…that’s how it is better. We retain the House, gain the Presidency and possibly the Senate as well. Booyah!

                  Also, the Republican party becomes a money-raising machine. Take a look into how much Romney raised just today online. Cha-ching.

                  Also, name a business or a business owner that dearly loves Obamacare? These are an army of butt-kickin’ troopers. Plus, it will place a white hot fire under the booties of average Americans who have grown complacent.

                • NHConservative0221

                  You just said yourself that we “possibly” take the Senate. What if we don’t? What if Romney loses?

                  Then we’re stuck for life with Obamacare that Roberts could’ve struck down this morning had he had ANY respect for the Constitution!

                • KarlRogue

                  Brilliant, isn’t it?

                • Retired_Coach

                  Agreed. Can you say McCain-Feingold? I knew you could!

            • RosiesSeeingRed

              Hey Rshill7, you know yesterday I read the article you linked us to (which spread like wildfire through the blogs, btw), and I too found the “silver lining” in it. Why not? We were handed lemons yesterday (kind of the way I felt about Romney becoming our candidate), so what choice do we have but to make lemonade. Today I read another similar article, and I actually think this may articulate the same idea, but in a more believable way:


              I don’t really care if Mark Levin agrees or not — it makes ME feel better, not to mention, there are some very valid points made about how the Obama campaign would’ve turned a 5-4 ruling by all of the conservatives into “those evil republicans want you to die” on the campaign trail. I don’t know, but that “blessing in disguise” phrase didn’t come out of nowhere. Sometimes what seems like the worst possible thing actually turns out just the way you need it to.


          • Come on you guys. Rshill never said he knows more than Levin. I haven’t listened to all of Mark’s show yet, so I can’t judge by what he said tonight. I did read the article, and another one with a similar view. It doesn’t cheer me completely, but it does put some things into a little perspective.
            Trust me, I don’t want dear leader or any government “care”. I came from socialism and that’s not what America is about. BUT, while it looks like we’ll have it unless congress grows some, and listens to the people and repeals it, we have to look at any positive things we might find. The points about dear leader having to account for the biggest tax hike on middle class American’s in the nation’s history and making democrats own it is a start, and better than nothing.
            Lay off Rshill you guys. He’s trying to stay positive. We’re all angry today- please lets all chill and try and see all sides. 🙂

            • aZjimbo

              He/she should then have worded their post differently. To say that Levin didn;t think it out is ridiculous. No one is smarter that Mark regarding Constitutional law. Anyway it looks like we do not even have one anymore.

        • KarlRogue

          The Shill is a mandate kind of guy. Why he loves him some Mittens.

          • I can’t stand mittens, basically the author of this crap, but the article does have it’s points.

    • I appreciate your love for this article but please don’t keep posting it on every thread.

      • Rshill7


    • Now let me completely end this nonsense that somehow upholding it on tax and spend power grounds is better for us than Commerce Clause grounds. It isn’t. It’s just as bad.

      What the Court did today was rule that taxes, no matter how they are levied, no matter what they are defined as by Congress, and no matter what their purpose, ARE ALWAYS CONSTITUTIONAL. So let’s say the government wants to force you to buy a product, or now, because of htis ruling, wants to force you to perform an activity, such as brush your teeth, they can’t do so under the commerce clause. But they can place a “tax” on your non-performance of their command. In Robert’s eyes, this isn’t compulsion. This isn’t a penalty. This isn’t punishment. This is merely a tax. Nevermind how it’s collected or levied or what Congress defines it as. THIS IS NOW AND FOREVER A TAX! And, along with that, the governments ability to tax has been expanded beyond any boundaries whatsoever.

      Honestly, there is no difference in upholding this law based on the Taxing power as opposed to the Commerce Clause. None. Now, the Government can pass a law that you, the individual, must buy 12 bannanas every week…or even worse, eat 12 bannanas every week, and you the individual do not have to comply. But, if you do not comply, the government can “tax” your non-compliance. How is this any better than the result had it been upheld under the commerce clause? It isn’t. It’s the same.

      This Court has basically just ruled that any penalty imposed on an individual for any reason is, at all times, now a tax that falls under the governments constitutional powers. Always. NO matter what they “tax” you for, it’s constitutional. This ruling massively expands the governments power. It’s a terrible decision in every way.

      • GiantM

        And unless all American people are informed of this, and then vote out the left entirely, this will come to fruition.

        So….we just need to win every election from this point on. That’s all.

      • NHConservative0221

        thank you!!! very well said!!

      • And I should add that this wasn’t even a hard question. The key component to judicial interpretation is to give every word its plain meaning. Only if there is ambiguity does a Court try and resolve the issue.

        What Roberts did today was legislately, quite literally, from the bench. There was no ambiguity in the law. It was a penalty, not a tax. It wasn’t difficult to understand. It wasn’t open for interpretation. Roberts effectively changed the law, going well beyond his constitutional power.

      • Rshill7

        Yeah, I’m almost certain they’ll pass that banana thing. I salute your bravery for going along with the crowd. That’s amazing sir. We’ll see how this shakes out after all the knees stop jerking uncontrollably. Yours included.

        The congress has always had the authority to tax, since that amendment thing they passed, early in the 20th century. Don’t worry about it. I understand. It’s easy to pile on. Easy just doesn’t do it for me…never has. Chew away. What else have you got?

        By the way…if anything passes by you at a greater distance than the end of your nose, a seeing eye dog can help a lot with that. They’re only a few thousand dollars too.

        • NHConservative0221

          When has Congress ever been able to tax anyone for not doing something such as not buying insurance?

          Where does it end? They can tax you for not buying car, not buying broccoli, solar panels.. anything!

          How hard is this to understand??

          • Sandra123456

            Where does it end? Repeal the 16th Amendment which gave Feds the OK to tax income. Let the Libs squeal.

          • Rshill7

            Capital gains. Dying. Gift tax. Inheritance tax. Estate tax. Property tax.

            One can argue either side of these as to whether they are actually doing something or not. Have you ever paid taxes?

            • NHConservative0221

              PRetty much are all of those are unconstitutional.

              YOu don’t see danger in letting the gov’t to tax it’s citizens for not buying things from PRIVATE companies??


              • Rshill7

                I’m just asking people to think this thing through rather than commit hari kari, OK? It takes effort, foresight, patience, and critical thinking. I am going against the grain, but think I’ll be vindicated, along with Roberts.

