John wrote:This is very far from clear. Roberts led the court in striking down
the use of the Commerce Clause to justify unlimited centralizing
federal power, a very signficant finding.
With the greatest respect, I believe you may be reading more into the Supreme Court's decision than is actually there.
Please consider these facts:
1. The four dissenting Justices ( Kennedy, Thomas, Scalia and Alito ) expressly did not concur to a single part of Justice Roberts' opinion.
2. Only those parts of Justice Robert's opinion that all four of the so-called Liberal Justices ( Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotamayer and Kagan ) concurred with have established a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. Those parts are the only opinions supported by a majority of the Supreme Court.
3. Ginsburg expressly excluded her self from concurring ( she dissented from ) that part of Justice Robert's opinion regarding the Commerce Clause.
4. The opinion of the court ( as opposed to the opinion of Justice Roberts ) expressly reversed the appeals court on the issue of the mandate being unconstitutional. The appeals court had said it was unconstitutional based on exceeding the Commerce Clause, but that decision of unconstitutionality by the appeals court was reversed by the United States Supreme Court.
5. If you read the PDF of the opinion of Justice Roberts on the Supreme Court website you will note the page headers are sometimes labeled the "Opinion of the Court" and sometimes merely "the Opinion of Justice Roberts". While the parts of the opinion do not exactly match page breaks, they do convey the general drift of which parts represented the opinion of the court vs Justice Robert's opinion. Unless it is spelled out in a foot note I did not read, the only way to tell which part, is which, exactly, is to read the partially concurring and partially dissenting opinions of Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotamayer and Kagan.
6. The five justice's in the majority reversed the appeals court decision that the mandate was unconstitutional. The only reason the five Justices in the majority could agree on doing that was on the basis of the new Congressional power to tax inactivity found by Justice Roberts, but to suggest that five Justices on the Supreme Court also concurred with Justice Roberts' opinion on the Commerce Clause is, in my humble opinion, reading way to much into the actual decision of the Supreme Court. Justices Kennedy, Thomas, Scalia and Alito expressly refused to concur with any part of Justice Roberts opinion. In addition Justice Ginsburg dissented from the Commerce Clause part of Justice Roberts' opinion.
A PDF of all the opinions can be found on the U.S. Supreme Court website here:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11 ... 93c3a2.pdf
[quote="John"]This is very far from clear. Roberts led the court in striking down
the use of the Commerce Clause to justify unlimited centralizing
federal power, a very signficant finding. [/quote]
With the greatest respect, I believe you may be reading more into the Supreme Court's decision than is actually there.
Please consider these facts:
1. The four dissenting Justices ( Kennedy, Thomas, Scalia and Alito ) expressly did not concur to a single part of Justice Roberts' opinion.
2. Only those parts of Justice Robert's opinion that all four of the so-called Liberal Justices ( Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotamayer and Kagan ) concurred with have established a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. Those parts are the only opinions supported by a majority of the Supreme Court.
3. Ginsburg expressly excluded her self from concurring ( she dissented from ) that part of Justice Robert's opinion regarding the Commerce Clause.
4. The opinion of the court ( as opposed to the opinion of Justice Roberts ) expressly reversed the appeals court on the issue of the mandate being unconstitutional. The appeals court had said it was unconstitutional based on exceeding the Commerce Clause, but that decision of unconstitutionality by the appeals court was reversed by the United States Supreme Court.
5. If you read the PDF of the opinion of Justice Roberts on the Supreme Court website you will note the page headers are sometimes labeled the "Opinion of the Court" and sometimes merely "the Opinion of Justice Roberts". While the parts of the opinion do not exactly match page breaks, they do convey the general drift of which parts represented the opinion of the court vs Justice Robert's opinion. Unless it is spelled out in a foot note I did not read, the only way to tell which part, is which, exactly, is to read the partially concurring and partially dissenting opinions of Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotamayer and Kagan.
6. The five justice's in the majority reversed the appeals court decision that the mandate was unconstitutional. The only reason the five Justices in the majority could agree on doing that was on the basis of the new Congressional power to tax inactivity found by Justice Roberts, but to suggest that five Justices on the Supreme Court also concurred with Justice Roberts' opinion on the Commerce Clause is, in my humble opinion, reading way to much into the actual decision of the Supreme Court. Justices Kennedy, Thomas, Scalia and Alito expressly refused to concur with any part of Justice Roberts opinion. In addition Justice Ginsburg dissented from the Commerce Clause part of Justice Roberts' opinion.
A PDF of all the opinions can be found on the U.S. Supreme Court website here: [url]http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf[/url]