Did anyone truly think that Justice Roberts would not only side with the liberal justices, but write the majority opinion? And that Justice Kennedy would completely side with the dissension? If you did, you are a much wiser person than anyone I know.I know this post isn't about capoeira, or travelling, but this is my blog, I get to dictate subject matter :)
The ruling today by the Supreme Court was unexpected to say the least. I don't think CNN expected it either (check this out)! The surprising thing is that the only part of the bill that didn't stand is the expansion of medicare, the portion where all the "legal experts" on the cable news channels thought was a sure thing under the necessary and proper clause. The other surprising thing is that Chief Justice Roberts seemed to go out of his way to get thing this passed.
If you haven't read up on the bill, it's 3 parts: 1) Is this a tax as defined by the Anti-Injunction Act? 2) Is the individual mandate constitutional under interstate commerce and/or necessary and proper clauses of the US Constitution? 3) Can the federal government force states to expand Medicare by denying them funding?
Everyone agreed that part 1 and 3 were granted. We all claimed it was a "penalty" not a tax, and that the federal government can, and has, done whatever the fuck it wants in terms of giving states money. Point two was up for debate. The reason I say that Chief Justice Roberts had to go out of his way to get this thing upheld is this: The majority decision states that it is NOT a tax in the context of the Anti-Injunction Act, but IS in FACT a tax. From my reading of it, the line is drawn so fucking thin. It isn't a tax under Anti-Injunction because it's considered an "assessable penalty", which isn't a tax, because the Act would not have made the distinction between assessable penalty and taxes. It is a tax, in terms of the taxation powers of Congress, because it give powers to the Secretary of Commerce and the IRS to "collect by means of personal income tax". I won't go into the details, but it is well argued.
The majority decision also does state that though the Federal government can't force you into commerce and then regulate that commerce, it can levy taxes to influence behavior like tariffs on imported manufactured goods, or alcohol and tobacco taxes (both federal and state).
The dissent, in this case, makes the argument that the Framers of the Constitution did not intend this. They also argue that if we allow this to be regulated under Interstate commerce, then it sets the precedent that almost gives way to unlimited regulatory authority to Congress, since it can force you into an area of commerce you never intended to be in. It also argues that really thin line of penalty and tax. It claims because it penalizes you for not buying health insurance, it is a penalty and not a tax. They also claim that penalties and taxes are mutually exclusive.
Minus the fact that Justice Scalia is a dick and writes like a dickbag, the reasoning, to me is pretty damn good. Which brings me back to the point that Chief Justice Roberts REALLY wanted this thing to be upheld (thank god).
WOW... what a day... if your interested, or a total dork like me, read the opinion here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf. It's most definitely worth the read.
Oh and a final note, thank you George Bush for nominating Roberts. WHO WOULD HAVE THUNK IT!?!
