jducoeur: (Default)
[personal profile] jducoeur
Thanks to Aaron for the pointer to this concise and frequently-updated blog entry on this morning's legal decision.

The short version, quite to my surprise, is that Chief Justice Roberts bought into essentially the same logic that I'd been thinking: call it what you will, the "individual mandate" is effectively a tax, and pretty obviously constitutional on that basis. I suspect that that is going to make for all sorts of entertaining politics in the coming months as Romney jumps up and down going, "Hah! See! Taxes!", but I agree with the reasoning, and appreciate the general call-a-spade-a-spade attitude.

Anyway, the article is fascinating, making the point that this is remarkably clever of Roberts politically: instead of the sort of knee-jerk reactionary rhetoric that we've been seeing from most conservatives, he's made the Court look a bit more reasonable and less partisan, while winning a much more important conservative victory by bounding the Commerce Clause a bit.

So overall, a good day for the spirit of compromise. The Administration wins what will probably be its most important political battle, but the conservatives force them to admit that it's a tax. The horrible health care mess takes at least a baby step towards rationality for the first time in decades, and I breathe a quiet sigh of relief. (No, I don't love the Obamacare model, but I think it's still a major improvement over what we've been dealing with heretofore. If we can't get a genuinely sensible single-payer model, at least we can make what we *do* have suck less.)
(will be screened)
(will be screened if not validated)
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

Profile

jducoeur: (Default)
jducoeur

June 2025

S M T W T F S
12 34567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930     

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags