Aftermath

[kris_schnee]

I spent hours reading, discussing and analyzing the health care ruling. I have a law degree, an undergrad degree in history (specializing in American history) from MIT, and several years' amateur experience studying and discussing matters of constitutional law and rhetoric with people who do and don't agree with me. This is my understanding of the

Comments

[greenreaper]

Sounds good. We can make a fat tax! Of course, it's all subject to elections, but they have to be able to get out of the house - or at least to the postbox - to vote.

Religious beliefs sound great, but people can believe a lot of crazy stuff. That's fine when they're not also an employer, or (say) abducting people for satanic rites.

[mcgroarty]

"I struggle to invent a ridiculous hypothetical law that can't fit under these powers."

What's left is basically political popularity. They still have to win elections. It's tough to say whether we've just stepped closer to empire, or to mob rule!

[kris_schnee]

Pure democracy, I think, with a nasty corporatist streak, similar to Venezuela. Obama insisted that the court shouldn't strike down a law "passed by a strong majority [sic] of a democratically elected legislature", Roberts argued that it's the people's responsibility to block laws like this rather than the courts', and Kagan said during her confirmation hearing that if the famous "buy broccoli" law were passed, she'd defer to the legislature rather than striking it down. So as I understand the logic, the Democrats' (and Roberts') belief is that whatever the majority wants (via elections) should be the law of the land. Democracy, in that sense, is what the Constitution was supposed to prevent.

The really horrible thing is that we now can't agree to disagree on anything, since a majority can impose its will on everyone nationwide. It's like the aftermath of the Dred Scott decision, which basically made slavery legal everywhere so that there was no choice left but to tolerate it or violently crush it.