Justice Roberts: not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices
“The mandate's unconstitutional, but the court has decided it's a tax, and therefore it's okay. So Obamacare is nothing more than the largest tax increase in the history of the world. The chief justice of the United States Supreme Court, John Roberts, said, 'It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.' What are your thoughts on Justice Roberts' comment?
That is true. It is the Court's job to make sure Congress (not the President, btw) didn't step outside the bounderies set by the Constitution. Since the tax argument was one of the three made by the government, he found the individual mandate to be not that much different than Social Security and Medicare (much larger taxes then this, btw again, since those cover everybody and this one only cover a small portion of society ... those irresponsible enough to let others pay for their healthcare), so his Conservative pricipals caused him to not to be an activist Jurist, unlike is political kindred who voted no.
He was forced to accept a program he probably didn't like because he was doing his job as a judge and letting the Congress and the People do their jobs as defined in the Constitution. If, the government had not made taxes as one of their arguments, I suspect he would have voted no.
I read the syllabus of the opinion had it changed my mind about the efficacy of the Commerce Clause argument, it clearly doesn't hold under his reasoning. I am still studying the Necessary and Proper Clause argument.
The United States Supreme Court's job is to interpret whether laws that are enacted by Congress (some via Presidential signature and others via override) are constitutional per the United States Constitution and their interpretation of the Constitution, so Chief Justice Robert's statement that you cited is correct.
Roberts never really stated that the mandate was "unconstitutional" that I saw...I heard him state that the Court did not feel a mandate was within the powers of Congress under the Commerce Clause thus the charges levied were looked upon as a "taxation" which came under the powers of Congress. Roberts used his explanation to shield the blatant fact that the Court, in this case, failed to protect the Constitution in the ruling and, at the same time, threw the doors wide open for this case to become a landmark decision in the consideration of other cases which seek to undermine the Constitution and limit the rights of the people. The Affordable Healthcare legislation which became law was never truly vetted or debated by those elected to present us in the Congress...had it been and the findings of the court made apparent, some who voted for this bill in a back room on Saturday night might have voted differently. A few in the Congress may lose their seat over this outcome in the next election but the real loser here was the American people thanks to the actions of the SCOTUS. WB
Yes and no. He was very clear that using the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clauses of Article 1 were stretched beyond the Founders intentions on limits on Congress. But, he did not find that true in the argument that Congress can tax
Instead, it is Roberts' job to protect the Constitution. I don't get why he did not do that with the health care law as written, as an individual mandate. Why not just declare it unconstitutional according to the Commerce clause? I do not think it was his job to rewrite the health care law as a tax.
by Marisaupa 6 years ago
Conservatives, how do you feel about Chief Justice Roberts siding in favor of upholding ObamaCare?In what can only be characterized as a victory for the Obama administration, the Supreme Court handed down a 5-4 decision which basically upholds the The Affordable Care Act. Chief Justice...
by wetbaknproud 6 years ago
the right wing nut talking heads are stunned by the supreme court ruling and by justice roberts' position in particular. How long before they start calling him a traitor and a socialist?
by Ralph Schwartz 18 months ago
Isn't repealing Obamacare just tax reform? Justice Roberts said it was a tax, right?Obamacare costs are a tax - the Supreme Court made that clear after it was shoved down our throats. Trump making changes or getting rid of it is simply tax reform, an act all presidents do.
by Ralph Deeds 6 years ago
Here's a small idea for the Super Committee that's supposed to report on how to achieve a trillion dollar savings in the federal budget by November 23--stop paying pension costs of Defense and Energy Department contractors.http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/13/busin … f=businessI wonder what the...
by Peeples 2 years ago
What are the positives of allowing individual states more control?I find it kind of weird that we are the "United States" yet the goal seems to be independent states making their own laws which can contradict other states. What are the positives of allowing states to have the ability to...
by My Esoteric 2 weeks ago
Clearly, Donald Trump will nominate the most extreme conservative he can find to replace Kennedy and Sen Mitch McConnell will do everything he can to get him appointed.At stake, of course, is Kennedy's own legacy. I suspect he is quite aware that the important decisions he sided with the...
|HubPages Device ID|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Google Analytics|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel|
|Google Hosted Libraries|
|Google AdSense Host API|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels|
|Author Google Analytics|
|Amazon Tracking Pixel|