Roberts’ ruling is a disheartening betrayal
Re: “Roberts ruling has consequences for both policy and law,” Editorial, July 1
Sunday’s editorial has more than its share of truly relevant sentences.Two, however, go straight to the bottom line for me:”From a small-government policy perspective, the decision is an unmitigated disaster.” and “Roberts had to effectively rewrite the law from the bench to make it a tax.”
Perhaps a redemptive silver lining of the “unintended consequences” variety will eventually come to pass, but for now it is difficult to imagine any more disturbing, confusing and disheartening outcome than the decision announced by the chief justice of the Supreme Court last Thursday morning.
It feels like nothing less than a betrayal.
Anne Harrison
Alexandria
Supreme Court’s ‘tax excuse’ could be slippery slope
Re: “Chief Judicial Activist John Roberts,” July 1
I am quite disturbed by the Supreme Court decision that the “health care mandate” is a constitutionally valid tax, but for a reason completely unrelated to health care.
Now that the use of a tax penalty has been deemed valid, where does its application end?
It seems that Congress could now rescind the tax credit for the purchase of an electric car and replace it with a tax penalty if you don’t purchase an electric car.
Have we started down a slippery slope of unintended consequences?
Vernon Mallu
Washington
Obamacare ruling a dark day in American justice
Re: “The Supreme Court, Obamacare and ‘legitimacy,’ ” July 1
The most dangerous part of the Obamacare ruling has only little to do with Obamacare itself.
Don’t misunderstand. Obamacare is awful legislation designed to erode health care into a single-payer system, leaving consumers no power of choice. But the core of our governmental power has just undergone a radical change.
The Supreme Court of the United States has just ruled that legislation can deem a consumer’s choice not to purchase a product or service as a taxable event. This law names health insurance, but another law could name anything else.
Other such laws will undoubtedly be passed, and eventually one that even Obamacare supporters will hate.
Additionally, the highest court in the nation acted beyond its role of interpreting law into drafting law in its redefining a “penalty” as a “tax.” Pick apart the details of the ruling as you will, but we’ve turned a dark corner that only a new SCOTUS can reverse.
Brian Wrenn
Washington