                If you usually like what I post, do you think I’ve all of a sudden become an idiot or popped some drugs? C’mon. You can do better than that. Roberts outsmarted all of them IMO, including Levin, Obama, every democrat, and every other justice.

                Sure, had it been stricken, we all would’ve celebrated. As it is, it’s also good, and silences the critics. Obama can celebrate all the way back to Chicago. Roberts also has fairly young kids. I think he knows what he is doing. Think about it with a non-emotional, open mind.

                • NHConservative0221

                  Ok thought about it, makes ZERO sense!

                  Let’s hash this out. Roberts could’ve struck down the commerce argument and the whole thing today. He didn’t need to validate obamacare all by himself to eliminate the commerce clause argument. By voting no he could’ve rightfully declared the entire thing unconstitutional as even Kennedy did.

                  Do you realize how hard it is to repeal these big gov’t monstrosities? Look at social security, medicare, medicaid. We still need to win a number of seats to take the Senate. And there’s no guarantee Romney pulls it off.

                  Best case scenario we do a repeal bill but Roberts has still set the dangerous precedent that the gov’t can tax anyone for not doing what it wants them to do! We are not as free as we were yesterday, it’s a sad day for America!

                • Retired_Coach

                  Very sad. Did I post this already? Bye Bye Miss American Pie? I’ll fight to the bitter end but I also see that we are headed where de Tecoqueville said we were headed many moons ago.

        • KarlRogue

          figures that the Shill would be defending the mandate.

        • Didn’t insult you one time in my post, and yet your entire response to me was insults laden with “you just aren’t looking hard enough.” You didn’t respond to any of the substance at all.

          NOw, let’s try this. This isn’t about Congresses power to tax. This is about their power to tax via implementing penalties for non-activity. Something they have never been able to do. But hey, you know more than everyone else walking the Earth, including those of us who study Constitutional law on a daily basis.

      • Van Pham

        My father used to be a Vietnamese Communist and I used to live in a Communist country. The Vietnamese Communist Party have lots to learn from you Americans today. The Communist would send people to the re-education camps but they were not smart enough to “tax” to death those who they deem as re-actionary, counter-revolutionary or compel people to do something by taxing them.

        • wereon2uB0

          Wish there were a way to chronicle those who have lived in totalitarian societies who now witness what is happening here in US and are trying to warn us to open our eyes to the gradual demise of our Constitutional republic. Hopefully no case will go before SCOTUS to eliminate the internet. Here’s a suggested read: “Witness” by Whittaker Chambers. Our gov’t has been under “attack” since before WWII.

          • sDee

            My father lived through the benevolent socialism that created Nazism. All he told me is flashing before my eyes. I have a context for their language their motives, their deception.

            Obama never stuck me as anything less than a new breed of marxist or fascist. And Romney nothing more than a slick quisling Progressive. Yet most of America still looks for hope in the words of those leading the death march.

            • wereon2uB0

              I think it was on the history channel, sometime in the last year there was a program about Hitler’s rise chronicling how the German’s went happily along happy and willingly oblivious to his crazy dictatorship and atrocities. Today, among my coworkers, many of whom are perfectly honorable, Christian folks, “republican” voters, who treated this SCOTUS decision like no big deal, they’re young, most with kids under the age of 10, some still adding babies to their families. As a loyal listener to Mark Levin who has been ringing the clarion bell of the drip, drip, incremental decay of our individual liberties, so I sent out a brief email merely stating that I printed Legal Landmark’s brief to SCOTUS should anyone be interested in reading the brilliant argument; why this should have been thrown out and deemed unconstitutional. Only 1 very lukewarm response, only stating they were “surprised” at the decision, and I’m thinking “Really?”, you’re “surprised”, not stunned, that you live in bazarro-world?

              It appears we can no longer rely on any politicians or any members of any branch of gov’t to do the right thing. For the sake of future generations I fear some / many / others will have to make the ultimate sacrifice.

              • sDee

                Only 20% supported the American Revolution. 3% fought.

                No one is coming to save us. It is up to us.

                • wereon2uB0

                  and now we’re left with the “election” where the primary process has been totally f**cked so we’re left with a pathetic choice, i.e. the evil candidate v. the stupid candidate; not to mention the policies in place to maximize voter fraud. where on earth is there a free society with a free market system? Israel? Costa Rica? where?? These Fascists NEVER reform or rebuild in a country they love, they ONLY tear down and destroy a country/rebublic they HATE under the guise of “social justice”.

        • sDee

          Our political class, both parties, are enamored with State Capitalism. They are building toward a model like Communist China where the Party has enormous wealth and power combined with a thriving professional middle class who is, as you observe, under their absolute control and in constant fear of being pushed into the permanent underclass.

          It is the new model for globalism but it is not freedom. Americans have no idea what the political class is doing to them and their children. No idea what so ever. They have to break us to achieve this. America, Capitalism and the Constitution are the last obstacle.

          In China, the professional and business class grew quickly up from the brutal Communist oppression that they had lived under. They will do anything to not return but will never become part of the ruling class.

          Getting America to this model is what we are seeing now. It is more difficult but controlling the health, life and death of us and our families is very powerful to keep in chieck those who do not go along, as will be this limitless taxation ability.

          The riches and power offered to those willing to collapse America into this model are beyond imagination.

          Painting a smiley face on the new global communism; The timing of this article is interesting, isn’t it?

          • librtifirst

            I get what you are saying. It makes total sense. The only detail that i would question, though not totally discount, is the “riches” part. If “control” is “riches”, then I agree wholeheartedly. If riches are defined as money, or currency, then I don’t agree with it. They will destroy all currencies in the process of doing what you describe. Yet by destroying those currencies, they will transfer all real wealth (property, gold, silver, etc.) into the hands of the few rulers. After they do this, there is no more profit in having it, outside of the control that it brings.

            I learned another tidbit last night about the state of our union. Many of our presidents have written executive orders declaring a state of emergency. Those orders do not get rescinded. The most recent was Obama and his order dubbed “the martial law” executive order. Combined with an executive order that has to do with Russian nuclear disarmament, the martial law order literally declares a national emergency.

            Apparently, our government has been operating under martial law, (declaration of a national emergency) since 1933 when the US declared bankruptcy. This explains a lot, because being in a state of martial law allows government to act as an extra-constitutional government. It at least gives them some sort of legal argument for it.

            • sDee

              Of course the timing of that article is not coincidence. Roberts did his job yesterday – what he was sent to do.

