miami_thomas
VIP Member
- Jan 20, 2011
- 1,019
- 86
- 83
I'd like to see how Thomas would vote to shut down Obamacare, after his votes in Gonzales v. Raich and U.S. v. Lopez. It would sure be hard to reconcile those opinions with a no vote, and would make me question whether his wife's lobbying paycheck would all of a sudden cause him to do a 180 based on law.
Nonsense.
Neither case supports the ridiculous proposition that the Constitution authorized Congress to regulate interstate NON commerce.
If you CHOOSE to grow weed or wheat, it might become part of interstate commerce -- and even the strained logic that if you do grow your own, you will not purchase it from somewhere else, does provide some logical cover for an effect on interstate commerce.
But there is an absolute LACK of any hint of logic to the facially absurd premise that a decision NOT to buy insurance is interstate commerce activity.
What part of the Constitution informs you that Congress can tell you what to buy?
Health insurance reform is interstate commerce. The mandate is taxation, as is social security and medicare. Both interstate commerce and taxation are constitutional. Good luck with even this wingnut court creating precedent for undoing medicare and social security. My guess is that only Roberts will dissent on this one, as he has a history of pulling law and precedent out his ass, as he did using some bullshit marginalia in Citizens.
So if you don't buy insurance you are taxed? That is a first. It is not a tax it is a penalty. Now if congress had created a tax and then said if you buy insurance you can get money back in taxes. Then it would not have been a penalty. But that would not have accomplished what they wanted.