Team Obama: SCOTUS is Wrong, Obama is Right


carneythinkObamacare was to be the signature legislation for Barack Obama. However, it has been somewhat bitter-sweet for the liar-in-chief. While the mandate was upheld, it was not upheld under the commerce clause but under Congress’ authority to tax. Immediately the White House liberal talking head went out on que claiming the mandate was not a tax, but a penalty. For Obamacare to be declared a tax in an election year would mean certain doom for the Obama campaign, so they are lying as much as they can in hopes that if they say it enough people will believe it.

Nancy Pelosi “met the press” this past weekend and also claimed the mandate was a penalty.

Then there is Ben LaBolt, a spokesman for the Obama campaign. He appeared on CNN Thursday morning with Soledad O’Brien and was asked, “What does he (Obama) believe?” in regards to the Supreme Court referring to the mandate as a tax.

Labolt claimed that Obama disagreed and affirmed that Obama thinks “That it’s a penalty.” LaBolt also continually said, “You saw our arguments before the Court.”

The Washington Examiner reported,

At that point, O’Brien pointed out that the Obama administration’s solicitor general, Donald Verrilli, argued before the Court that if the justices chose not to find the mandate constitutional under the Commerce Clause, they could still uphold it because it is a tax, and Congress has broad power to levy taxes.

LaBolt then denied that the administration had ever made such an argument. “It never referred to it as a — it never referred to it as a tax,” LaBolt said. “It said that it was a penalty. And that’s under the section of the law that is the tax code, but it said very specifically that it’s a penalty.”

Labolt is not the first and certainly won’t be the last. In fact, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, in a huff exclaimed,

But if I could just add as a matter of policy, it is simply a fallacy to say that this is a broad-based tax. That’s not what the opinion stated that was authored by the Chief Justice. The Affordable Care Act is constitutional under Congress’s taxing authority, but this is clearly a penalty that affects less than 1 percent of the American population.

Look, it’s a penalty. It affects 1 percent, and perhaps less, of the population. It is a — I don’t know about you, but you don’t get to choose whether you pay your income taxes — most people don’t. I certainly don’t. This is not a tax in that sense at all. It is a penalty you pay if you fail to buy health insurance but can afford it.

So now the White House is not only lying about what the mandate is or is not, they are now lying about what the Chief Justice called it. Don’t believe me? OK, here’s what the Chief Justice actually wrote:

Under the mandate, if an individual does not maintain health insurance, the only consequence is that he must make an additional payment to the IRS when he pays his taxes. See §5000A(b). That, according to the Government, means the mandate can be regarded as establishing a condition—not owning health insurance—that triggers a tax—the required payment to the IRS. Under that theory, the mandate is not a legal command to buy insurance. Rather, it makes going without insurance just another thing the Government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning income. And if the mandate is in effect just a tax hike on certain taxpayers who do not have health insurance, it may be within Congress’s constitutional power to tax.

Say it isn’t so! I’m sorry it is so. The mandate is a tax, no matter what the liberals would have us believe and the guy that gave it to them, Justice Roberts, called it a tax in black and white for all to see. I suggest some of these reporters start quoting this little section to the White House and some of these Obamabots and let’s see them squirm and look for an answer, especially Carney. That guy must have to change shirts several times a day, because you know he is sweating bullets about all of this.



  • Chris in Kalifornia

    Romney needs to get up on his feet and proclaim loudly and often about Obama’s promise not to raise taxes on anyone who makes less than $250,000. Beat Obama’s campaign to pieces with all the taxes included in Obamacare and he should loudly and often proclaim that he will do everything in his power to abolish it and all the stupid EPA rules they’ve come up with and all the stupid taxes on businesses that raise prices for everyone, and how that especially hurts poor people. His tepid response to the jobs numbers is going to get him the same thing McCain got. A LOSS! A loss for all of us.

  • tofubamboo

    obama, the liar in chief. Ugh…..

  • jerry1944

    Thanks to the tratior roberts it doesnt matter we all have to pay it and i dont think the gop really want to repeal it. It was romneys that obambo stole and the gop have turned mod and romneys pac are makeing money off of it. Nope we are stuck with it just like romneys pac want to raise the taxes on the rich. Both sound the same if you look behind the lies

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_HSJULSAVFJIJYR6PCTCUPMNXRA Take 2

    Someone who cheats on a Bill. (wolf)

    Someone who is polite to everyone. (sheep)

    Someone who is only polite to people he wants to vote. (wolf)

    Someone who admits when he is wrong. (sheep)

    Someone who is difficult to upset. (sheep)

    Someone who blames Bush for his mistakes. (wolf)

    Someone who exaggerates half truths e.g., lie. (wolf)

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/QHRUML5XFH7AMSWH63TQH7F7E4 MalikTous

    Neither Borkup Obummer nor the libtard-contaaminated SCOTUS are ‘right’. Obamacare is an un-American and unconstitutional abomination and the sooner it’s repealed the better!

  • J J

    So, SCOTUS gave Obama what he wanted but they got it wrong and Obama is right???? How is America supposed to understand that???

  • JBeach

    The controversy is a distraction from the essential fact that the mandate is not going to change what is unconstitutional for the person who can not afford to carry health care insurance. His inability to pay for either insurance or the penalty for not carrying it is what makes it unconstitutional. SCOTUS’ decision concerning whether the law is a tax or a penalty is irrelevant. Whatever benefit to the government, by means of taxation or fine/fee, the law is supposed to provide, it overlooks the fundamental inability of people to afford a product or service which they may need. Taking away the freedom of choice of a person to not afford what he can not afford will not change the consequences of cost to the government. Let’s not be completely naive or stupidly hypocritical!

