Obamacare Supreme decision panacea may be a short-lived balm for Obama. Holder contempt citation bugaboo just getting started.

http://beforeitsnews.com/story/2321/982/Chief_Justice_Roberts_Is_A_Genius.html

Chief Justice Roberts Is A Genius

Before you look to do harm to Chief Justice Roberts or his family, it’s important that you think carefully about the meaning – the true nature — of his ruling. The Left will shout that they won, that Obama-care was upheld and all the rest. Let them.

It will be a short-lived celebration.

Here’s what really occurred — payback. Yes, payback for Obama’s numerous, ill-advised and childish insults directed toward SCOTUS.

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.

Next, he stated that, because Congress doesn’t have the ability to mandate, it must, to fund Obama-care, rely on its power to tax. Therefore, the mechanism that funds Obama-care is a tax. This is also critical. Recall back during the initial Obama-care battles, the Democrats called it a penalty, Republicans called it a tax. Democrats consistently soft sold it as a penalty. It went to vote as a penalty. Obama declared endlessly, that it was not a tax, it was a penalty. But when the Democrats argued in front of the Supreme Court, they said ‘hey, a penalty or a tax, either way’. So, Roberts gave them a tax. It is now the official law of the land — beyond word-play and silly shenanigans — that Obama-care is funded by tax dollars. Democrats now must defend a tax increase to justify the Obama-care law.

Finally, he struck down as unconstitutional, the Obama-care idea that the federal government can bully states into complying by yanking their existing medicaid funding. Liberals, through Obama-care, basically said to the states — ‘comply with Obama-care or we will stop existing funding.’ Roberts ruled that is a no-no. If a state takes the money, fine, the Feds can tell the state how to run a program, but if the state refuses money, the federal government can’t penalize the state by yanking other funding. Therefore, a state can decline to participate in Obama-care without penalty. This is obviously a serious problem. Are we going to have 10, 12, 25 states not participating in “national” health-care? Suddenly, it’s not national, is it?

Ultimately, Roberts supported states rights by limiting the federal government’s coercive abilities. He ruled that the government can not force the people to purchase products or services under the commerce clause and he forced liberals to have to come clean and admit that Obama-care is funded by tax increases.

Although he didn’t guarantee Romney a win, he certainly did more than his part and should be applauded.

And he did this without creating a civil war or having bricks thrown threw his windshield. Oh, and he’ll be home in time for dinner.

Brilliant.

and.....

http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/28/obamacare-becomes-obamatax/

The Supreme Court handed a courthouse victory to President Barack Obama on Thursday, but also gave him another campaign-trail problem.

The already unpopular 2010 health care reform law has been converted by the court into a $1.76 trillion tax increase funded by escalating taxes to be paid the vast majority of taxpayers.

GOP officials are pushing this Obamacare-to-Obamatax pitch, and are suggesting that the tax will further stall the economy.

“Do we think [the Obamacare tax] is going to help economic growth? … it is one more piece of evidence that the Obama administration is hurting our economic growth,” Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio told Fox News.

Recent polls show the law is supported by roughly 40 percent of the population, but is opposed by roughly 55 percent.

The vast majority of the law’s existing supporters likely will vote for Obama in November, regardless of the court’s decision.

But opponents of the law include a critical slice of the critical swing-voting bloc.

Polls show the swing-voters are already leaning against Obama because of the stalled economy, high unemployment and record deficits.

However, many of these swing-voters are not ready to back Republican candidate Mitt Romney, partly because of their cool attitude to Romeny’s stiff personality and their worries about his hard-nosed but profitable business practices.

By formally converting “Obamcare” into “Obamatax,” the court allows Republicans to argue that Obama violated his 2008 pledge to not raise taxes on middle-class Americans.

“I can make a firm pledge — under my plan, no family making less that $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase,” he said in a September 2008 campaign speech in New Hampshire.

He spoke at a podium carrying a placard saying “Tax Relief for the Middle Class.”

