Chief Justice John Roberts is, arguably, one of the most fascinating men in American politics despite being one of the most boring! By "boring", I simply mean that (so far) his reputation is unbesmirched by fact or even innuendo. A Catholic, married, family man who leans Right politically - but not dangerously! As things stand, he holds the balance on the Supreme Court between four Right-wing justices and four Left-wing justices. The Good Lord has seen fit to grant this old sinner, er, that's me, one favour by allowing the Republican brutes to control Congress and that should be enough to keep any mouth-foaming loony off the Supreme Court should a vacancy occur. Now, if He grants me a second favour - which I deserve given my faithful service in cutting the Churchyard grass for the past 12 years - then he will ensure that Gov. Scott Walker is elected President in 2016 and that following the retirement of Justice Ginsberg who, at 81 years of age is well past her sell-by date irrespective of the fact that she's also a Left-wing loony, that will ensure a Right-wing Court for years to come.
In the meantime, however, we are forced to stand by nervously biting our nails as we watch the behavior of the Chief Justice, himself. In an earlier judgment on the 'Obamacare' legislation, he either lost his nerve or he pulled off a shrewd, sophisticated move - you can read the differing opinions yourself but what Justice Roberts did, in effect, was to treat the 'Obamacare' bill as a tax-raising measure which he, with his casting vote, allowed through. But now the question arises as to whether it is a state tax bill or a State (ie, Federal) tax bill? The administration laid down that people, including employers, must buy their health care provisos through state? exchanges. Unfortunately for them, something like 30+ states refused to participate and so the State (Federal government) stepped in and set them up as Federal units.
So far, so confusing, and so Obama-like! However, the American Revenue Service, the IRS, - yes, them again! - put in charge of these exchanges decided to lay down exactly the same tax rules to either state or Federal exchanges - irrespective. Instantly, employers reached for their lawyers because according to the law, as they see it, only customers who purchase their medical cover via state exchanges are entitled to the subsidies handed out by the Feds. David Catron sums it up thus in The American Spectator:
The survival of Obamacare depends on the ability of government bureaucrats to dole out tax credits and subsidies, but the law stipulates that all such assistance must be dispensed via exchanges established by the state. Likewise, the law’s employer mandates can only be imposed by state-created exchanges [my emphasis]. Oddly enough, however, ['Obamacare'] doesn’t actually require states to set up exchanges. And, much to the surprise and chagrin of the Obama administration, 34 states declined to do so. This forced the federal government to set up exchanges in those states and also spawned the legally dubious IRS edict.
In other words it is a perfect example of a government desperately wishing but not actually legislating. It is only fair to point you in the direction of F. H. Buckley in The American Spectator who believes that Chief Justice Roberts will weasel out of a decision which will turn 'Obamacare' into a shambles but most of all show up his original ruling as the act of a timorous Justice unable to face down a powerful Federal administration. On the other hand, I wonder, on the basis of nil knowledge - as usual! - whether Roberts saw this as a likely outcome and given that this is a fairly straightforward ruling on 'the law as it is writ', he will rule against the IRS and watch with a quiet smile on his lips as 'Obamacare' sinks!