  • Mike

    If it isn’t a tax Mr. President, how come the IRS is in charge of enforcement and you are hiring thousands of IRS agents to collect it?

  • nvrat

    Did they just realize that Roberts stuck it to them and the rest of the country and now they are crying foul. To bad Blimp Brains.

  • GDC97

    The FACT is they are BOTH WRONG!

  • TheSunDidIt

    Our founders would have called it a “damndable tax”. I don’t agree that they can TAX us in this manner but, it is pretty clear unless you don’t speak English that this is ONLY legal when viewed as a TAX per the SCOTUS.

  • JINOFCT

    When Preswident Obama spoke to Congress and was confronted with the shout out “LIAR”, It led to a formal reprimand for that Congressman..
    AN APOLOGY IS OWED TO HIM.
    THERE HAVE BEEN SO MANY “LIES” identified and documented that this Presidents credibility should have gone into the tank -BIG TIME- ages ago.
    Yet we still have a main stream media that denies reality and defends this President by ignoring or excusing his “LIES”.

  • Yahooligan

    SCOTUS should be renamed “SCROTUS” – Supreme Court Rips Off The United States; and that’s exactly where I’d like to kick them!

  • Protonius

    One more thing:

    Did you notice, in reading the article’s quote of what Robert’s actually
    ruled, that Roberts said that “IF” this is a tax, then it “MAY” (not
    “DOES”) come under the Congressional authority to tax. Thus, it appears, he described CONDITIONS but did not directly RULE.

    As it seems to me, this is a glaring contradistinction to how
    unequivocally and clearly he stated as unConstitutional any effort to
    base a “penalty” on the Government’s “Commerce” authority. On that issue, he RULED.

    Thus I ask:

    Because of Roberts’ use of the words “IF” and “MAY” in the “tax”
    context, was he actually taking care to NOT rule on whether or not the
    “tax” parts of Obamacare are Constitutional — even though he reasoned
    that the “tax” parts followed the PATTERN of other taxes — and that he
    INSTEAD was declaring (a) that he is NOT making any ruling whatsoever as
    to whether or not the “tax” parts of Obamacare have any Constitutional
    legality, but (b) that IF the “tax” parts of Obamacare are to ever have
    any Constitutional legitimacy to them, they (and any bill containing
    those “tax” parts) MUST first go through the PROPER,
    CONSTITUTIONALLY-MANDATED, process — which, although he didn’t spell it
    out, means that the “tax” parts of Obamacare would of necessity have to
    have been (or be) within a tax-related bill THAT ORIGINATES IN THE
    HOUSE?

    Thus, by his roundabout playing with words, was Roberts really
    INSTRUCTING on the process — but NOT ISSUING A DECISION BASED ON THAT
    INSTRUCTION –by which a proposed Federal tax can or cannot become
    Constitutionally legitimized Federal tax?

    And if that is so, then here’s a real conundrum:

    IF he did NOT ACTUALLY RULE as to the legitimacy of the Obamacare “tax”
    parts, AND IF the dissenting 4 justices DID state, in their dissent (and
    their votes) that the Obamacare “tax” parts ARE unConstitutional, then
    could this combination of circumstances ACTUALLY INDICATE that the
    SCOTUS-vote was 4 FOR AND 4 AGAINST — meaning a TIE-VOTE — or even
    possibly that the actual vote on this tax-issue was, perhaps, the A
    MAJORITY declaring that the “tax” parts of Obamacare (and thus Obamacare
    as a whole) ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

    But even aside from however those numbers might work out, doesn’t
    Roberts’ ruling, regarding the “tax” parts of Obamacare, essentially
    INVITE submission of a lawsuit to the Supreme Court as to WHETHER
    OBAMACARE (in which, as I’ve read, some TWENTY NEW TAXES are initiated)
    WAS LEGALLY PASSED INTO LAW?

    If so, then wouldn’t that also open to legal question ADDITIONAL
    questions as to the process by which the Obamacare legislation was
    “passed” into law — such as the process by which the House proposed a
    version that was killed by the Senate but then the Senate created its
    own version and voted — or declared — that the House bill “was DEEMED
    (by the Senate) to have passed”, in order to push this bill into law?

    Key question on that point: Wasn’t that process an ILLEGAL,
    UNCONSTITUTIONAL, circumvention of the Constitutional process as to how a
    bill can — or cannot — become a law?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/David-B-Severy/557985964 David B Severy

    It is both a penalty (for not buying insurance ) and a tax (by dint of the method paid). But when have we ever taxed anyone for not doing anything? We pay farmers for not planting crops. Don’t expect men to be able to live sanely until Jesus returns.

  • blusportie

    The Obama administration lied to the Court when it presented its case, now it’s lying to the press and the people about that previous lying – the liars! I have come to the conclusion that the whole cesspool full of them, from Barry on down, would lie when the truth would serve them better, simply because they cannot bring themselves to do otherwise.

  • jack

    Tax or penalty, semantics. Either way it is big government robbing us serfs. Might as well be merry old England.

  • R.Young

    Everyone knows the Supreme Court is wrong, the Great Black Father has said it is a penalty, “not a Tax”? The Great Black Father would never lie to his “SUBJECTS”? This matter should be taken to that most oustanding organization th U N and be brought before the World Court for the final ruling?