“Elect a Republican House, President, and Senate (even a tied one), and repeal is possible.”
IOW, Roberts essentially vested more power back in Congress by taking it away from the Executive and judicial branches.
This, IMHO, is what he was trying to do. When Obama castigated the SC during his SOTU address Roberts probably then realized that the balance of power needed to shift back to our elected representatives and away from the Executive branch.
Yes, he did this in a circuitous fashion, but with today’s toxic political climate it may have been the least bad of the other choices. Time will tell.
Going forward, it puts more responsibility on us to elect better people to Congress. We have to elect people who will scale back the size of gov’t and hopefully we can do that.
I trust Scalia’s judgement on this matter a Hell of a lot more than Roberts’
Depends on how you look at it.
Yes, he said the Congress can tax you for damn near anything. He also made it exclusively a tax issue, limiting Congress’ power to that (only).
Now, that also means that whenever Congress wishes to force the people to do as it wishes it does so with one (enumerated) power. No more “nuance”. No more “commerce clause”.
It’s only “tax and spend” liberal power versus “fiscal restraint” conservative.