Some conservative activists have turned against Chief Justice John Roberts for his role in the Supreme Court decision basically upholding the Obama health care law. Yet the decision written by Roberts did have a strong conservative element.
While ruling that the individual mandate was an allowable tax, he also wrote that he did not believe the Obama administration's argument that the Commerce Clause itself was sufficient to impose the mandate. This could potentially open the door to future rulings against the federal government's control of interstate commerce.
Courts since the New Deal have expanded congressional power under the Commerce Clause, the erosion of which many conservatives find unconstitutional at its core. For these conservatives, had the ACA been upheld under the clause, it would have removed all vestiges of limiting principles. Justice Roberts ruling therefore was seen as a small victory for conservative jurisprudence.
The counter argument of course is that in lieu of the word “mandate”, the new word “tax” can be applied to anything that congress prescribes once a penalty has been associated with noncompliance.
While the substance of the health care ruling, (other than restricting the Commerce Clause), weighs significantly more in favor of liberals, the long-term victory for conservative jurisprudence may rest in the politics. If the decision mobilizes the conservative base, resulting in a Republican White house and eventually conservative addition(s) to the Supreme Court….well then conservative jurisprudence may claim a long-term victory.
No truer words would have been spoken then when Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority, “It is not our job to protect people from the consequences of their political choices”.