Prior to the law’s passage in 2010, Obama also denied it was a tax. In September 2009, Obama told ABC that the law “is absolutely not a tax increase.”

In a midday statement, Romney called on voters to help him replace the tax.

“Obamacare raises taxes on the American people by approximately $500 billion dollars [and] cuts Medicare by approximately $500 billion dollars,” he said in a TV statement with Congress in the background.

“Obamacare [adds] billions to our national debt and pushes obligations to oncoming generations… [it] means for up to 20 million Americans they will lose the insurance they currently have,” he said.

“Obamacare is a job killer… and perhaps most troubling of all, Obamacare puts you between the federal government and your doctor,” he said.

Romney pledge to replace Obama’s law with one that protects Americans’ freedom and health.

“We have to make sure people who want to keep their current insurance will be able to do so… we’ve got to make sure that those people who have preexisting conditions know that they will be able to be insured… We also have to assure that we do our very best to help each state in their efforts to assure that every American has access to affordable health care,” he said.

“If we want good jobs and bright economic future for ourselves and for our kids, we must replace Obamacare… Help us defeat Obamacare. Help us defeat the liberal agenda that makes government too big, too intrusive and is killing jobs across this country,” he said.

“ObamaCare is the president’s signature legislative ‘achievement’ [but] The Obama campaign knows it’s a losing issue, and the polls show it,” said a midday statement from the Republican National Committee.

Voters in the critical state of Ohio voted against the law in 2010, while polls show the law is unpopular in other swing-states, said the RNC.

Majorities in Florida, Ohio and Iowa disapprove of the law, said the memo. Pluralities in New Hampshire and Pennsylvania oppose the law, the memo said.

Only small minorities in Wisconsin, North Carolina and Nevada believed

 the law to be constitutional, said the memo.

and as for Holder , the political problems are just getting started.....

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2012/0628/House-holds-Eric-Holder-in-contempt-What-happens-to-him-now-video

House holds Eric Holder in contempt: What happens to him now? (+video)

Republicans say Attorney General Eric Holder is withholding documents that could show a coverup. Democrats say the investigation is a witch hunt. The outcome? Likely, more delay.

By David Grant, Staff writer / June 28, 2012

• 

Rep. John Lewis (D) of Georgia (c.), House Democratic whip Steny Hoyer of Maryland (r.), and other Democrats hold a moment of silence for slain Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry during a news conference on Thursday, after the group walked off the House floor in protest of a contempt of Congress vote for Attorney General Eric Holder.

David Goldman/AP

Enlarge

2 and 0

WASHINGTON

In a debate and vote that was emotional, rhetorically explosive, and bitterly divisive – even by congressional standards – the House of Representatives voted Thursday to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress over the Fast and Furious gun-walking debacle. The House held Mr. Holder in contempt on two separate votes of 255 to 67 on criminal charges and 258 to 95 on civil charges.

Seventeen Democrats joined all but two House Republicans on the first vote, while 21 Democrats joined a united Republican front for the second. TheNational Rifle Association’s announcement that it will score the vote on on its annual ratings of members of Congress pressured Democrats from conservative-leaning districts to favor the measure.

Several dozen Democratic members led by theCongressional Black Caucus but including the party leaders like minority leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi and House whip Steny Hoyer walked out of the House chamber in protest, holding a press conference on the House lawn where they derided the vote as a “ridiculous partisan stunt.” More than 100 Democrats did not vote on the first measure, while 70 were absent for the second.

The votes were the first time in the nation’s history that a sitting Cabinet member had been held in contempt by either house of the US Congress. Only once before has Congress even used its other significant power of disdain, impeachment proceedings, against a sitting Cabinet official. That was in 1870 against William Belknap, President Ulysses Grant’s Secretary of War, according to Senate Historian Donald Ritchie.

So what’s the outcome of a pair of historic votes in the House today?

In all likelihood, nothing.

