Skip to comments.Obama Wins the Battle, Roberts Wins the War
Posted on 06/28/2012 12:15:09 PM PDT by Lorianne
The chief justices canny move to uphold the Affordable Care Act while gutting the Commerce Clause.
The scholars expected to see the court gut existing Commerce Clause ...
Roberts was smarter than that. By ruling that the individual mandate was permissible as a tax, he joined the Democratic appointees to uphold the lawwhile joining the Republican wing to gut the Commerce Clause (and push back against the necessary-and-proper clause as well). Here's the Chief Justice's opinion (italics in original):
Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Congress already possesses expansive power to regulate what people do. Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clause would give Congress the same license to regulate what people do not do. The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers. The individual mandate thus cannot be sustained under Congresss power to regulate Commerce.
The business about "new and potentially vast" authority is a fig leaf. This is a substantial rollback of Congress' regulatory powers, and the chief justice knows it. It is what Roberts has been pursuing ever since he signed up with the Federalist Society. In 2005, Sen. Barack Obama spoke in opposition to Roberts' nomination, saying he did not trust his political philosophy on tough questions such as "whether the Commerce Clause empowers Congress to speak on those issues of broad national concern that may be only tangentially related to what is easily defined as interstate commerce." Today, Roberts did what Obama predicted he would do.
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
People need to stop with the rationalizations and look at reality. It is what it is.
BFD, he legitimized this monstrosity and invited future governmental incurstions by upholding it under the Necessary and Proper Clause. Remember, he discussed the importance of precedence in his confirmation hearings. He's just set it.....and badly.
Attempting to explain this away by suggesting Roberts is giving us a wink and a nod, allowing us to save ourselves in November is being too clever by way more than half.
Roberts ruled differently than Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy. That’s all I need to know. He did nothing but further hurt our country today.
It took an hour or two for the “spin” to start flying to try to quell the dissent, but it’s in full force now.
On the contrary, he reaffirmed the manner in which Congress can tax us. He removed the veil of fraud that allowed the Commerce Clause to be used to tax us to death. The GOP had a strong majority in the House for 12 years. They squandered it by being over the top liberal in their spending and eventually collapsed into the hands of Pelosi and the wild left.
Roberts basically put it back on We the People to kill this monstrosity. He took away the Left’s use of Commerce to do it. The monster was born of politics and will live or die from politics. Do We the People have the will to kill it?
By the way, old man Stephens is long gone. Alas, not so old man Breyer lives to destroy us yet again.
And Roberts is right...if you don't like the asshole in congress vote them out....
He could’ve thrown the entire POS out AND gutted the commerce clause. With Roberts the votes were there.
The average “American Idol” watching American isn’t going to care about whether it’s a tax or not, all they know today is that the SCOTUS ruled ObamaCare constitutional, then they will go back to watching American Idol or whatever dreck they watch on TV these days.
“Roberts basically put it back on We the People to kill this monstrosity. “
You mean ‘We the People of Mexico’ after that Arizona ruling.
So many idiots trying to crawl through their own bunghole to contort this expansion of federal tax power into something more palatable.
If (in)justice roberts were half the genius they are pretending him to be, he would not have handed that room temperature IQ bunch of moral degenerates in congress unlimited power under any circumstances.
It happens every time one of our representatives stabs conservatives in the back.
Their motives are obvious and my heart goes out to the optimists who buy the line.
Some few rich parents may choose to pay extra to cover children up to 26.
Most 18 to 26’s will pay the tax (granted, they may get the money to do so from their parents, but that’s less money their parents can give them for partying, rent, drugs, or whatever).
Thanks kids! (No, seriously, I do feel bad for them.)
Sounds like a Faustian bargain to me. Clobber the Commerce Clause on the nose and tell it to go no further, but at the same time open up the door for any cockamamie tax Uncle Sam can think of? A tax for not having insulated windows? A tax for drinking Big Gulps?
It could be hoped that when THIS is pushed back before the USSC, Roberts will then agree, this is a bad tax. Like it took more than one trip before campaign finance reform died.
Time will tell if the longterm goal of Robert’s decision will hold up. I can understand a little more of where he’s coming from...but will we actually live long enough to see it?
Repealing this POS legislation will take forever..I don’t trust the next adminstration to do it.
Cripes, look how long it takes for a damn vote on contempt charges..
Besides, from a pragmatic point of view, does it matter whether the court uses the Commerce Clause or the taxation clause to justify its expansion of power beyond the Constitution's enumerated powers? The result is the same either way, increasingly unrestricted authority is centralized in the federal government, and ultimately in the president. At this rate, the Taxation Clause will be the new Commerce Clause, and using that clause the government won't even need to prove that their legislation substantially affects interstate commerce...only that the government's power to penalize--I mean tax--is legal. (This will probably not be too hard to do with the SCOTUS redefinition of a penalty into a tax.)
BS, his job is to rule on the constitionality of laws. To me that statement sounded like whiner who did not have the courage to do what was right. To me that is a frightening argument, if we elect leaders that do unconstitutional things, too bad.