Who can be surprised?
The Supremes, who love putting their boots on our necks as much as the Congress and the Executive, have endorsed another totalitarian expansion of State power through Obamacare. Republicans, who loved Nixon's and Bush's socialized schemes, and Romneycare, too, really do not differ except on pure partisan grounds. After all, Obamacare was written by Big Pharma, which owns both parties in its area of interest. Note: the Nine Creeps' power here is entirely usurped, thanks to John Marshall, though this was no surprise to the Anti-Federalists, who correctly saw the Constitution as a centraizing, big-government coup against the Articles.
Chief Justice John Roberts has joined the liberals on the SC in upholding the Obamacare individual mandate. In doing so, he declared a non-tax to be a tax:
The Affordable Care Act is constitutional in part and unconstitutional in part. The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. That Clause authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to engage it. In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress's power to tax.
For years we have been told by Republicans that we need to elect a Republican president so he can appoint conservatives to the SC. Thanks Republicans, for electing George W. Bush so he could appoint John Roberts. Thanks a lot.
SCOTUS voted 5-4 to uphold Obamacare and have concluded that the Constitution actually empowers the government to force people to buy things. In this case, it's health insurance, but now that the precedent is set, the feds can now require you to buy anything it wants, apparently justified by the Constitution's granted power to tax.
This nicely illustrates the theory that SCOTUS judges will almost always come down on the side of more government power unless doing so will dangerously undermine their own power. They're politicians in robes. The number one concern of the court is its own independence, as illustrated by the craven switch in time that saved nine. It will only vote for more freedom when backed into a corner by the text of the constitution itself, as in the case of Chicago v. McDonald. But now, calculating that there's enough political support behind Obamacare to get away with it, SCOTUS has handed the executive branch a new massive amount of power.
"The Affordable Care Act's requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court's majority in the opinion.
"Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness," he concluded.
It's bad enough that the U.S. government claims the power to tax, but it adds insult to injury for the Court to claim that a fine for not doing something is a tax. Idiotic.
Michael Rozeff (again)
Michael Eversden pointed this out to me, so I read that portion of the decision, and it's true: the Supreme Court says that the fine is not a tax for one purpose (getting the case to be considered despite the Anti-Injunction Act) and is a tax for another purpose (the Constitution). The relevant portion of a paragraph reads:
"The Affordable Care Act describes the payment as a 'penalty,' not a 'tax.' That label cannot control whether the payment is a tax for purposes of the Constitution, but it does determine the application of the Anti-Injunction Act. The Anti-Injunction Act therefore does not bar this suit."