Obamacare and the Supreme Court

[Color Me Badd Fan]

So we get the swing vote, but one of the conservatives flip. It's crap like this that give one the impression the game is rigged.

Hope you enjoy the good cocktail parties you'll now be invited to, John.

Kennedy has been pretty consistently conservative on federalism issues. He agreed with the majority on the previous two important Commerce Clause cases. That's why I thought this thing was going to be overturned. I knew Roberts always wanted to punt on these things, but I didn't know the extent.

[Mrs. Funk]

[LA Ute]

Kennedy has been pretty consistently conservative on federalism issues. He agreed with the majority on the previous two important Commerce Clause cases. That's why I thought this thing was going to be overturned. I knew Roberts always wanted to punt on these things, but I didn't know the extent.

I don't like the decision one bit, but in defense of Roberts I have to note that he has always advocated what he calls "judicial modesty." This is a non-activist opinion and it shows that elections matter.

[Jacob]

I've been hesitant on judging Roberts as a good justice for a while. Haven't seen him come through on many foundational issues yet. I'm not sure on this opinion yet. I'll have to read it through and think about it. But is sure does seem like sophistry to me.

This case would almost certainly have gone the other way 10 years ago, if we replace Alito and Roberts with Renquist and O'Connor.

[Tex]

Dissent throws out a zinger on the "not a tax, but a tax" position of the majority:

Why people love to hate lawyers.

[Jacob]

I don't like the decision one bit, but in defense of Roberts I have to note that he has always advocated what he calls "judicial modesty." This is a non-activist opinion and it shows that elections matter.

Well. That depends on what you mean by activist.

[UtahDan]

[All-American]

Wow, McNaughton churns those out fast!

[SeattleUte]

I don't like the decision one bit, but in defense of Roberts I have to note that he has always advocated what he calls "judicial modesty." This is a non-activist opinion and it shows that elections matter.

Yes. The minority here illustrate the circularity of their own alleged judicial modesty. Four men appointed to their very prestigious and high paying jobs for life pontificating that the founders' original intent nearly a quarter millenium ago PRECLUDES the American people through a lawful democratic or republican process legislating about financing their own health care. It starts to sound like religion. Oops. Scalia does go to mass every week, doesn't he. Regardless, I don't trust him.

The concern about non-democratically appointed officials with lifetime jobs having the final say regarding what the law is is indeed absolutely vital. But I'm not convinced that this is what the current court's conservative wing really cares about. Moreover, I have not seen that they are lovers of liberty. More than anything, they sound like moralizers, like ministers.

Also, I'm really sick of these 5-4 votes. I remember the climax of Woodward's The Brethren. The first thing Burger said when the justices convened to discuss their Nixon tapes decision was that they had to make this a 9-0 decision for the good of the country. I remembered that passage of Woodward's book when a 5-4 vote upheld Junior's election in 2000.

[LA Ute]

Obama: "It should be clear by now that I didn't do this because it was good politics."

[Moliere]

One tightwad claimed he sent Romney a check.

You did??

[SCcoug]

So how has the taxation powers of congress changed with this ruling?

Conservative blogs are wailing and gnashing their teeth that now congress can levy a tax on those who don't buy a bicycle or have more than 2 children or any number of other contrived hypotheticals.

Other than the political will to get it passed, what were the limits on taxation before and what are they now?

[Y84it]

Romney has raised 375k in 2 hrs #Fullrepeal

[Jacob]

So, is the new legal principle that Congress can regulate anything it wants, as long as the penalty for violation is a fine, rather than incarceration? Even though failure to pay the fine may result in incarceration? It would seem so. I've read through most of the tax portion of Robert's opinion, and I don't see where he makes any limit on the ability to control private behavior or inaction by the stiffness of the penalty, so long as it can be classified as a tax. The tax may be any amount, apparently. a $100,000 tax? I don't see how that would be prohibited under Robert's reasoning.

By contrast, Congress’s authority under the taxing power is limited to requiring an individual to pay money into the Federal Treasury, no more. If a tax is properly
paid, the Government has no power to compel or punish individuals subject to it. We do not make light of the severe burden that taxation—especially taxation motivated by a regulatory purpose—can impose. But imposition of a tax nonetheless leaves an individual with a lawful choice to do or not do a certain act, so long as he is willing
to pay a tax levied on that choice

How is he not making light of the burden of paying a tax as a penalty for failure to comply with the government's every whim? He doesn't give any limiting principle. Any penalty is fine, as long as it is a monetary payment made to the IRS. Have I missed something?

[Moliere]

You did??

Romney has raised 375k in 2 hrs #Fullrepeal

Guess he did