[piytar]

Oh, ans as to why do this? Roberts just got two libs on the Court to help gut the Commerce Clause, and not in dicta. That’s binding precedent now.

If I’m correct, this will all have ended up being a huge win for us. Bonus: Obamacare will be a millstone around obastard’s and the Demscums’ necks come election time.

Chess indeed...

[Jim Noble]

Roberts just got two libs on the Court to help gut the Commerce Clause, and not in dicta. That’s binding precedent now. If I’m correct

You are not correct.

The vote on the commerce clause argument was 4-1-4, NO ONE joined CJ Roberts' opinion on that (perhaps his switch was so late that there was not enough time), but Roberts' musings about the commerce clause had exactly ONE vote, it is therefore NOT precedent, and when the next communist is appointed to the court it will be flushed down the crapper anyway.

[Praxeologue]

Roberts just got two libs on the Court to help gut the Commerce Clause, and not in dicta.

Roberts' opinion on the Commerce Clause was obiter dicta, and as such not binding on lower courts.

[hinckley buzzard]

I don't think you are correct. There was no "vote" on the Commerce Clause. The reason the bit about the Commerce Clause is considered dicta is because the decision would have been precisely the same, even if the commerce clause was never considered or mentioned. The reference was a mere parenthetical observation made in passing, and unnecessary to the decision, thus considered obiter dictum.

There is a huge body of law going back to the New Deal establishing the (inappropriate) sweep and abusive power of the clause. It won't be "gutted" by a passing comment in a decision about something else (the power to tax), and especially given the shakey nature of the overall opinion in which it is embedded. No justice with any sense is going to want to touch any part of this "majority" opinion for a long long time..

[Prospero]

That’s binding precedent now.

Nope. That was Robert's opinion, not the "court's."

Read Levin's take.