              Using this model of global state capitalism makes much of the insanity and deceit make sense – provides context. It explains why there is only surface differences between the two parties. Why they both work to destroy the Constitution and grow government. It explains the role of global media to promote the lies and the narrative.

              By “riches” I mean everything tangible. There will always have to be some notion of currency for trade and to control those not in power.

              How we got here has been laid out by many but what is happening now is clear. The groundwork was laid before him, but Obama was sent in to complete the collapse, Romney is being sent in to to restructure us into state capitalism. I also believe that it was intended Obama complete his job and it was the people rising up in 2009 ans the 2010 election that threw a wrench in the works.

              We are being led to well heeled slavery of state capitalism. There is going to be a revolution of some nature. At the ballot box or on the streets.

              • ApplePie101

                Or both.

              • librtifirst

                I have never heard the phrase “state capitalism” used before. Is that term synonymous with “fascism”? I know that many associate racism with fascism, but I didn’t think that it was prerequisite. Either way, I agree with the sentiment.

                I tend to agree with the initial intention of Obama having eight years as well. I tend to believe that we may see fewer eight year reigns from here on out, due to the fact that they will all infuriate their base as well as the opposite party voters in shorter time periods. They will switch them out according to their ability to gain acceptance from the general public.

                Romney will be able to satiate the people often enough to counter the things that infuriate, at least much better than Obama. He will have a couple of years buffer due to hope caused by the other election cycles. All the establishment has to do is give conservatives just enough to keep them on the hook until the crash.

                After watching prepper videos on youtube, I realized that there are many more people fully aware than I previously thought. I am not alone.

      • E. Lee Zimmerman

        I’m in total agreement with your analysis. (Again, not a legal scholar, just a regular Joe.) What Roberts has effectively done is shown Democrats/Liberals precisely HOW the Supreme Court can effectively serve as activists while blanketing themselves from criticism: “you” (the Govt.) have the right to levy ANY tax you want, and there’s nothing Unconstitutional about it.

        Yes, this is the most frightening legal position I think I’ve ever read b/c it opens the door for an infinity of new taxes, which is what every right-minded legal, financial, and political scholar said ShowbamaCare (now ShowbamaTax) could lead to. What’s particularly frightening is that the Dumbocrats — if they seize on this quickly — could use this legal precedent to really expand govt.’s might in, literally, thousands of new ways.

        • KarlRogue

          You’ve got it. All mandates constitutional if enforced by a tax.

          • librtifirst

            The south tried to argue with the feds about it. It didn’t work out for them.

        • ApplePie101

          The paradox is that by negating the constitution, they negate their own right to exist. Congress, the executive and supreme court are creations of the constitution, and have no legitimacy outside of it.

      • wodiej

        Most jumped the gun as soon as we heard the news. Why not take a breather and think for a few minutes that there just may be more to this than meets the eye unless we have some judges and legal scholars on here.

        • KarlRogue

          What are you waiting for? the opinions have been available online since 10am. Read them. Are you waiting for some statist expert to spoon feed you something?

        • librtifirst

          Was the constitution written in such a way as to keep the general public from being able to understand it, or has it been interpreted to death, requiring legal experts?

          I tend to think that the founders original intent was clear, and it was to give the states and individuals more authority over our lives than the feds. I would also argue that the commerce clause has been abused beyond any reasonable interpretation. It was intended that the feds only had the authority to solve problems in commerce between states, not control commerce.

          If you believe that the founders intended for the federal government to do what they have with it, then you have to believe that the founders intended to make the federal government all powerful in this country.

          The first time that the federal government abused the commerce clause, and got away with it, America was all but dead.

    • E. Lee Zimmerman

      This would appear to be a specious argument, though I’ll admit (as I have before) that I’m no legal scholar. The writer appears to be entirely misinformed about the nature of “institutional funding,” which is central to how the ‘federal’ versus the ‘state’ government works. As best as I can clarify it simply is this: whoever GIVES the money decides HOW the money gets spent. (There are some qualifiers to that, but I’m trying to keep it simple.) The state CAN’T refuse to give the money to the federal government b/c the Constitution grants the fed the right to collect the taxes. All this ruling did was essentially underscore that, in return, the fed can’t refuse to return the state’s money until the state complies with what the fed is asking — which legally is defined as “extortion.” The problem here is that when this is done by the government it ISN’T extortion, just like the statute that existed which allowed insider trading by members of Congress; the fed, by definition, “can extort” individuals, but law prohibits individuals extorting others.

      Again, not a legal scholar … just going off what I’ve read and what I’ve come to know … maybe someone else can give greater clarity for you, but methinks the post is more than a little from left field myself …

      • wodiej

        well by your own admission you are not a legal scholar so me thinks the writer of the article has a worthy viewpoint.

        • KarlRogue

          what, you are now defending the mandate? my, how some have grown.

        • E. Lee Zimmerman

          Sure, except that legal scholars apparently disagree with it.

      • Rshill7

        Pretty sure I understand it already sir. No explanation or further clarity required.

    • NYGino

      Very worthy read. I came away from it with a whole lot of new possibilities for what exactly happened and what could be Roberts’ rationale, and his long range thinking.

      • Rshill7

        Thank you sir. I appreciate that.

    • odin147

      Don’t get this article, why do I have to pay anything to anyone for not doing anything

      • Rshill7

        Maybe you don’t understand it and/or it’s implications. It’s a weee bit complicated. It does not lend itself to surface reading or understanding only. It’s rather deep. Try again. Think it through.

        Didn’t any of you watch Robert’s confirmation hearing? The man is brilliant. No one touched him in that confirmation hearing. He made it impossible. He was five moves ahead of every one of them.

        • c4pfan

          Rshill7 you come off like a know it all liberal.

          All of the talking heads on the Right were saying it was going to be overturned and now we are to be glad it wasn’t? BS.

          • KarlRogue

            Romney Shill is just that…. he feels compelled by his Romney love to defend a blatantly unconstitutional action.

            • PAWatcher

              Karl, no shill, TAXation is constitutional. obama and dems put through the largest TAX increase in history with obamacare. obamacare is unconstitutional under the commerce clause per Justice Roberts. Congress has to deal with taxation (taxation with representation) not SCOTUS. So get out the vote and fill congress and the WH with the power to get rid of this TAX. It’s in our court to defend and keep our republic with God’s help.

              • KarlRogue

                Did you read the opinion? you really should.

                Neither the statute, nor its authors, nor the President called the penalty a tax. They specifically denied it was a tax. In another part of his opinion, concerning the Anti-Injunction Act, Roberts says its NOT a tax. then he turns on a dime, and based on nothing other than his own whim, declares that, Yes it Is a tax.

