What a complex decision.
As to Chief Justice John Roberts arguing the Commerce Clause did not apply to the individual mandate issue, I think his denial is good: I always thought it was a shyster argument to say that the mandate would be justified by Congress’ constitutional ability to regulate interstate commerce, which has nothing to do with possible legal issues people could have with getting individual health insurance when, for given individuals, all practical and legal parameters for these issues could be within states.
Turning the issue into one of a federal tax, and is this justified?, is a good move. And if the Court approved this, so be it.
The complexity of the decision is shown in the following paragraph from the decision, which I separate into parts for ease of reading. The fact of not everyone being on the same page with respect to all parts of the decision does not surprise me, including there being multiple dissents:
ROBERTS, C. J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, and III–C, in which GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined;
an opinion with respect to Part IV, in which BREYER and KAGAN, JJ., joined;
and an opinion with respect to Parts III–A, III–B, and III–D. GINSBURG, J., filed an opinion concurring in part, concurring in the judgment in part, and dissenting in part, in which SOTOMAYOR, J., joined, and in which BREYER and KAGAN, JJ., joined as to Parts I, II, III, and IV.
SCALIA, KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., filed a dissenting opinion. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
