I have not yet read the entire opinion of the SCOTUS, but so far, I am left aghast at the combination of illogic and overreach in the opinion.
My single consolation so far is the straightforward dissent offered by justice Scalia, which I hope will resonate with the people.
The problems begin in the summary in the beginning of the opinion. The court explains that the mandate is not a tax for the purposes of the anti-injunction act, and therefore can be adjudicated. The court then goes on to say that “the mandate” cannot stand as a penalty, even though it is explicitly defined in the legislation under scrutiny as a penalty, not a tax. The court explains all the reasons – and there are several – why the “penalty” cannot be held constitutional.
The court then decides that if the penalty were a tax, then it could stand. The court gives the excuse that it has a duty to work hard to find a reason to uphold the law, and declares that since it COULD BE a tax, the court will pretend that it is a tax, and let it stand. (see above – anti-injunction act)
Let’s set aside core principles of jurisprudence, where the court decides only on real cases that have been presented, and not on hypothetical issues that it dreams up. I think this is logical and judicial gymnastics that boil down to writing an opinion to match an agenda, not ruling on the basis of our constitution.
This is a pivotal day in our history. The limited and enumerated powers of our constitution are gone. This can, and should have a huge impact on the election this November. Let’s hope we make wise choices.