                Can’t be defended PAW.

                • PAWatcher

                  They denied it is a tax, when the dems deny, sorry I know it’s a lie.

              • So, just to be clear. We are ok with a Judge re-writing legislation passed by Congress and the President? That’s ok now? Because at not point was this eveer considered a tax by anyone, until today. Literally, today is the first day in this entire process that anyone with authority has considered this a tax.

                • PAWatcher

                  obama and ilk have known since day one it’s a tax. Remember back when they were so vehement that it WAS NOT a TAX- they lie. obama sparred with several of his own news people over it not being a tax. The legislation known as obama care is an ACT-patient protection and affordable care act, that was defined today by Justice Roberts a TAX Act, i.e Stamp ACT, Tea Act. The dems named it right.

                • NHConservative0221

                  As judges, they’re supposed to base their decision on how each side made their argument. The socialists presented it as a penalty NOT a tax. That’s how it needs to be considered.

                  YOu don’t help them out and make stuff up like Roberts did!

                • PAWatcher

                  Justice Roberts defined it as a tax. I didn’t make that up. I’m calling obamacare a TAX Act, the largest in history, too.

                • E. Lee Zimmerman

                  Yeah, if Justice Roberts proved anything today, he proved that — legally — words DON’T mean things. Sad, sad state of affairs in judicial proceedings.

          • PAWatcher

            All the talking heads on the right said under the commerce clause it was uncontitutional. Roberts agreed, he said it was unconstitutional under the commerce clause, then he got obama/democrats…..he said it is a TAX, passed by democrats, signed by a democrat president. Sound familiar- tea party 1773 taxation without representation. It is up to the congress to get rid of this monstrosity, ergo up to US to vote for a congress and president to repeal, and to undo all obama has done.

          • E. Lee Zimmerman

            Maybe more of a know-it-all, but I don’t necessarily get the ‘liberal’ angle. I’ve read a pretty good amount of legal summation since I posted earlier today, and I do tend to think that, yeah, all of the right-minded scholars called this correctly as ShowbamaTax unfolded in the Congress. Clearly, this isn’t a win-win for our side of the aisle. I think it’s more than a bit of a stretch to even qualify it as a win-lose. I think it’s largely a lose-lose proposition. Maybe we can beat it back at the ballot boxes with the right victories this fall, but methinks this whole “repeal & replace” movement is gonna put us right back where we started from in not too long.

        • odin147

          Let me get this straight… The govt can use its taxing authority to make me pay a fine for not buying what the govt thinks I should buy and even the govt thought that it did not have this authority but ur brilliant Roberts pluck this authority out of thin air without even defining what particular type of tax allows this authority

          • KarlRogue

            Out of Thin Air.
            Just like Harry Blackmun did in Roe.

        • Go ahead genius and explain to the rest of us how differentiating between the commerce clause and the taxing clause matters in the least constitutionally. Everything the government could have done had they upheld the mandate on Commerce Clause grounds can be upheld on Taxing power grounds. Everything. You don’t think there’s a damn good chance this government starts forcing you to buy healthy food? Really? That naive? This decision gives them that power so long as they say the enforcement is a “tax” on those who don’t buy the healthy food. Yea, Roberts really got Obama good on this one.

        • NHConservative0221

          Yeah he’s so brilliant that he saved obamacare today so that it can be struck down sometime in the future!!

          What a genius!!!

          YOu sound like an obama drone talking about how brilliant Obama is!

          From a 2005 blog (VFR) when Roberts was nominated:
          John Roberts as nominee for Supreme Court associate justice was bad enough, but Roberts as nominee for chief justice is truly off-putting and inappropriate. Here is a person who, while evidently bright, has passed his entire career as, well, a careerist, a typical Ivy League, inside-the-Beltway attorney. There is nothing particularly distinguished about him, he’s just a lawyer who has represented a lot of clients, and who has only had two years as a judge. Also, we’re used to the idea that a chief justice should at least look like a chief justice, as Earl Warren and Warren Berger and even the somewhat oddball William Rehnquist did. But Roberts, who is 50, looks a boyish 35, as though he were just a few years out of law school. His callow appearance could be accepted if there were some outstanding achievement or constitutional vision associated with his name, but, as we know, he is a man of mere process, a legal technician who has assiduously avoided stands on substantive and controversial issues and has no discernible judicial philosophy, though we must assume that politically he veers to the left, as shown by his pro bono work for homosexual rights and race preferences. The selection of this careerist nonentity as chief justice of the United States represents a downward turn for America.

          • Pretty spot on about his inability to take a stand on controversial issues. I’d like the brilliant rshill to go watch Robert’s confirmation hearing again. See how well he handles questions about the Kelo decision. He can barely mutter a coherent sentence the entire time.

        • E. Lee Zimmerman

          Uh, well, speaking only for myself, I certainly didn’t get THAT from the Roberts confirmation hearing. I thought he came off looking humble, true. He was certainly knowledgeable. However, quite a bit of what he said and how he’s voted subsequent to the hearings are a bit of a quandary. He’s clearly NOT the Constitutionalist methinks he led many to believe he was, but I know that sometimes rolls down to be a matter of opinion.

  • aZjimbo

    Lawless. That about says it all.

    • E. Lee Zimmerman

      That’s what so many of us have been saying about the Odministration for three years now. Ugh.

      • aZjimbo

        Totally agree. This country will never be the same.

  • Another RINO appointee

  • Can’t wait to listen to the full show tonight. Hope he doesn’t have a coronary on the air.

    • Boris_Badenoff

      Ozzie, Mark does not come on in Denver till later but on days like this I go here and stream it on my computer…

      • Thanks, but I like to listen to it exactly as I get home and take my shoes off and relax. I only download the show if I miss too much of it.

      • Frank Yoder

        Podcasts of the same-day’s show are on his website at 10PM Eastern. FYI.

  • GiantM

    Let’s see….we now have a corrupted supreme court justice.

    We got Muslim’s infiltrating the White House and every part our nation.

    We have a president who thinks he’s invincible.

    We have kicked God of school, out of the public realm, and the Military.

    We have open borders to allow any faction to enter.

    We are the most morally corrupted nation in the world.

    We allow same sex marriage.

    We’ve allowed the killing of millions of innocent babies.

    We are now experiencing the beginning of another round of natural disasters.

    And people are wondering how this ruling could happen?

