|"TEA PARTY DEFEATS OBAMA!" (not)|
This does support my theory that Roberts is concerned about his legacy and getting control of this Court. He's not there yet as it ended up as an odd decision with interesting alliances. As I understand it, five Justices (Roberts, Breyer, Sotomayor, Ginsberg, Kagan) upheld Obamacare in its entirety based on Congress's taxing authority ("for the general welfare"). Another majority of five ruled that the Commerce Clause didn't cut it (Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts, and surprisingly, Kennedy). However, I understand that Justice Ginsberg in her concurrence apparently indicated that she doesn't expect that part of the ruling to survive considering the precedent of the Court and probably common sense once we get over the anti-Obama obsessions.
And I think I was right about the conservative three amigos Scalia, Thomas, and Alito being frustrated. Justice Taney probably would be too.
The Constitutional Union survives. It is interesting to note that the two big rulings saved for this last week of the Court's session were on the two primary issues stirring up the steaming tea pot - Immigration and Obamacare. In both cases, a majority of the Court went with the President instead of the tea partiers. Along with Senator Hatch surviving in Utah against his tea party challenger, I think it's time to declare the party over. It is now as relevant as Ross Perot.
"Obamacare," sort of like the word "Mormon," was originally coined as a pejorative. Now it carries a sense of victory and honor. And that may be the principal legacy of the tea party. The arc of history, indeed.