[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
SK: It will definitely take something bigger than ACA, but, if you take the wider (and non-partisan) vantage, then Roberts’ decision was entirely consistent and in keeping with his views as a jurist.
Many on the liberal side celebrated his decision as some sort of “revolt”, but the truth is far more sanguine. It was very much a conservative opinion and it pushed back strongly on what was viewed as an over-reach. His language was emphatic and it was clear.
Within the larger and looming battle over entitlement reform, this decision will have due weight. The days of the “Blue State Model” and the “New Deal/Great Society” Dems are approaching an end and for reasons other than politics or partisanship. Simple arithmetic is going to kill or severely curtail programs dating back to the 1930s. It’s becoming all of a piece and, as the saying goes, “The best laws are made in the courts.”[/quote]
His language was emphatic, clear, and as related to the commerce clause, non-binding dictum.
Justice Ginsburg said about a week ago that this term has been “more than usually taxing”. (I got quite a chuckle when I went back and found her precise wording.) Ignoring the precise wording she used, I think she was referring to her rebuke of Justice Roberts insistence of including dictum related to the commerce clause in this decision, when it was wholely unnecessary. She found the inclusion “puzzling”. While it may portend Justice Roberts’ future thinking, and potentially pursuasive to lower courts, it does not represent legal authority. So technically, as specifically related to the commerce clause, nothing happened.
