limiting the Commerce Clause is a big deal.
We should never rely on a court to make laws or un-make bad ones, that’s the job of the legislature. In this case Justice Roberts did his job to evaluate the constitutionality, rather than acting as an activist. We hate that, right?
They ruled right on some but not on the others? If it’s wrong, it’s wrong.
I agree limiting the commerce clause is a big deal. It is tougher to expand government if it takes a massive tax increase to fund it.
Still, overall, this was a terrible decision that further threatens the economic viability of this country. The country would have been far better off with Roberts making the correct ruling instead of this twisted “clever” ruling.
The law was not written or passed as a tax, therefore calling it one is an example of judicial activism. If the law had been written as a tax, it would have been defeated. Trying to paint a smiley face on this monstrous bill and the court’s upholding it is preposterous, even if you were “in the courtroom”.
He was in fact the poster boy for judicial activism here. He wrote that Congress should have defined it as a tax, so therefore it is a tax, so therefore it is the law of the land. Judicial activism right out of the Democratic playbook.
This did more than any decision in decades to expand the commerce clause. Roberts essentially said ‘just use taxation and the federal government can rightfully coerce anyone to do anything.’
They took a baby step in the direction of correcting a wrong done by SCOTUS in Wickard v. filburn. It still wasn't enough.
Huge really, especially because of this from the opinion:
Justice Ginsburg questions the necessity of rejecting the Government's commerce power argument, given that §5000A can be upheld under the taxing power. Post, at 37. But the statute reads more naturally as a command to buy insurance than as a tax, and I would uphold it as a command if the Constitution allowed it. It is only because the Commerce Clause does not authorize such a command that it is necessary to reach the taxing power question. And it is only because we have a duty to construe a stat-ute to save it, if fairly possible, that §5000A can be interpreted as a tax. Without deciding the Commerce Clause question, I would find no basis to adopt such a saving construction. The Federal Government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance. Section 5000A would therefore be unconstitutional if read as a command. The Federal Government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance. Section 5000A is therefore constitutional, because it can reasonably be read as a tax.
If one recalls, the government ran with the Commerce Clause argument as their primary authority with the power to levy taxes as their backup. Sadly Justice Ginsburg didn't appreciate CJ Roberts having to slam the door, making it clear that not engaging in commerce is not the same as engaging in commerce; thus making precedent in doing so.
We should never rely on a court to make laws or un-make bad ones, that’s the job of the legislature. In this case Justice Roberts did his job to evaluate the constitutionality, rather than acting as an activist. We hate that, right?
If one were true to their convictions about what powers are given to each branch... yes. Here on FR today... another matter for some. Roberts even provided a pointed statement to that end here:
Our permissive reading of these powers is explained in part by a general reticence to invalidate the acts of the Nation's elected leaders. "Proper respect for a co-ordinate branch of the government" requires that we strike down an Act of Congress only if "the lack of constitutional authority to pass [the] act in question is clearly demonstrated." United States v. Harris, 106 U. S. 629, 635 (1883). Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation's elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.
Emphasis on this last sentence "It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices."
Alas, there will be some who have decried judicial activism in the past with respect to liberal leaning rulings, who will beclown themselves now because C.J. Roberts did not do so.