    Read the book Harbinger and this will make sense. Then kneel, because if there ever was a time to look up daily….this is the time. The nation’s holy covering was removed on 9/11 and we have seen many events take place since then, and they were all wake up calls and no one see’s it. This is just another one which absolutely contrary to how this nation was founded and founded upon GOD. Well folks….it’s obvious HE’s not happy.

    Brace yourselves. Not only for November, but also for what ever else may happen the rest of the year.


    • E. Lee Zimmerman

      FYI: “Judgement” is spelled “judgment.”

      • GiantM



        • E. Lee Zimmerman

          Your welcome.

          See what I did there? LOL!

  • FutureOnePercent

    Can this be brought as a new case? Challenge just the tax as an unconstitutional tax?

    • freenca

      I was just wondering the same thing, Future.

    • E. Lee Zimmerman

      There’s no such thing as an Unconstitutional tax. The Constitution grants Congress the right to levy taxes, which is why the statute was “rewritten” by SCOTUS to precisely make it Constitutional.

      • FutureOnePercent

        Ahh… damn. A guy can hope though, right?

        • E. Lee Zimmerman

          Sure. We can all hope. AND CHANGE!!!!! LOL

          • FutureOnePercent

            Hahaha I stepped right into that one…

    • librtifirst

      Yes it can, because this would not be an equal tax. If the government levies a tax, it has to be fair and equal, according to the taxing and spending clause. Some will pay, and others won’t. Some will pay more than others. Some will pay based on race, due to affirmative action allowing some of different race, income, or some other status, to get government healthcare, which would exempt them from the mandate.

  • ossnhughie

    I’m from Massachusetts don’t put much faith in Romney. He is a coward, a grimy stinkin’ coward. Mitt Romney is our only hope, I can’t believe it has come to this. We have lost a huge piece of what is America today. I’m only 25 and I know we have dark days ahead of us. It’s time to have REAL CONSERVATIVE party not this pack of gutless weasels.

    • librtifirst

      Well said. Those dark days are not far off.

  • wodiej

    before everyone gets their panties in a bunch, read this.

    • Rshill7



      Made my night. Thanks.

    • GiantM

      Good article. Hope it works out that way.

    • NHConservative0221

      Seriously? You buy into that??

      If you’re that confident that this is a win for us then you must’ve become optimistic that Romney is now going to be a conservative President!!

  • I like both Levin and Savage, but Levin has the better show.

  • SaraPFan

    I don’t get it. Did Roberts vote lead to a 6-3 decision or was it 5-4? I’m hearing varying reports. Did Scalia, Roberts and Alito dissent? Did Kennedy vote to uphold or oppose? I heard Roberts only joined the left to write the majority opinion because it was 5-4 and he left the other 3 to write the majority opinion to restrict the others on the majority. I’m lost.

    • KarlRogue

      5-4. Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Kennedy in dissent–they would have ruled the WHOLE THING unconstitutional.

      Earl Warren Roberts not only saved the mandate, he saved the whole stinking mess. Catastrophic Republican f*ck up.

      • SaraPFan

        OMG. What the heck, then? Why did he switch just to tell us it was a tax? I thought Kennedy dissented as well and Roberts didn’t want to left it to the left to write the majority dissent.

        I think I’m going to pass out. What the heck?

        • KarlRogue

          No. Kennedy was solidly in our corner. Roberts flipped, allegedly at the last minute.

          There are multiple (9, specifically) references in the Kennedy-Alito-Scalia-Thomas opinion to the Ginzburg opinion for the majority as “the dissent”–indicating, that in preliminary voting at least, Ginzburg was indeed in the minority, and became the “majority” some time after the Kennedy-Alito-Scalia-Thomas opinion was written. Looks like a last minute flip flop by Roberts (and reads like one, too–its terribly done).

          • SaraPFan

            Why did he flip just to explain a tax? If he was steadfast, we wouldn’t be discussing tax increases due to Obamacare. Didn’t hear all of Rush today at work.

            • NHConservative0221

              I think the reason that piece of trash flipped is since he was too much of a coward to deal with the backlash from Maobama and the media.

              He was worried about the legacy of his court and the backlash from overturning a signature legislation. Well now he has the scorn of the right, of the majority of Americans for stabbing us all in the back!

              Up yours roberts!!

              • FutureOnePercent

                Once again, Conservatives got scared of name calling.


                Sticks and stones may break my bones, but your words truly F#%^$d us.

                The American People

  • KarlRogue

    Roberts’ activism is now firmly evident.

    100% pure Republican.
    John Roberts = the new Earl Warren

  • odin147

    Why do I have to pay anything to anyone for not doing anything, the tragedy of this decision is that we have to renounce our citizenship to be more free.

  • stage9

    Craaaaaaaapppp…I have to vote for Obamney…..I will never forgive the GOP for this.

  • c4pfan

    To say that Roberts made it so that Obamacare passed is a good thing and that Levin was outsmarted has got to be the stupidest thing I’ve heard yet!

    He could have gotten rid of it like it should have been! Even Kennedy figured that out.

  • KarlRogue

    When I was a kid there were bill boards and bumperstickers around saying
    Impeach Earl Warren.
    Later on, I learned why.

    Impeach John Roberts.

  • KarlRogue

    Oh by the way
    Vote Romney, he will appoint more Judges like John Roberts
    his website promises you

  • brendawatkins

    It appears we now have FIVE LIBERAL , ANTI-CONSTITUTIONAL JUSTICES on the supreme court… and the MAJORITY RULES.. and THAT IS THE PROBLEM!!

    • M_J_S

      In the spirit of Andrew Jackson (and for a different case): “Justice Roberts has made his ruling; now let him enforce it.”

      We’re not paying any damn taxes related to this. Send the government to enforce this on we citizens. My address will be the woods of the Appalachian mountains.

      • I’m with this. Seriously, if 30-40 million of us don’t buy insurance and don’t pay the PENALTY, let them come and arrest us, and then we can go ahead and challenge the constitutionality of it again because they are no longer enforcing the mandate via PENALTY, but via imprisonment.

        • FutureOnePercent

          It’s a tax now, so they’ll just take it from your paycheck before it gets to that point.

      • librtifirst

        Sounds good. People need to realize that this will be used to take more of our wealth through the seizure of assets, and it will be due to people’s inability to pay the insurance, taxes, and fines. This never had anything to do with health care.

    • KarlRogue

      that’s right Brenda, and CJ Earl Warren Roberts is young. He will be around for a good 30 years.

