Goodnight Rossana Arquette whereever you are.
It's interesting that people are questioning Roberts' political motives, when it's Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Kennedy's political motivations that should be questioned.
The individual mandate was conceived of by a conservative think-tank. It was put into the GOP healthcare bill of the early 90s. It was implemented into law by this year's GOP nominee when he was governor of Massachusetts. Numerous high-profile conservatives supported the individual mandate as late as early 2009, when they thought that Obama was going to try for a single-payer system.
It's only after Obama adopted their idea that it became the greatest threat to freedom in the world. If Obama had an "R" next to his name you wouldn't hear one peep against the mandate from any conservative.
Unless there were 6 or 7 votes in one direction, there would be tons of this type of talk happening no matter how it was ruled.
I think this is a good take on Roberts' decision.
Roberts’ Rules | TPM Editors Blog
It's worth reading the whole thing (it's short).If he’d reached the taxing power conclusion in a straightforward manner, he would have foreclosed on his ability to circumscribe the Commerce Clause in the way he did. Conservatives construe his less-straightforward argument as evidence of politicization, but it is just as plausibly evidence of his desire to wring a consolation prize for conservatives out of a losing health care case.
As for the article, I don't think it is a good thought experiment. It works on the assumption that if something is Constitutional, it doesn't matter why it is.
As of right now, I take his ruling at face value. He doesn't believe it falls under the Commerce Clause, but it is his job to assume a law is Constitutional and only rule against after exhausting the possibilities.
Last edited by raider.adam; 07-05-2012 at 02:04 PM.
As usual Mr Sowell gets right to the heart of the matter
Judicial Betrayal - Thomas Sowell - National Review Online
And he gets it as he always does
Judicial restraint, which underlies this cluster-f of a ruling, is the single most meaningless concepts ever invented."The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Put me down in that camp.
Btw, the individual mandate is perfectly Constitutional if states do it under the 10th amendment.
But the real problem with Roberts is not that he has a viewpoint. It's that he had to do mental gymnastics because he didn't want to overturn a law. That makes it blatantly political. The left end of the court reads the Constitution to mean anything they want. I don't consider that political so much as an insane political philosophy that is intellectually incoherent. But Roberts doesn't (yet) go down that route.
And that's what makes this decision political. Roberts wrote something for a political end that doesn't correspond to his true beliefs
The right end of the court reads the Constitution to mean anything they want. I don't consider that political so much as an insane political philosophy that is intellectually incoherent. But Roberts doesn't (yet) go down that route.