So the SCOTUS has upheld the healthcare reform bill's individual mandate, much to my surprise. The big surprise though is who the liberal judges got to vote alongside of them. Most pundits thought moderate Judge Kennedy would be the swing vote but it was Bush appointee Judge John Roberts who stood with the liberals and said the individual mandate was a tax (the only judge to make such an assertation in their written opinions) and therefor legal under the interstate commerce clause.
"If an individual does not maintain health insurance, the only
consequence is that he must make an additional payment to the IRS when
he pays his taxes," Roberts wrote. He adds that this means "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 an income." Really, Johnny-Boy? So the government can now tax inaction? Great to know the government can reach in to my pocket for things I didn't do, now
What about a tax on people who don't take the proper steps to secure their home by buying a handgun and having all household members instructed in it's use? Suddenly doesn't seem like such a great precedent to set, if you are anti-gun, does it? Interstate commerce has been abused far too often over the last fifty years and we need to either repeal any laws passed under it or suspend them until the SCOTUS passes an encyclopedic, all encompassing clarification of it's use that is internally consistent, or it's going to remain the tool du jour for government cretins that love the power of government creeping in on all our lives.