When the House’s measure is referred to the Justice Department, the institution could use what’s known as prosecutorial discretion to avoid taking up the issue. That’s what the Justice Department decided under President Bush when House Democrats moved criminal contempt charges against two members of the White House staff who refused to testify before Congress in 2008.

The House could then file a civil contempt suit in federal court, asking a judge to compel Holder to deliver the documents in question. If the 2008 saga is any barometer, a legal fight in the courts will likely take years.

The day’s vote capped a contentious, year-long showdown between congressional Republicans, led by House Government Oversight Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa (R) of California and Holder, who has appeared before Congress nine times and delivered thousands of pages of documents relating to Fast and Furious, an operation that began in 2009 when federal agents allowed guns to “walk” into Mexico in order to trace where they ended up and that came to a head when guns from the scheme were linked to the death of an American border agent.

Holder was being held in contempt for failing to provide documents to the House Oversight panel, after President Obama claimed executive privilege to shield the documents, which stem from a period after Fast and Furious was shut down. 

Republicans claim that the documents could show a Justice Department coverup. Democrats say that the conduct of the House Oversight Committee, especially the shift to the period after the operation was complete, show that the entire investigation is a political witch hunt.

As ever with Fast and Furious, the day’s debate was enveloped in a rush of charged discussion on Thursday.
 
“We have a dead United States Agent. We have 200 dead people in Mexico. We have more than 2,000 weapons that were knowingly, willfully given to the drug cartels, more than 1,000 of those weapons are still missing,” boomed Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R) of Utah on the House floor. “We have a duly issued subpoena has not been responded to. This is not about Eric Holder, this is about the Department of Justice and justice in the United States of America.” 

Democrats were equally sharp in their critique of the other side.
 
“To say that this is a terrible use of Congress's power and time is an understatement,” said Rep. Adam Schiff (D) of Colorado at a press conference Wednesday. “I'm disgusted and disappointed, as a member of Congress and a former federal prosecutor, that what began as a legitimate investigation into flawed gun-trafficking operations under two administrations has now morphed into a partisan hunt for the scalp of a senior administration official.”

Mr. Hoyer, the Democratic whip, pointed out that Congress’s historical average time between a committee vote on contempt and a vote being held on the House floor was 87 days.

That gives “time to reflect on an extraordinarily important action with consequences beyond the knowledge of anybody sitting here today,” Hoyer argued on the floor. “Now, I want to tell the Chairman with all due respect that I think this investigation has been all too superficial.”

Less than two weeks have elapsed since the Government Oversight committee voted to hold Holder in contempt.

Republicans argued that no matter the timing, Mr. Obama’s call for executive privilege – his first – was not justified and deserved a contempt vote.

“This is a question of whether a Congressional subpoena means anything or whether it can be ignored by the highest legal official in the land,” said Rep. Jeff Duncan (R) of South Carolina, in a statement. “If Congress allows the Attorney General to ignore our oversight ability, then one of the most important checks on unbridled executive power is taken from the legislative branch.”

The issue touched a deeply personal chord for both parties. 
 
“My message to my colleagues and others who have fought for answers: We are still fighting for the truth and accountability – for the family of murdered Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, for whistleblowers who have faced retaliation, and for countless victims of Operation Fast and Furious in Mexico,” said Mr. Issa, who appeared in front of an image of Mr. Terry during his closing remarks on the House floor.

Issa’s main antagonist during the Fast and Furious drama, the ranking member of the House Oversight committee, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D) of Maryland, recently lost his nephew to gun violence at Old Dominion University in Virginia. Mr. Cummings represents Baltimore City, among other areas in Eastern Maryland, where “firearms and death is something I deal with on an almost daily basis,” he said earlier this week.

But deep personal connections did not bridge the deep divide of Thursday’s floor action. 
 
“If we do this,” said Rep. Alcee Hastings (D) of Florida during a Rules Committee hearing on the contempt vote Wednesday, “history will judge us harshly.”

The question, of course, is which side would face harsher judgment.

and....

