SCOTUS ObamaCare Decision

Yikes.  Chief Justice Roberts sides with the Liberals on the court, and proceeds to effectively re-write the language of the bill so that he can then agree with them and rule the indivdual mandate constituional, because he can now call it a tax.  Very little comfort can be taken in the limits placed on the Commerce Clause, because now the government can compel any action they want by taxing you if you DON'T DO IT. 

If the government wants you to spend money on X, they are going to make you do that, or at least give them money to not do it.  Other than SS/Medicare taxes, which I don't think you can opt out of at all (which is a whole 'nother debate to have), you can avoid any other tax by not doing X activity.  Whether it be income taxes or sales taxes, I can choose to keep my money by not making it at such a level (or make it another way, such as capital gains) or not purchasing something.  But now, the Federal Government will not allow me to not purchase health insurance: either I spend my money on the insurance or I must just give it to the government.  Roberts has created an even bigger problem than the growing Commerce Clause. 

I'm sure Greens want me to have a low flow toilet, energy efficient windows, a new energy efficient air conditioner, to recycle all my cans and paper, etc etc.  Well, now they can force me to spend my money and do those things, or give my money to the government to not do them.  I would no longer have any liberty, in the case of my money.  Either I'm spending it on the things the government tells me to spend it on, or I am just giving it to the government. That is not America.

I'm sure nah-sayers on the Left will claim no one in the government is going to do that.  Really?  They already figured out a way to mandate the low flow toilet and flourescent bulbs.  Why would they not use this new tool?

Some things Roberts said in his decision that really have me concerned:

The path of our Com­merce Clause decisions has not always run smooth, see United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549, 552–559 (1995), but it is now well established that Congress has broad author­ity under the Clause.

Thanks for reaffirming the crappy precendent that meant the Commerce Clause could mean almost anything.  No comfort that you say the mandate is unconsitutional if trying to use the Commerce Clasue as justification.

Congress already enjoys vast power to regulate much of what we do.

Uh, don't you see the probelm with that?  The Constitution supposedly limited the Government power to a few, enumerated powers.  Reading the Constitution, they don't seem 'vast' to me. They only became 'vast' when people decided the General Welfare 'clause' meant Congress could don about anything they please, and now as long as you call it a take, Congress can coherce you to do anything it wants as well.

That, according to the Government, means the mandate can be regarded as (emphasis added) establishing a condition—not owning health insurance—that triggers a tax—the required payment to the IRS. Under that theory, the mandate is not a legal command to buy insurance. Rather, it makes going without insurance just another thing the Government taxes, like buying gasoline or earn­ing income.

The difference being, by taxing the lack of action (not buying insurance) the only way to avoid the tax is to conduct the action (buying the insurance)

But taxes that seek to influence conduct are nothing new. Some of our earliest federal taxes sought to deter the purchase of imported manufactured goods in order to foster the growth of do­mestic industry.

But again, I could choose to not engage in the activity and thus not pay the tax (or pay of the activity).

Even if only a tax, the payment under §5000A(b) remains a burden that the Federal Government imposes for an omission, not an act. If it is troubling to interpret the Commerce Clause as authorizing Congress to regulate those who abstain from commerce, perhaps it should be similarly troubling to permit Congress to impose a tax for not doing something.

Yes!  I thought he was going to save it here, but I guess not.  HE (Roberts) has decided the 'penalty' is small enough not to be cohercive, so it's a tax (or it's tax that's small enough not to be cohercive, so it's not a penalty?)  I thought this was a nation of laws, not men?  Not anymore.

I have to stop.  I'm getting agitated again, and more than enough has been written about this by others.  I don't think there is a silver lining.  I am enormously disappointed that Roberts caved to liberal pressure.  Our country, our freedom, and our Liberty are much reduced by this decision.