What good does it do to limit one overused/overstretched rationalization for enforcing your will on citizens when you, out of thin air, open up another even more controversial way of doing it?
What if some future congress passes a law that says all homosexuals must pay a tax for not being heterosexual, is that law going to be upheld because the taxing authority is all that’s needed and “it’s not for us to judge if the law is a good or bad thing”.
Roberts is even more of an idiot than I ever imagined for coming up with this line of reasoning. He’s too worried about the popularity fo the court to see what a can or worms he’s opened.
What does it mean if he DOES understand what a can of worms he opened, and did it with forethought and planning?
I think Democrat politicians understand the OODA loop. Change arguments and by the time your opponents catch up, switch to a different argument. Keep changing arguments, no matter how absurd they are, until the goal is reached.
It’s a tax! Oh, and just in case you wondered, Fast and Furious is really permitted under the Civil Rights Act under 42 USC sec. 1983, and drone warfare is really an intergalactic cupcake, and my ass is the great American novel.
Paladin, you’re probably right. In all honesty, I doubt he’s an idiot. But I won’t grant him much more than that. Even though the justice department denied the mandate was a tax in oral argument, he “reinvented” it as a tax and used it as the crucial reasoning for his vote. Even if he did it with forethought and planning, he’s set a precedent that future justices can cling to and come up with a pre made excuse for damn near anything.
A more reasoned verdict could have been had from nine loafers down at the feed store any morning of the week except Sunday.
Look hard at the upcoming Senate races. Pick a Dem to dump. Support his opposition with your time and money – even if only $10 and an evening phone canvassing. Gotta do it folks, not talk about it.
Please do it; it’s our only hope to overturn this Uhbamination and change SCOTUS.
Comment by dick, not quite dead white guy — June 28, 2012 @ 9:22 am
God … There will be nothing but Obama’s smug voice everywhere for the rest of summer.
I get Roberts is playing chess (at least Roberts thinks so) and that this decision is very Holmes-like. Yes it is nuanced and has limitations on the commerce clause and certainly on mandates. Yes it may help tip this election to Mitt Romney and may prompt Congress to do some heavy lifting for a change. Still, it is a grave disappointment. He could have gone with the dissent and still written the opinion he did. Rather he wanted to look independent and he is in his heart a Statist.
We were told it was not a tax. It was ruled as a tax and approved of. Those who said it was not just had their lies smeared all over their faces. The people who think only the rich will pay and they will have free health care are in for a big surprise.
What actual limit does Roberts thinks exist on federal power? Can Congress now impose a tax on news articles critical of government? It would obviously violate the 1st Amendment, but, with today’s ruling, it would fall under Congress’ taxing power. It is an argument that can only be made as a path to a pre-determined conclusion
I must be stupid because I see no way that Roberts set any limits on either the use of the commerece clause or political mandates. All he did was point a way for future politicians to use the taxing provision as justification for their mandates other than the commerce clause. Regardless of his intent, he picked a crappy time in economic history to play chess or demonstrate his brilliance. Tax laws can’t be challenged before they take effect and this alone means it will be 2014 before another legal challenge can be raised.