      • brendawatkins

        It seems to be that that is what these conservatives, harping on this is a win for us, DON’T SEEM TO BE GETTING!

        • KarlRogue

          Its like Levin said.
          Beltway “conservatives” are so used to losing, they find a “win” in the most disastrous of defeats.

          Look at Boehner and McConnell…its the same thing.

  • Rshill7

    Looks as if I’ve lost all my fairweather friends. That’s good. The real ones can remain. Although I don’t see any of them, with the possible exception of NYGino, once.

    Good night.

    Reminds me of my local paper. I’m used to it.

    • NHConservative0221

      Good riddance!

      Yeah, Roberts is a real strict constructionist!

      He can’t even name what part of the tax code the obamacare”tax” is, it’s just whatever he wants it to be!!

      Enjoy obamacare!!

      • librtifirst

        I like Peter Schiff’s take on it.

    • This guy. Thinks he’s some sort of internet crusader.

    • Linky1

      Count me in as more than a fairweather friend, RS.

      I do agree with what you said here and no, your thoughts didn’t sway me. Nor, did the slings and arrows of outraged, blinder-wearing posters sway me. I used my head, my brain, made up my own mind after looking at both sides of the issue.

      I love a spirited debate but balk when people resort to ham-handed ad hominem attacks, trying to force you to come to their side. That to me, is not only ignorant, it smacks of Chicago-style thuggery, kind of like what is ruling in Washington.

      • Rshill7

        Thanks Scoob! You da ginchiest 🙂

        I appreciate it.

        • Linky1

          “Ginchiest?” I’ve never been called that before, but I do like it. 🙂

          • Rshill7

            It’s a lot different than grinchiest 🙂

            • Linky1

              LOL…I have been called “Grinchiest” many times! 🙂

  • LeonidasOfSparta1957

    Bravo, Professor Levin.
    A caller on Rush’s show today (6/28) made the comment that this ruling has made it possible, now, for government to force upon the public ANY kind of tax to force any kind of “behavior” they wish. This decision creates an irreversible precedent.

  • KarlRogue

    Hands down the most disastrous, and most poorly reasoned, SCOTUS opinion since Roe v. Wade. Truly worthy of Harry Blackmun, another GOP legal star.

    • This is true. I want people to really read the section on the Taxing power. It’s really poorly reasoned. He honestly comes up with almost no reason whatsoever to interpret the fine as a “tax” as opposed to what it really was, a penalty. When Congress calls it a penalty, and the President who signs it calls it a penalty, and the bill itself calls it a penalty, its REALLY hard for a judge to then call it a tax. ESPECIALLY WHEN HE JUST GOT DONE SAYING IT WASNT A TAX FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE AIA. I mean, people, we just had a majority opinion where the author argued in the space of a few pages that this fee was not a tax but that it was also a tax. And at no point does he really manage to reconcile the two.

  • KarlRogue

    1. Earl Warren
    2. Harry Blackmun
    3. William Brennan
    4. David Souter
    5. John Paul Stevens
    and now 6. John Roberts

    The Republican Judges Hall of Fame–60 years of disastrous, statist jurisprudence.

  • las1

    Well Mark… you convinced me… and you did it again, as usual with sound legal thought and rationale… as well as remaining true to originalist intent.

    Sadly, I too stood on the bandwagon hailing this as a chess move by Roberts to take the Commerce Clause off the table in ObamaCare as well as a shot in the arm for Republicans to be galvanized against Obama. But you convinced me that had Roberts gone with the other 4 dissenting Justices, that ObamaCare would have been removed thoroughly and would have the added benefit to galvanize Republicans against Obama for his thoroughly un-constitutional legislation. But sadly that opportunity is gone and Republicans will be squawking about taxes until November 4th while Dems will be rubbing Republican noses in the Robert decision the hole time in response. Obama will be seen as the winner… and Republicans as sore losers.

    As usual Mark, there is very little I can disagree with you about… except maybe your yelling… but that too I have come to welcome as an old friend.

    • Rshill7

      You’re wrong, again.

      • las1

        I still love ya.

        p.s. What! I don’t get a “like”?

        • Rshill7

          Nope. I’ll take an apology though…later 😉

          • Rshill7


          • las1

            I got a few extra “like” shekels you can borrow from me to put in the slot.

            P.S. I indeed changed my opinion. Btw… I read Krauthammer’s and skimmed a few others and read as well the one you posted. Your article I thought the analysis was plausible politically. Certainly not asinine (don’t know why that dis was used)… but constitutionally, Levin nailed it and blew all of them out of the water. But you stood your ground… hold you head high.

            • Rshill7

              I will, in spite of your malleable nature. Hopefully you are not continuously hammered in “like” fashion.

          • las1

            I was not thoroughly wedded to either opinion because I was looking for more arguments. I don’t think it’s weak… but just fair and rational. I just feel that Levin’s was the most sound from a constitutional stand… and that trumps the political imho.

            But you are right… I do hope Levin does not have a heart attack… but I always appreciate his take… and he’s like a grumpy old gramps… you know he’s right even if his delivery is not so nice.

            • Rshill7

              No, he is not. Not in the long run.

              • las1

                Shush child… to bed with you. And no complaining.

                • Rshill7

                  No thank you. Listen and learn. You’re not too old for that, right? Ask your wife.

                • las1

                  Good morning there cupcake! I hope you had a good sleep with no bad dreams about us cave-ins and sell outs to fear.

                  Here’s a good article by Ben Shapiro. I have a love/hate thing with him about 80/20 percent of the time. His argument is constitutional. Yours is political. My position is the same as Shapiro’s who says the constitution trumps the political. Not that the political is invalid, but that the constitutional has been manipulated far too long… and this is the case that Shapiro makes. Interested to know what you think.


                • Rshill7

                  Too busy spreading icing on my head right now. Then I’m gonna pop a candle into my cranium and crash someones birthday party.

                • Rshill7

                  Here’s more. If it’s a tax…



                • las1

                  I knew I wasn’t crazy… I’d forgotten that the government lawyers argued before the court that it indeed was a tax, contrary to their original argument. This is classic bait and switch… and indeed Roberts did apparently rule on that argument. But Levin counters that the taxation argument was not competently argued as part of the presentation and was NOT included as a presentation… so Roberts should NOT have ruled on it as such because of a simple claim that it was a tax by Obama’s lawyers. (I’m no lawyer but I tend to believe Levin’s comprehension of detailed argument before the court.) Levin also asserts that clarity is one of the prime outcomes for rulings, but there is NO clarity in what Roberts says in his decision. And the arguments of what’s not a penalty and what is a tax (as laid out in this video) are so convoluted you can only shake your head in confusion.

