Federal Power

One Dark Part Of The Supreme Court Decision On “Obamacare”: Commerce Clause Limited For First Time Since New Deal, Thrilling Libertarians!

As one analyzes the Supreme Court decision on “ObamaCare” written by Chief Justice John Roberts, in the midst of the celebration, one has to pause and be concerned about Roberts’ assertion that the “commerce clause”, utilized regularly since the New Deal to permit expansion of federal power, was declared limited by a 5-4 vote of Roberts and all four Republican and conservative appointments on the Court—Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Anthony Kennedy, Samuel Alito–and vigorously opposed by the four Democratic and liberal appointments—Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Instead, Roberts said the law was constitutional based on the “mandate” being a tax.

LIbertarians are cheered by this aspect of the case, but it COULD effectively limit federal power, and restore states rights back to the pre 1930s view, which would indeed be tragic in so many ways!

So the battle over the future of government, and over what the Roberts majority opinion means for the long term, will be the subject of much discussion, debate, and cases over the coming years!

The John Roberts Legacy Hanging On Tenterhooks As Health Care Decision Nears!

Chief Justice John Roberts is reported to be writing the majority opinion for Thursday’s Health Care decision on “ObamaCare”.

Coming on top of his siding with Anthony Kennedy and three liberals on the Court on the immigration case, many observers sense that he and Kennedy will again be in the majority with the four liberals on the Court, and decide in favor of “ObamaCare”.

If Roberts does so, it will transform him immediately into one of the giants of the 17 Chief Justices of the Supreme Court historically.

If he does not do so, he is doomed to a negative role in judicial history, and will be seen by many observers as a failure as a Chief Justice.

The choice is that stark, as this case is the most important since Bush V. Gore, and follows the disastrous Citizens United Case, tragically upheld again yesterday in a Montana case on straight party line and ideology.

Roberts’ reputation is already in trouble, but could be resurrected by an open minded attitude toward health care as covered under the interstate commerce clause.

Roberts, it is said, worries about his and the Court’s reputation, and even if he serves another 20 years, he will never outlive the disappointment and turmoil that will occur if the Court rejects “ObamaCare”.

Since he seems to be a strong believer in federal power, as shown yesterday in the immigration case and the juvenile murderer case, we expect him to come down on the right of the federal government to regulate health care, and require a mandate, a demand that all citizens have health care coverage, if they wish to gain health care when needed, rather than sponging off those of us who have paid for health care.

The actual mandate would be the equivalent of about $15 a week, equivalent of one person having one meal per week at a restaurant, or half a tank of gasoline. Is this too much to ask of all citizens? The answer is NO!

Chief Justice Roberts: We are watching you!