This is why I have posted in the past that I believed the court would uphold the Act...
...if two branches had found the Act constitutional.....even if I believe it was a political decision.....
it was the job of the Supreme Court to find it so unless there is specific language in the Constitution
that forbids same.
It is NOT required that there be specific language forbidding an Act.
What IS required is specific language AUTHORIZING it.
It wasn't found in the Commerce Clause.
It wasn't found in the Necessary and Proper Clause.
It was CLAIMED to be found in the taxing authority of Congress when even Congress declined to call it a "tax," as did the Executive Branch. Still the CJ twisted and contorted the words USED in the actual ACT by Congress itself to convert "penalty" into "tax."
That distortion of the meaning of words didn't sneak past the 4 dissenting Justices who called it for what it was. Wrong and without precedent.
And, if it is a "tax" somehow, then it should have to be apportioned, but the CJ got around that too, by a similarly slippery manipulation of language.
It was a dishonest majority opinion in those ways.
ObamaCare SHOULD have been voided. Instead, because the CJ declined to do what he should have done, we are all now saddled with it at least though the start of the next Administration and a new Congress, if we can seize control of the Senate.
This upcoming election is now the most important one in U.S. history.
Naughty, horty....
Careful what you wish for.
Would you rather have a Justice Brennan???
Justice Wm. Brennan, jr 1985 Georgetown speech supported the transformative purpose of the Constitution, in which he argued for an aspiration to social justice, brotherhood, and human dignity