backerman Wrote:
Jul 04, 2012 12:24 PM
While there are some useful points here--castigating Roberts, at this point, probably isn't helpful--justifying Roberts' contorted reasoning is equally destructive. If the Court's job isn't to protect us from unconstitutional laws, why have the Supreme Court at all?! The GOP may be able to make lemonade out of Roberts' lemon, but no thanks are due to the judge. It's pretty clear that the Affordable Care Act is neither Constitutional under the Commerce Clause, nor does the mandate stand if it's considered a tax, as the Court has no jurisdiction in that case, until the tax has been levied. So for Roberts to prevail he had to argue that it's a fine for one purpose and a tax for another. Completely whacked!