[quote=SK in CV][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
This is Madison versus Wilson, and the battle isn’t finished yet.[/quote]
I’m less than convinced that this was a meaningful decision wrt that battle. It appears to limit the commerce clause to activity, rather than inactivity. There is some almost ancient precedent allowing regulation of inactivity, which was ignored (i think?) in the majority opinions. But then the court allowed regulation of inactivity through taxation (penalties). Arguably a wash. Powers under the commerce clause may suffered a little damage around the edges. It will take something bigger to shove Wilsonian evolution back in the bottle.[/quote]
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.”
