I need to calm down and read the darn opinion, but it seems that, although the Court was not prepared to uphold the Individual Mandate of Obamacare, either under the Commerce Clause power, or under the Necessary and Proper Clause, that they were happy to uphold it as a TAX!
This is thanks to the swing vote from Chief Justice Roberts, appointee of “compassionate conservative” G.W. Bush. Now its seems that Bush not only gave us Obama, he also gave us the Chief Justice who would be the deciding vote upholding Obama’s worst, most evil piece of legislation.
This is a prime example of the pure evil that compulsory taxation represents.
UPDATE with some further thoughts:
This also shows how everything is interconnected. Now, to fight for a free market in health care, we need to get rid of compulsory taxation. First steps towards achieving this goal: total repeal of Obamacare, and legislation drastically curbing the taxing power.
This Individual Mandate will destroy whatever free market is left of health care. It’s just a matter of time. Unless the GOP shapes up (i.e., stops this “replace” talk), quick, Obama will win.
Do the “repeal & replace” types have any idea of what they want to replace it with? They need to realize that ANY government intervention in health care will destroy it and, eventually, our entire economy.
We knew that, long-term, we need a moral & philosophical revolution. We were just hoping for a bit of a reprieve while fighting for it.
Some have pointed to a possible “silver lining” with respect to limiting Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause. I scanned the syllabus, and it seems the Commerce Clause holding is based on the activity/inactivity distinction. IF the Court had invalidated the legislation, then having this distinction become part of our jurisprudence, temporarily, might have been worth it. But now we not only still have Obamacare, we also have, even more entrenched, the idea that it’s OK for Congress to regulate anything, so long as it’s “activity” and not “inactivity.” Who would’ve thought we’d have BOTH the mandate upheld, and the activity/inactivity distinction made part of Commerce Clause jurisprudence?
STILL MORE: I’ve read (quickly) the Commerce Clause portion of Roberts’ opinion, partly because I calmed down enough to do so, and partly because I saw a link to a Slate.com piece claiming that Roberts voted in favor of the mandate being a tax, just so he could “gut” the Commerce Clause. I saw no gutting of the Commerce Clause. Roberts explicitly reaffirmed Wickard v. Filburn, which is about as bad as it gets. (It says that Congress can regulate someone who grows his own wheat for consumption, because by not buying wheat on the market, he is “affecting” interstate commerce.) So basically Roberts said today that the only limit he was instituting was that Congress could not do something under the Commerce Clause if there was no existing activity to regulate. This was true before Obamacare, so all he did is say, “this far and no farther.” No gutting, despite the strong “limited government” language in places. And, besides, for all the complaining about what the powers of Congress would be if this was upheld under the Commerce Clause, he went ahead and voted for the same exact thing to be done, as part of the power to tax!
So, so far as I can tell, the only possible silver lining in this opinion is the Court’s holding that strikes down the provision in the legislation giving the federal government the ability to force states to comply with the Medicaid expansion, by means of threatening to withhold a state’s existing Medicaid funding. That the Court said the government could not do. How much will that affect the ability to implement Obamacare? Not sure.
Those who are as upset about this ruling as I am might enjoy Bosch Fawstin’s latest cartoon. Make sure to look and see what’s on Roberts’ forehead.
Check out additional commentary, from The Ayn Rand Center, here.