I don't like the precedent... Its sets up situations like Congress mandating such things as electric cars... Drive gas-power? Pay a "tax".
Actually.. its already being done.. only, now, its a "tax incentive"... eventually the pendulum will swing the other way...
I respectfully disagree that Roberts put a dagger into the hearts of conservatives today. I don't know that I fully follow his reasoning -- Part II of his opinion determines that the Act is not a tax for the purpose of the Anti-Injunction Act; Part III A says that the Congress exceeded its authority pursuant to the Commerce Clause in enacting the Act; Part III B says that Congress didn't exceed its authority pursuant to its power to levy and collect taxes in enacting the Act -- but I believe he's authored an extraordinary political opinion. He cites John Marshall early in his opinion for the proposition that “The peculiar circumstances of the moment may render a measure more or less wise, but cannot render it more or less constitutional". He then ends his opinion by saying "the Court does not express any opinion on the wisdom of the Affordable Care Act. Under the Constitution, that judgment is reserved to the people." It looks to me like he crafted an opinion that would garner enough support to pull together a majority on the Court while restricting Congress' Commerce Clause power and defining the Act as a tax, something that could be repealed. If it was constitutional under the Commerce Clause and later repealed, then similar laws forcing citizens to buy something would also have been constitutional. However, as a tax, if it's repealed, well, then it's just repealed. Within that framework, he specifically declined to approve the Act as "wise" and pointed out that if the citizens of the United States think it's not wise, well, there's an election coming up in a few months.
Big loser today... the Mary Landrieus of the world... It will be made very clear that she and her Blue Dogs caused this mess and "conservative democrats" will be strongly enticed to vote Republican.
Roberts put a dagger in the hearts of conservatives, imagine that, a supreme court justice making a judgement based on policy, not politics. And by the way, Kagan voted to strike down a piece of this legislation also, so, this gives me a little hope for the Supreme Court. But, this court is going to be far from fair until Alito, Thomas, and Mr. anti broccoli, that fat ass Scalia, are the minority.
So.....its a tax that only poor people have to pay? The rich slide again. How do you feel about that ?
No no, Poor people are now forced onto some system. I assume (b/c I haven't read it all yet) that income levels will determine what healthcare package you should get that is deemed appropriate by the US government.... The richer you are, the more healthcare tax you will now pay...
That's fine but what I asked for was an example of a Supreme Court justice legislating from the bench, as you have so stated. Roberts job is not to be a champion for conservatives! His job is to be a justice and interpret the Constitution. When he interprets it in a moderate way instead of a knee-jerk Republican ideology, then you throw him under the bus. He has come down on the right of most issues, don't you realize? But ever since the Bush vs. Kerry case where a very partisan Supreme court named a President, the SCOTUS has suffered from the appearance of blind partisanship. Roberts clearly wants his court to be seen as non-political. Thomas is a lightweight who never speaks in the chamber and his writings are trite. When called for. I think Ginsberg is over the hill and getting dotty and should have retired already.
