No silver linings in the Obamacare ruling

There are no "silver linings" in the U. S. Supreme Court's ruling on Obamacare.

Strangely, some conservatives have claimed that the decision, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, is a partial win because:

(1)  The Court exercised judicial restraint, deferring to the elected officials in the legislative and executive branches;

(2)  Roberts brilliantly demolished the use of the Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution to justify the individual mandate with strong language regarding the limitations of federal power that can be used as a precedent to stop future intrusions of federal power.

These attempts at putting a happy face on the Obamacare decision reveal a complete lack of understanding of what happened and how utterly devastating the Supreme Court decision is to the Constitution.

The Supreme Court has a solemn duty to declare unconstitutional laws unconstitutional.  Instead, the Court found a unique way to approve the President's health care law.

It matters not in the slightest whether Obamacare was found to be constitutional because of the Commerce Clause or because of the taxing power of the federal government.

In fact, it is constitutionally ridiculous to call the penalty for not buying health insurance a "tax."  A recent issue of this newsletter pointed out that, while the Obama Administration will take the win, they agree with the four conservatives on the Court that the penalty is not a tax.

The plaintiffs in the case, the National Federation of Independent Businesses and the 26 states, should ask the Obama Administration to join with them in asking the Supreme Court to re-consider the case.

Both sides agree that the justification the Court used for finding Obamacare constitutional is not valid.

As for the hope this case will be used to head off future use of the Commerce Clause to expand federal power, you really have to be a Pollyanna to buy into that.

What future cases?  

The Obamacare decision was the biggest case in our lifetime. The ramifications of it will be highly damaging to our nation.  Good outcomes of a thousand future cases could not compensate for the enormity of the harm this case has done.

Furthermore, those who are thrilled with Roberts' rhetoric should re-read what he actually wrote.  Writing in American Thinker, Mark Fitzgibbons (pictured) pointed out:

Government lawyers assuredly have already honed in on one line from page 17 of Roberts' opinion: "[I]t is now well established that Congress has broad authority under the [Commerce] Clause."  Statist judges will facilitate more government power by citing that one line.

Fitzgibbons, the president of corporate and legal affairs at American Target Advertising, Inc, also wrote in part:

It is risible that Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and their ilk will feel the least bit restrained by Roberts' civics lesson about limited federal government power.  Obama must be laughing all the way to his next fundraiser with bankers.

John Roberts' nonsensical, activist opinion upholding Obamacare is even worse than it appears.  

First he claims that the individual mandate is not a tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act.  Next, to uphold the individual mandate, he claims that it is a tax…

The Obamacare decision will embolden Barack Obama and left-wing statists in their quest to rule America in disregard of the Constitution…

Obama now has a clearer path to fundamentally transform America, and in far more areas than just taking over our health care.  Statists can attack liberty at will, and courts are now free to justify it under the taxing authority.  You can bet your last dollar that statists are already strategizing more of the same.

The previous What's Happening with Conservatives and the Tea Party: Conservatives & liberals reject John Roberts' Obamacare ruling

The previous What's Happening with Seniors Benefits: Tea Party leader spots big flaw in Obamacare ruling

Previous issues of both newsletters.

Follow Art Kelly on Twitter @ArthurKellyJr