Listening to various pundits, one, who said he knows Roberts said Roberts and his wife are very committed Catholics. So I guess the prospect of millions of people without insurance, especially if they are already ill might have influenced his choice. Also, the idea of people free-loading by getting mandated care at emergency rooms and the rest of us being forced to pay for this might have been an influence. Another pundit last week said that Roberts would not want to have the legacy like Renquist who voted in support of Bush vs. Gore.
Regarding not doing anything. I was looking at other sites to see the arguments raised. One person who identified as a conservative Republican pointed out that choosing to not do something means you choose to do something else. Rent, don’t buy, you choose to pay higher taxes, The example I gave above of forcing others to pay your medical bills if you need an emergency room visit. Not getting married, never having the joy/heartbreak of your own children, etc.
What is wrong with the legacy of Bush vs. Gore???
If one doesn't want to make controversial decisions, one shouldn't join the SCOTUS.
"Very committed Catholics" believe in free will, NOT Socialism.
“One person who identified as a conservative Republican pointed out that choosing to not do something means you choose to do something else”
So how does government know to asses the tax on your non-acting action? They tax income when it comes in to you. They tax imports when they are imported. How do they know when you acted in deciding not to buy insurance? It’s impossible, unless they constantly track and can read your thoughts.
Looks like we’ll need more funding for the Thought Police.