Justice Roberts was just following a logical construct in combing the curliques out of the very fuzzy thinking that created this bill in the first place. Declaring the “mandate” a tax, shifts this back into play as a revenue measure, and as such, those parts that did NOT originate in the House of Representatives, should have no standing.
And is a dandy reason to proceed with repeal of the existing law, as increasing taxes in an economic downturn is altogether in contradiction of all Keynesian Theory.
Now, Obama has become the most avaricious tax-and-grab occupant of the Oval Cubicle since FDR, and as such, the Republicans have the biggest club they could possibly have, just handed to them. His erstwhile supporters have just collectively zipped shut their deep pockets, which does not bode well for continued monetary support of his re-election campaign.
And they probably won’t have the fortitude to lift it.
Where is Mitt on this? We should have had a statement already.
Why would he have bothered with all that subterfuge, when by his vote the entire law could have been struck down? In his opinion Roberts states that it is the court’s duty to preserve unconstitutional law. Where the hell does that come from?
Here’s what I don’t get: The law as passed, didn’t mention this healthcare bill was a “TAX”. So how in the hell does Roberts, just because lawyers argued that congress has the power to TAX, say it is constitutional?????
Roberts is definitely a creep. IMO, this was a huge over-reach on his part.
And THAT is the Silver Lining. :-)
**********
Urging patience...
More important to get it right than get it fast...
jmho....
Ultimately I think we will find that Mitt and Roberts are buddies. Mitt’s history in Massachusetts shows he likes mandates and socialized medicine and he has said that he doesn’t want to repeal ALL of the law. Romney is not our guy. They are all socialists now.