Not buying what he’s selling. The restraint on the Commerce Clause in particular is not the silver lining people have been clinging to. If I understand correctly (and I may not - this decision is so convoluted I wonder if anyone truly understands it or its ramifications), that was part of Roberts’ individual opinion, not the opinion of the court and therefore does not change a thing.
So, I’m wondering when that ‘consent of the governed’ thing kicks in?
That’s actually incorrect. Leftists have desperately been trying to claim that the commerce holding was not a holding, in reality it absolutely was.
“that was part of Roberts’ individual opinion, not the opinion of the court and therefore does not change a thing”
That’s called obiter dictum, and it doesn’t formally have legal power. But to be fair it can, if future decisions treat it like precedent. Which has happened often, most notoriously with the infamous and evil Footnote Four from US v Caroline Products.