Replies

Roberts has been a consistent conservative vote until now. He has not been like Souter. Something other than Roberts being a stealth liberal is going on.

That's what I keep coming back to as well. The expectation was that it would be Kennedy flipping over to vote with the Libs. That it was Roberts came as a real shock ... and I think all of the various analyses (which are all over the place) being put forward are evidence of that. If it were Kennedy, we'd ALL be ticked off and ranting ... not trying to figure out if there was an ulterior motive. Hell, after the Arizona ruling there was a lot of speculation that it was a quid-pro-quo to entice Kennedy to vote with the Conservatives on ObamaCare.

From my perspective, given Roberts' voting pattern on the Court to-date, there are a few possible options.

1.) He truly believes that the Individual Mandate IS a tax, covered under the Constitution's taxation authority, and is just cutting through all the Democr*p spin on "penalties" to call it out for exactly what it is ... then leave it up to The People to "fix" the problem. The fact that Obama's own Solicitor General identified it as a tax provides his rationale for doing so. There's that one paragraph in his Opinion where he pretty much throws out a caveat emptor argument saying that the American Public got snookered ...

2.) He, as Chief Justice, WAS intimidated by all the nonsense about the Court's integrity being compromised if the "signature" legislation of the President's first (and, God and the American Voter willing, only) term were struck down on what was perceived to be a "party line" vote.

For me, this is a two-fold clarion call. First, to elect a Republican President and House/Senate majorities that will overturn ObamaCare in early 2013 (I'd note that now that it's formally defined as a "tax" it can be done with a simple majority in a GOP-controlled Senate under Reconciliation). Second, to push through some mechanism that forces Congress to spell out in legislation explicitly and specifically what Constitutional authority they are invoking, and limits SCOTUS to review of it on that basis alone. The fact is that this WOULD have gone down as unconstitutional had SCOTUS been limited to reviewing it exclusively under the Commerce Clause, and/or Obama's Solicitor General not put forth the argument that it was indeed a tax.

It’s good to dream.

“For me, this is a two-fold clarion call. First, to elect a Republican President and House/Senate majorities that will overturn ObamaCare in early 2013 (I’d note that now that it’s formally defined as a “tax” it can be done with a simple majority in a GOP-controlled Senate under Reconciliation). Second, to push through some mechanism that forces Congress to spell out in legislation explicitly and specifically what Constitutional authority they are invoking, and limits SCOTUS to review of it on that basis alone. The fact is that this WOULD have gone down as unconstitutional had SCOTUS been limited to reviewing it exclusively under the Commerce Clause, and/or Obama’s Solicitor General not put forth the argument that it was indeed a tax. “