Quote:
Originally Posted by Killer
I think even Roberts was clear that his "attenuation of the Commerce Clause" was more specifically restriced to the attempted expansion into the regulation of non-activity that the Obamacare individual mandate was argued to be an extention of.
It is pretty clear that his opinion and the ruling all but shuts the door on any future Commerce Clause expansion of power to regulate non-activity, but I'm not very convinced that the scope of his ruling encompasses any "roll back" of government regulation of otherwise interstate commercial activity.
Don't know that civil rights advancements where based on the "non-activity" that the Obamacare mandate was to have.
It is an increadibly interesting decision that wiil result in some very interesting intended consequences and equally interesting un-intended consequences!
On the whole I view it as a conservative "tactical advance to the rear" that accepted a short term defeat in battle in the hope that a realignment of the forces in battle will result in an alternative path to victory in the war. It is a tortured and convoluted strategy fraught with real risk but obviously Roberts after weighing all his concerns, constitutionality, stare decisis, legacy, politics, etc. figured it was the least injurious to the republic. I hope he will be proven correct in time...
|
Ditto all of that, except for the "tortured and convoluted" part. Seems like a pretty straight decision to me, although he had no business saying anything about the commerce clause. Once the statute was found to be valid under the taxing power, the commerce clause argument became superfluous.
From what little I know about it, the Medicaid part of the opinion is the scariest part. The logic of that one could affect all kinds of federal "coercion" of the states.
Quote:
|
But I'm biased to seeing the expansion of the nanny state as the greatest threat to individual liberty secured via the American Revolution.
|
Nah.