Commerce clause gutted!
Limitations to congressional power! Harumph!
Supreme court undoing the undoing of the meaning of the commerce clause.
Women and poor people hardest hit.
"Charles Fried, a constitutional law professor at Harvard, said from Rome, where he was on vacation, that he was “dispirited” by the ruling. “The limitation of the commerce clause runs counter to 75 years of Supreme Court jurisprudence,” he said. “It is a complete capitulation to the bogus logic of the broccoli argument and its proponents in the Tea Party.”
Professor Fried, a solicitor general under President Ronald Reagan, is a conservative and not a fan of the heath care law, but he has consistently argued that it was constitutional.
While the health care legislation itself survived, the limitation of Congressional power under the commerce clause is likely to have far-reaching consequences, and the decision may prove a Pyrrhic victory for liberal supporters of Congress’s expansive power.
Some Libertarians, while disappointed that the law was not struck down, were celebrating the stake the court drove into the heart of the commerce clause."
"Does the Commerce Clause portion of today's ruling count as a binding precedent? It might. As Georgetown law professor Lawrence Solum points out at his Legal Theory Blog, the part of Roberts’ opinion which describes why the individual mandate may be described as a tax “suggests that this characterization was influence by the fact that this characterization was necessary to uphold the mandate (and hence perhaps the entire ACA as constitutional).” In other words, when federal judges turn to Roberts’ ruling in the future, they may be required to take his description of the Commerce Clause and its limits into account.
As textual evidence for this reading, Solum points to the following passage from Roberts, which "might be read as signalling that the Commerce Clause discussion was necessary to the logic of the opinion." Here's Roberts:
Because the Commerce Clause does not support the individual mandate, it is necessary to turn to the Government’s second argument: that the mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s enumerated power to “lay and collect Taxes."