                  Justice Roberts: “Choosing not to comply with the mandate can only subject you to what amounts to a tax”. Huh! What the!… Comply or not comply you are taxed anyway. I read this that you have NO option but to comply. Non compliance is NOT an option so you won’t be penalized. Confused yet? Levin is looking even more sane after hearing this.

                  Now to your point where I do agree… that Obama-Care was “deemed” passed because the law coming back to the House from the Senate would never be accepted… therefore shenanigans by Pelosi “deemed” it passed. My question is… Does “deemed” still count as an act of the House of Representatives. That is the question… and you can be damned sure that if Republicans claim that Obama-Care is void because it was “deemed”… then Dems will cry bloody murder then “RACISM”! Not necessarily in that order. Like you I see some silver lining about the deemed argument, but I have not seen it anywhere else other than in this clip.

                  Thanks for this.

                • Rshill7

                  I disagree.

      • “That is why he’ll never be appointed to anything other than his own radio show.”

        What does this even mean? We should all strive to be as successful as he’s been in life.

        • Rshill7

          That is a response to everyone who wants him to be AG or anything else. I think he’s a jerk. You think I’m a jerk. Where’s your beef? Oh, I know, it’s beef jerky.

  • Sober_Thinking

    Well, we wanted an epic rant and there you have it. Roberts is a disgrace.

    • Rshill7

      No, Levin is.

      • NHConservative0221

        You’ve lost all credibility.

        Levin is a disgrace for not realizing how brilliant it is NOT to strike down Obamacare now to be able to strike it down later IF we can take over the Senate, Presidency… or something!

        Yeah, well said.

        • Rshill7

          Thanks again for sharing. You nailed it.

          Let me help you…senate, house and presidency…plus, never again will congress try to stretch the commerce clause beyond recognition. You might not recognize it, but others will, including myself.

          • NHConservative0221

            Why are you still ignoring the dangerous precedent that Roberts just set today? That the gov’t can now fine anyone for inactivity. So they can fine us for not buying an electric car, for not going to the gym, for not buying solar panels, not eating our broccoli, etc. Does that really not concern you?

            Also, you’re making it sound like it’ll be a cake-walk to keep the House, take the Senate, take the Presidency. Nothing is a given. The presidential race is neck and neck. I’m very nervous that it’s so close, just like I was with the supreme court decision (when neither should’ve been close at all).

            Finally, what will you say about Roberts if we don’t regain enough power to repeal and obamacare stands forever? What will you say when he had the chance to repeal it today?

            • Rshill7

              I will say that I was wrong of course. Will you, if I and he who I linked to, waaaaaaay up top, is right? I agree with him. If you do not, that’s fine. Keep your tar and your feathers. You may need them for self-administration.

              • c4pfan

                You are literally stupid. Roberts could have voted the right way and overturn! Hello, that’s exactly what the talking heads and Mitt said would happen or are you saying that they weren’t saying that?

                • NHConservative0221

                  Exactly, when you have a chance to repeal this monstrosity, you DO IT!!! You don’t play games and hope to make an “easier” repeal in the future!


              • NHConservative0221

                I’m not wrong, neither is Levin, neither are those who common sense.

                Even for the best case scenario with a full repeal of obamacare, Roberts still set the precedent giving the gov’t the power to tax us for any reason, which you have yet to address.

                • librtifirst

                  Roberts also explicitly set in stone that the part of the clause that limits taxation to being fair and equal is of no consequence constitutionally.

          • librtifirst

            I see that you are an optimist.

      • Sober_Thinking

        I appreciate you seeing a silver lining in this tragedy and hopefully it’ll work – the Tea Party is way fired up now.

        But to say Levin is a disgrace doesn’t make sense. He’s been one of the few sane and logical voices out there. I’m stunned by your attitude and characterization of him.

        After reading some of your other attacks and responses in this chain, you might still be emotionally compromised from this horrible ruling today. Go ahead and attack Mark if it helps you sleep at night.

        • NHConservative0221

          No don’t attack The Great One.

          To do so is clearly barking up the wrong tree and will only make one look foolish.

          I don’t care if it’s his coping mechanism or not. I’m pretty $%#$# upset myself and the last thing I need is someone trying to argue that this is actually a good thing!

          • Sober_Thinking


            You said what I actually wanted to say. However, he seemed agitated and I didn’t want him to flood my inbox with vitriol. I was simply trying to defuse the sniper on the roof. I won’t pull my punches anymore.

            I agree with you 100%. I consider Mark one of my Top 5 or so best sources for opinion, truth, and information. I take offense at someone bad-mouthing him.

  • NJK

    Everyone, just because John Roberts is now a rogue Justice, and has decided to follow the left, and act outside the Constitution, doesn’t mean we have to follow.

    What next? Nullify!

    “The states simply need to follow Thomas Jefferson’s prescription and nullify the entire act. They should just refuse to implement this monstrosity. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has already indicated he will refuse, and other states should follow his lead.”

    The Governor of VA, said his state will not comply either. I expect Texas will do the same.

    Obama is lawless, the Democrats are lawless, and Justice John Roberts is lawless. We do not need to comply with lawlessness.

    • ApplePie101


  • blackbird

    Thanks very much Scoop for posting Levin’s Audio clips, thanks again.

  • hbnolikeee

    The obvious and yet apparently irrelevant problem is that it was voted on as not a tax and the SCOTUS calls it a tax and gives it a pass… How is that?

    • Rshill7

      It is “that” so Congress can more easily repeal it.

      Later folks. You too Las.

      • c4pfan

        Why are you so slow to get that Kennedy went with the right decision and only Roberts was need? Are you that daft?

    • Boon Companion

      One can legitimately say that Roberts actually IS Bush’s fault.

  • I don’t want my kids to have to grow up in the country that Obama is manufacturing. I fear for their futures.

  • carolt2

    Mark should be on the Supreme Court, he knows the Constitution. I would miss his show too much though. I alternate between Mark and Rush as my favorites.

  • Boon Companion
  • killed it!

  • BS61




  • ApplePie101

    As one blogger on Breitbart asked, ‘Now that it is officially a tax, will all the exemptions still hold up?…Will SEIU members still be exempt?’

    Well, Mr. Roberts?

    • las1

      Good point! What about all those Obama-Waivers? Or will a whole new tome of tax policy be published to cover Obama’s friends and hangers on.

