We finally have a decision from the "Roberts Court," about the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. What I find unsettling about the decision is that Justice Roberts appeared to want to have it both ways, to say the individual mandate was not supported by the commerce clause while still upholding the law in it's entirety.
His reasoning, that the individual mandate amounts to a tax is at the end of the day just as troubling as defending the mandate using the commerce clause. This just felt to me like a reach, and one that was not befitting a Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.
Even the Obama administration did not claim this was a tax. They claimed that Congress did indeed have the authority under the commerce clause to compel Americans to purchase health insurance from private carriers under penalty of a fine. Fines are NOT taxes. Fines are a punishment for violating the law. Taxes are levied as a form of revenue. Taxes and fines are two distinctly different things, something which Justice Roberts certainly knows. In the parlance of the common man....this is just LAME!
His reasoning, that the individual mandate amounts to a tax is at the end of the day just as troubling as defending the mandate using the commerce clause. This just felt to me like a reach, and one that was not befitting a Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.
Even the Obama administration did not claim this was a tax. They claimed that Congress did indeed have the authority under the commerce clause to compel Americans to purchase health insurance from private carriers under penalty of a fine. Fines are NOT taxes. Fines are a punishment for violating the law. Taxes are levied as a form of revenue. Taxes and fines are two distinctly different things, something which Justice Roberts certainly knows. In the parlance of the common man....this is just LAME!
While I cannot ascribe a motive for his decision, I have heard various explanations for why he ruled the way he did, and they are troubling to say the least. Not wanting the court to appear "too partisan" and being concerned with how the "Roberts Court" will be viewed historically should NOT be considerations affecting how he decides the constitutionality of the laws being reviewed by the court.
If indeed those were his motivations (an in fairness to him, this is only speculation) then he has failed to show real judicial leadership during his first big case while presiding over the Supreme Court. Let's be clear on this. His job is a simple one (in concept). Justice Roberts and his fellow justices are there to pass judgment on the constitutionality of laws enacted by Congress.......PERIOD!
Their jobs are NOT......to shape public perception of the court, establish individual legacies, appear to be non-partisan, be liked, or try to actively change the ideological direction of the court. If Chief Justice Roberts is indeed concerned about any of these things, then he is failing to do his job as a Supreme Court Justice.
To be sure, no justice is obligated to align themselves with "conservatives" or "liberals." However they ARE obligated to put aside any concerns about image, legacy, and public perception and decide solely on the constitutional merits of the laws they are asked to review.
To the degree that Chief Justice Roberts has failed to do that, he has failed both the court AND his country!
