I don’t buy the
“Roberts is compromised”
scare
Roberts ruled in favor of the constitutionality of the individual mandate in 2012 because
- he didn’t want to intrude on the separation of powers, and
- he wanted restraint on the Commerce clause
If you recall, Roberts struck down the Medicaid provisions in Obamacare. This protects the states against Federal funding threats.
Roberts defended his position by stating (in essence) that “elections have consequences”
The present case is NOT argued on Constitutional grounds. It is being argued that the letter of the law is not being followed.
I strongly believe that Roberts will shoot down the law on the basis that “words have consequences”
I also feel pretty good about Kennedy’s prospects of killing the law.
He felt the strongest that the individual mandate was unconstitutional in 2012 when he sided with the conservatives. It was Kennedy who lobbied the strongest to get Roberts to side with the conservatives and himself.
Kennedy doesn’t like this law at all.