In response to:

Where Justices Fail, Voters Can Step In

Larry21 Wrote: Jul 03, 2012 4:51 PM
You wrote..."The Chief Justice thought he was giving something to both sides." In fact, all he gave the left was false hope in a doomed law. To the the failed electorate he gave a reprimand, saying, "It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices." You concluded, "Perhaps the best thing to come out of the decision is a renewed interest in the Constitution and the fact that the federal government, as it was originally conceived, is strictly limited in its powers. We now know that the Court is not going to enforce those limits, but the voters can." We will.

Today, when the Supreme Court upheld the individual mandate as an exercise of the taxing power, Chief Justice Roberts’s political acumen and self-proclaimed “judicial minimalism” was on full display. During his confirmation hearing, Roberts famously described his view of justices as “umpires” who should “call balls and strikes.” Today, however, Roberts missed a wild pitch.

The Chief Justice thought he was giving something to both sides. By fully endorsing the argument that Congress cannot compel commerce in order to regulate it, and even bringing up the fabled possibility of a “broccoli mandate,” defenders of strict limits on the Commerce...