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/28/boom-house-votes-to-hold-ag-eric-holder-in-contempt/

Boom: House votes to hold AG Eric Holder in contempt

POSTED AT 4:51 PM ON JUNE 28, 2012 BY ERIKA JOHNSEN

  

For the first time ever, the House of Representatives voted Thursday on whether to hold a sitting attorney general in contempt of Congress. Republicans brought the vote to the House floor in an effort to force Attorney General Eric Holder to finally face the music for his willful failure to fully comply with a Congressional subpoena of documents relating to Operation Fast & Furious, the not-botched gunwalking scandal that resulted in the death of a U.S. border patrol agent and countless Mexicans — and face the music Holder did. The House voted 255-67 to hold Eric Holder in contempt.

During the pre-vote debate, Minority Leader Pelosi accused the Republicans of playing “heinous,” “frivolous” political games, and even encouraged the members of her party to walk out on the vote: “I’m very moved by the members of the Congressional Black Caucus who say they are going to walk out on this,” she said on the House floor. “Walk out on this. Perhaps that’s the best way. …I urge my colleagues to vote ‘no’ or not vote.” Her oh-so-rousing call to protest, however, didn’t inspire quite the solidarity she was probably looking for: Over 100 Democrats didn’t vote, but at least 17 Democrats defected and joined Republicans in the contempt charge.

Developing…

Update: Yep, looks like 110 members decided not to vote — the CBC explained their reasoning for walking out earlier:

“Contempt power should be used sparingly, carefully and only in the most egregious situations,” said a letter from the 42-member Congressional Black Caucus to colleagues. “The Republican leadership has articulated no legislative purpose for pursuing this course of action. For these reasons, we cannot and will not participate in a vote to hold the attorney general in contempt.”

Regardless, after 18 months of investigating and subsequent stonewalling, this is officially moving forward. Technically, when you’re found in criminal contempt, you’re subject to a hefty fine or even arrest, and your case would go to a DC district court via the Justice Department — but the obvious problem here is that Holder is the head of the DOJ. The House is now getting set to vote on whether to hold Holder in civil contempt, so the Oversight Committee can hire their own lawyers to file a civil lawsuit to prosecute the attorney general. Another update to follow…

Update: Heh. If you missed the House floor debate, BuzzFeed has a nice round-up of the gist of it — good times, good times.

Update: Ughh, of course. Here’s part of the White House‘s all-too-foreseeable response to the contempt vote:

The problem of gunwalking was a field-driven tactic that dated back to the George W. Bush Administration, and it was this Administration’s Attorney General who ended it. Attorney General Holder has said repeatedly that fighting criminal activity along the Southwest Border – including the illegal trafficking of guns to Mexico has been is a top priority of the Department. Eric Holder has been an excellent Attorney General and just yesterday the Chairman of the House Oversight Committee acknowledged that he had no evidence – or even the suspicion – that the Attorney General knew of the misguided tactics used in this operation.

Yet, Republicans pushed for political theater rather than legitimate Congressional oversight. Over the past fourteen months, the Justice Department accommodated Congressional investigators, producing 7,600 pages of documents, and testifying at eleven Congressional hearings. In an act of good faith, this week the Administration made an additional offer which would have resulted in the Committee getting unprecedented access to documents dispelling any notion of an intent to mislead. But unfortunately, a politically-motivated agenda prevailed and instead of engaging with the President in efforts to create jobs and grow the economy, today we saw the House of Representatives perform a transparently political stunt.

Update: The aye’s have it — the House just followed up on their criminal contempt vote with an affirmative civil contempt vote, which will allow them to hire their own counsel to challenge President Obama’s invocation of executive privilege. Which, as Rep. Trey Gowdy explained in a video this morning, they’re ready and rarin’ to do:

Update: And here’s Attorney General Eric Holder’s response soon after learning that he is now in contempt of Congress. The vote was “reckless,” “politically motivated,” rabble rabble rabble: