Reckless Restraint?

Scott Ott has the following commentary on CJ Roberts bizarre ruling on Thursday:

Here’s a brief summary of the reasoning that led him to conclude the individual mandate is a tax, and thus within the power of Congress.

1. It’s not the court’s job to evaluate the wisdom or practicality of a law, merely to determine whether it violates the Constitution.
2. Respecting the separation of powers, the Court should make every reasonable effort to uphold legislation.
3. The government’s fall-back justification for the individual mandate was the power of Congress “to lay and collect taxes…to provide for the…general welfare of the United States.” (Article 1, Section 8 )
4. No matter what the law calls the individual mandate, if it looks like a tax and quacks like a tax, it’s a tax.
5. The “shared responsibility payment” for failure to buy health insurance is collected by the IRS, based on income, and clears the payor of responsibility to the law. If it were just a penalty, the payor would be considered guilty of unlawful activity before the bar of justice. But under ObamaCare, you’ve done your civic duty even if you fail to buy insurance, so long as you pay the fee.
6. Because it’s a tax, Congress may impose it without offending the Constitution’s enumeration of powers.

For years, conservatives have argued that the Supreme Court should not decide cases based on ideology or personal preference, but upon the text of the Constitution, and upon established precedent under that charter. Justices should not legislate from the bench.

While judicial lawmaking is exactly what Justices Alito, Thomas, Kennedy, and Scalia accuse Roberts of doing, he asserts precisely the opposite. He refrains from overturning a law that, clearly, he considers ill-advised, badly crafted, and ultimately doomed.

His reckless restraint, as some might view it, is anchored in the doctrine of separation of powers. He also telegraphs to his readers that the way to deal with this offensive law is near at hand, in November.

While I would prefer an outcome that supports my principles, and advances the cause of my party, my primary allegiance must be to the process established under the “supreme law of the land.”

The easier solution to a vexing problem is to have someone powerful remove it. The hard way calls for devotion, on your part, to upholding our values — using our constitutional prerogative to replace the incompetent, the corrupt, and the compromised.

If we should fail to do so this November, our whining about Roberts’ betrayal will do nothing to stop the onslaught of ObamaCare. And in the near future, when a law comes along that we wish to see upheld, we’ll be grateful for the precedent set by Roberts’ reasonable restraint.

Now evicting Obama becomes JOB ONE!