social network for conservatives
I cross posted what Erick Erickson had written about Chief Justice John Roberts joining the Left on SCOTUS in affirming Obamacare is Constitutional legislation. Roberts voted with the Left with the proviso that Obamacare cannot force funding by forcing citizens to pay a penalty to the government for not purchasing a product. The product in the case is government mandated insurance. Roberts’ majority opinion indicates thus Obamacare cannot be based on the Commerce Clause of the Constitution as was the original intention of the Obamacare legislation (Officially known as Affordable Care Act).
The only way Obamacare can be Constitutional is as a TAX. Thus, John Roberts attempted to make Obamacare an issue Congress deals with instead of the Courts. At the time I thought Erickson’s analysis of Roberts joining the Leftist Justices was good insight.
I was going through my email (I am always behind), I discovered Justin Smith’s take on Chief Justice Roberts joining the Leftist Justices affirming Obamacare. I am now of the opinion that Roberts’ decision had good intentions; HOWEVER by making the penalty for not getting mandated insurance a tax Roberts opened a can of worms that could justify Congressional taxation in future forced penalties the might require Americans to buy a product.
Justin Smith has an excellent point.
JRH 7/17/12
Comment
Good find Shayn. I enjoyed that article.
Comment by Shayn Roby on July 19, 2012 at 7:15pm Precedent is such a huge thing with the Supreme Court John, and that's why Roberts' decision could have dire consequences. I commented on an article by David Fowler of the Tennessee Family Action Council. He talks about "good" activism and "bad" activism, which is similar to what Erickson seems to be saying. Here is the original article on which I based my commentary.
http://factn.org/roberts-ruling-on-obamacare-bad-judicial-activism-...
© 2013 Created by Earl B.
You need to be a member of TCUnation to add comments!
Join TCUnation