      • Rshill7

        Tax bills must originate in the House. This bill did not. If it is a tax, the whole thing should be invalid, on that basis alone.

    • Of course the muslims cannot be exempt from taxes, as their “religion” teaches piracy as a means of taxing the infidels.

      Unions cannot be exempt from taxes, as they are NOT non-profit organizations.

      The Amish… hmmm. They might be outta luck too.

      We the People are ALL IN THIS SINKING SHIP TOGETHER – some on the deck and some are below, but no matter who you are, the water is not FINE.

  • physicsnut

    Thank you Mark !!!

  • NYGino

    Rshill7 has guts. And an open mind. He presents an article for our information, an article that shows a different perspective on a very complicated issue and he gets his head handed to him. Consider some of the points here. Obamacare is shot down by whatever reasoning, eventually it would be resurrected and morphed into a different form and will be brought up again. But because of the rulings as outlined by Roberts, it can never be presented under the cloak of lies, deception and misrepresentation again.

    It is a tax. If it was presented as such Obamacare wouldn’t have gotten to first base. Roberts takes away the use of the commerce clause, which was the vehicle this terrible law was using, he takes away the Federal Governments use of blackmail and financial threats towards States, which is a form of enforcement, he tells the American people, who overwhelmingly don’t like or want this law that it is up to us, the voters to be more careful who we choose to represent us and also lets us know that the overturning of this law is in our hands.

    The government has always had the right to tax us. The way to control them is through the political process, this is why conservatives and liberals are always at odds with each other, among other reasons.

    Killing the law at this point might have been only a temporary fix, and the beast will arise again sometime in the future (they have been trying to do this for a hundred years). What Roberts might be saying is you do your job and put your houses in order and repeal this law and I’ve done my job. Making sure it wont ever return.

    Now we should all take a lesson from Rshill7 and not be afraid to see all sides of an argument.

    • Linky1

      Hear, Hear, Gino!!!! You never know what you’ll find.

      Besides that, by following blindly to one side of an argument, you put yourselves in the category of the sheeple who accept what Progressives say as gospel.

      • Rshill7


    • Rshill7


  • bobemakk

    Between Levin and Savage I feel they are both intelligent and listen to the voice of the people, and give US the support we need.

  • There was a man who lived long ago, in a tiny mountain village. The man was old and still had no son. The other villagers would come to him and say “it is so sad that you have no son.” The old man would only reply “Maybe yes, maybe no.”

    Finally, the old man’s wife gave birth to a health son. The other villagers came to him and said “it is so wonderful that you now have a fine son!” The old man would only reply “Maybe yes, maybe no.”

    One day, the old man’s herd of horses got out of the corral and ran off. The other villagers came to him and said “it is so sad that your horses are gone!” The old man would only reply “Maybe yes, maybe no.”

    By this time, the old man’s son had grown into a strong young man and the son went off to gather the horses. The other villagers came to him and said “it is a great thing that your son can go gather your horses!” The old man would only reply “Maybe yes, maybe no.”

    After the old man’s son had returned all the horses to the corral, the son fell off a horse and broke his leg. The other villagers came to him and said “it is so sad that your son is injured and might become lame!” The old man would only reply “Maybe yes, maybe no.”

    A few days later, a king’s army came through the village, taking all the healthy young men off to war. The other villagers came to him and said “it is a good thing that your son is injured, so that the king’s army left him here. He will not die in the war.”

    The old man would only reply “Maybe yes, maybe no.”

    I don’t understand the insanity of poly-ticks (the many bloodsuckers.) Will it be a good thing in the end, or not?

    “Maybe yes, maybe no.”


    Reality: Now that Roberts either saved, or screwed America, what is our next step? Shall we fix it, or lament over it? (that question is NOT a call for “Maybe yes, maybe no.” answers!)

  • I get really irritated at my “Conservative” U.S. Representative, for voting to approve adding/extending all these usurpations of power into the hands of BS-Barry and Gang-Green. It seems to not matter whether the DemonicRATs, or the Republicants hold the reins, WE get screwed.

    My U.S.Representative even told me that Obama’s “eligibility is settled” (as have several GOP cultists), and she voted to extend the Patriot Act and other POtuS friendly crap, further burdening the poor Obama Administration with protecting us, but not protecting us from the Obama Administration.

    My confusion about my “Conservative Congresswoman of the Year” refusing to admit that Obama is a danger to America, should be understandable… but nooooooo.

    Last week, the Republicants in Congress were talking about remove and replace of “Obamacare”, when We the People have the right to tell them to F-OFF! (sorry, I don’t usually cuss)

    So now, we’re supposed to fight to rid Congress and the cesspool (White House) of the evil gang of turd-blossoms, so that the OTHER gang can tell us what to do?

    Since Roberts said the “Commerce Clause” is not an available avenue AND that the “law” does not meet the criteria of a Constitutional tax, thus making way for complaints to be made prior to the paying of an “insurance premium” (pre-2014). So the IRS cannot collect, or jail you, if you say “no” to paying. You can take them to court FIRST… correct? (seems to me, but I’m stupid)

    Then Roberts said the “law” IS a “tax”… he didn’t say what country, or planet would be the home of such a “tax”, just that it is a “tax”. (a.k.a. monies extorted from the Peoples, by government.)

    Now, if we (in large numbers) refuse to pay, and file a class-action suit, because an unconstitutional tax is being levied against us, what will the FERAL (sp!) govt do?

    Since the “tax” is a tax, but not a Constitutional tax (by any Constitutional enumeration), by what authority can the IRS collect the tax?

    “BUT BUT BUT, the Congress will re-write the law, to make it a self-supporting, non-tax, non-Commerce Clause thingy that will get us the votes.”

    Yeah, right! Good luck with that one… pbpbpbpbpbpbpbpb!

    I don’t play chess, but it seems Justice Roberts is sitting back tonight, saying to himself “checkmate in two moves, you stupid Proggys. Barack, you best get your Grampers on.”

    For now, that’s my hope for change.

  • kommonsense

    @NHConservative0221 I don’t think you should be so smug.   They are dueling opinions.
    It can be argued that previous Supreme court rulings
    involving the Senate substitution of one revenue-raising bill for another.  It is undisputed that H.R. 3590 bill, that
    was used, was NOT originally a bill for raising revenue, unlike prior cases
    that the supreme court ruled on, the Senate’s gut-and-amend procedure made H.R.
    3590 for the first time into a bill for raising revenue.