Sorry about slow posting. Lily went downhill rapidly and she was euthanized yesterday, so I’m pretty bummed. I still have a chunk of a tab to pay off at the vet’s, so I’m rattling the tin cup one more time —

All help gratefully appreciated.

First — a collection of tweets from people who say they are moving to Canada because “Obamacare” is socialism. Yeah, let’s live somewhere free of the scourge of socialized medicine! Oh, wait …

Righties already are seizing on Roberts’s decision that the individual mandate is constitutional because of the power of Congress to levy taxes. It’s a tax! (It’s a witch! Burn it!) The ever not-brilliant Kathleen Parker accused the Obama Administration of deceit for sneaking a tax into the ACA without telling anybody. This rather overlooks the fact that Roberts is the only one calling it a tax. The Solicitor General who defended the ACA before the court very pointedly argued that the penalty was not a tax, and calling it a “tax” instead of a “penalty” doesn’t mean the whatever-it-is will suddenly cost you more money than it would have as not a tax, or lurk under your bed and eat your socks.

Jennifer Rubin joins the mob:

Randy Barnett, one of the key architects of the Obamacare legal challenge, e-mails me: “Today’s decision validates our claim that a Congressional power to compel that all Americans engage in commerce was a constitutional bridge too far. By rewriting the law to make it a ‘tax,’ the Court has now thrown ObamaCare into the political process where the People will decide whether this so-called ‘tax’ will stand. And the People will also decide whether future Supreme Court nominees will pledge to enforce the Constitution’s restrictions on the power of Congress.”

The problem here, of course, is while the Obama administration swore up and down that Obamacare did not tax every American, the Supreme Court, in effect, held that the Democrats did exactly that. In that regard, the opinion is a tribute to President Obama’s utter disingenuousness.

Except that the Court did not “rewrite” that part of the law at all. The only difference is in the legal theory supporting what the law said. And the penalty is not a tax on “every American,” just people who refuse to comply with the law.

So expect a lot of hysteria about it’s a witch! I mean, it’s a tax!

The ACA actually gives the government very little power to collect the penalty or tax or whatever you want to call it. As the law is written now, if you refuse to pay it you won’t be charged with a crime, and the government can’t put a lien on your property or anything.

While welcome as far as the ACA goes, Roberts’s peculiar opinion on taxing versus commerce clause is likely to cause a lot of trouble for progressives down the road. It really should have been found valid under the commerce clause.

“Justice Scalia must resign.”

I guess all hell will break loose tomorrow when the Supremes hand down their Obamacare ruling, but in the meantime here is some other stuff to read:

“The truth about the Fast and Furious scandal.” CNN investigates and finds the “scandal” is all right-wing hysteria. Not that the righties will stop being hysterical, of course.

“Confirmation Bias.” Political reporters stick to The Narrative, even when it’s wrong.

“The Supreme Court’s collateral damage.” After tomorrow, we may be living under an entirely different, anti-progressive constitution.

Sen. Jon Kyl blames President Obama for not passing immigration reform under President Bush:

“I note that in his response to today’s Supreme Court ruling, President Obama called on Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform. I also note that the bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill I helped draft in 2007 was killed — in part — by then-Senator Obama,” Sen. Jon Kyl (AZ), a Republican leadership member, said in a statement.

The problem: Obama voted in favor of Bush’s 2007 immigration legislation, while Kyl joined the filibuster that quashed it.

I think the whole concept of “facts” eludes these people.

Almost sounds like a blogger. Yep, nice little country we had there for a while.

The Supremes are almost certainly going to hand down their “Obamacare” decision next week. Dems are debating what to do if the individual mandate is struck down but the rest of the law is upheld. The choices are, we are told, either to hustle and come up with some other incentive for people to buy insurance, or do nothing and wait until everything goes haywire in 2014, and then figure somebody will fix it then.

Part of me wishes the White House would announce that since large parts of the bill won’t work properly without the mandate, the whole thing will have to be scrapped, and all the goodies enjoyed so far (20-somethings on their parents’ insurance, extended Medicare prescription drug coverage, etc.) will be canceled on the spot. And be sure everyone knows this is the Republican’s fault.

What do you think?