I have had the opportunity to read over the opinions in today’s ruling. Those of Ginsberg are shocking in their anti- constitutional content. If you think Roberts’ opinion opens us up to massive government control and intrusion, Ginsberg’s is absolutely jaw-dropping in its scope and content. Justice Ginsberg clearly is of the opinion that a government and those in it, elected or appointed, can do almost anything with the Commerce Clause as the basis, up to and including regulating inactivity. She dissented from Roberts logic in his seeming restriction of the use of the Commerce Clause for the adventures that prior administrations have conducted.
Shocking as it may seem, and as far as it goes, I actually find that Roberts is on firm ground with his reasoning – as long as the individual mandate really is a “tax”. Here is an excerpt from his ruling:
3. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III–B that the individual mandate must be construed as imposing a tax on those who do not have health insurance, if such a construction is reasonable.
The most straightforward reading of the individual mandate is that it commands individuals to purchase insurance. But, for the reasons explained, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power. It is therefore necessary to turn to the Government’s alternative ar- gument: that the mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s power to “lay and collect Taxes.” Art. I, §8, cl. 1. In pressing its taxing power argument, the Government asks the Court to view the man- date as imposing a tax on those who do not buy that product. Be- cause “every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality,” Hooper v. California, 155 U. S. 648, 657, the question is whether it is “fairly possible” to interpret the mandate as imposing such a tax, Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22, 62. Pp. 31–32.
4. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Part III–C, concluding that the individual mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s power under the Taxing Clause. Pp. 33– 44.
It is in these two sections where I differ from the Chief Justice.
It is the Constitutional duty of the Court to interpret the clear language of our statutes with respect to their compliance and compatibility with our Constitution and applicable precedents and NOT to rewrite the law to fit. In this case, we do have a clear example of judicial activism, one coming from the most unlikely source, a supposed traditionalist jurist. Since the Court was given three distinct arguments by the Administration’s lawyer, it is clear to me that the meaning of the mandate was not clear to them and they were simply saying, as John Lovitz used to do as he portrayed Tommy Flanigan the pathological liar on Saturday Night Live, “Ahhhhhh, right! Yeah, that’s the ticket!” as they stumbled through the proceedings grasping for something that the “conservative” members of the court would buy because votes from Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Kagan and Breyer were foregone conclusions.
Anthony Kennedy, writing the opinion for the minority, made a complete and concise Constitutionalist argument against the entire law, excoriating every single part of it and I think, even taking a swipe at the way it was passed. Scalia was brilliant as usual in his concurrence of Kennedy.
With the Roberts decision, we have turned the corner on traditionalism and strict interpretation and entered a period where truth doesn’t matter, the Constitution is only an archaic scrap of paper and laws mean whatever is needed to achieve a political end. Given the lack of clarity of the Administration’s multiple choice arguments, the proper action would have been to send it all back to the legislative branch to rework, not to do their job for them and pick a, b or c – which is exactly what Roberts and the left wing of the Court has done. As it was with FDR’s Marxist programs, we have just witnessed the highest court in the land become subject to politics and can no longer be counted on as an impartial arbiter of constitutionality.
This is not the end of America… but you can see it from here.
There really is nothing to be happy about in the other sections of the rulings because the Court will be just as malleable on those as it was on the mandate. The only answer now it a total repeal – which is highly unlikely as this thing is so massive and pervasive, it is like a case of inoperable terminal cancer – assuming that we can even win the presidency and the Senate – the disease will have already wrapped it’s tendrils around our society and started feeding off the host. Removing it all will be an impossibility and the remaining bits will continue to grow and fester.
The majority on the Court just gave every liberal politician and “progressive” your bank account number, your PIN and permission to use them without your consent if they think you need to pay for some collectivist’s wet dream – or you are doing something they don’t like.
I don’t have all the answers but I do know that the first step is to take back the government and start slicing off prices of the “progressive” agenda. It takes people of good character and strong commitment to get this done. You don’t have to run for office but you do have to get involved. This is truly a street by street case of urban warfare.