I don’t exactly follow this.
He says that doctrinally conservatives got a restriction on the commerce clause.
But they would have gotten that as well if he had just sided with the 4 good guys/dissenters, and wrote a strong opinion.
It doesn't matter that the court said that the commerce clause has limited power because the court also said that taxation IS unlimited power.
>> But they would have gotten that as well if he had just sided with the 4 good guys/dissenters, and wrote a strong opinion.
Exactly how I see it.
I think this article, as with many that have appeared today, is just pundits putting conservative spin on a disappointing decision.
The ‘rats would have done the same, had Roberts voted with the real conservatives.
That’s what I am thinking, what did he accomplish that he could not have accomplished and more besides by simply siding with Kennedy and the others who wanted to smash it. The author concludes that had the administration called it a tax to begin with it would certainly have been upheld but I say it certainly should not have been upheld whether they called it a tax or tacks or a silly goose. I simply do not see how anyone can conclude that the federal government has authority under the constitution to take over medicine, let alone force someone to purchase insurance. I am not an attorney but the constitution seems fairly plain to me and I think we have strayed so far from the basics that we are arguing over whether a certain driver should be charged with reckless driving or some lesser charge while forgetting that he was driving a car that he stole in the first place. In my view the vast majority of the actions of the current federal government are not and never were based on a legitimate interpretation of the constitution. A lot of the court decisions I read leave me thinking that yes, I could call myself an Eagle too but I damned sure won’t be able to fly over a river and swoop down to catch a fish with my toes.