Part of the job of SCOTUS is to make rulings on things that would come up that weren’t specifically outlined in the Constitution. The founding fathers were not so arrogant to assume they had thought of everything, and this is the JOB of having a judicial branch of the federal govt.

We all pay more because there are 50 different plans instead of national plans.

Unlike THE CHIEF JUSTICE, however, I would hold, alterna­ tively, that the Commerce Clause authorizes Congress to enact the minimum coverage provision. I would also hold that the Spending Clause permits the Medicaid expansion exactly as Congress enacted it.

I

The provision of health care is today a concern of na­tional dimension, just as the provision of old-age and survivors’ benefits was in the 1930’s. In the Social Security Act, Congress installed a federal system to provide monthly benefits to retired wage earners and, eventually, to their survivors. Beyond question, Congress could have adopted a similar scheme for health care. Congress chose, instead, to preserve a central role for private insurers and state governments. According to THE CHIEF JUSTICE, the Commerce Clause does not permit that preservation. This rigid reading of the Clause makes scant sense and is stunningly retrogressive.

What the Commerce Clause actually says:

[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;

.

In other words, Congress has the power to regulate commerce in only three cases:
1) Commerce with foreign nations,
2) Commerce between states, and
3) Commerce with Indian/Native American tribes

Refusing to purchase health care insurance does not constitute commerce with foreign nations.

Refusing to purchase health care insurance does not constitute commerce between states.

Refusing to purchase health care insurance does not constitute commerce with Indian/Native American tribes.

As best as I can tell, Ginsburg’s “schooling” of Roberts basically amounts to her explaining why her interpretation of the U.S. Constitution is correct and why his interpretation of the U.S. Constitution is incorrect. And her argument behind why her interpretation is correct is that because earlier courts interpreted the Commerce Clause to have broad powers not explicitly stated in the Commerce Clause, these powers are constitional.

I don’t understand how declaring that Congress has powers never mentioned in the U.S. Constitution constitutes wisdom or justice.

The U.S. Constitution is supposed to ensure that we have rule by law, not by whim. Instead, Americans are forced to obey the laws arising from the whims of power-hungry Democrats and Republicans in office and rubberstamped by their partisan and/or ideological allies in the U.S. Supreme Court.

She also didn’t get suckered into Bush v. Gore, a case in which the Supreme Court should never been involved.

That’s just for starters… There’s no female Supreme Court Justice who comes close to her.

“Greatest” is in the eye of the beholder. If you are a flaming liberal, this is true.

Otherwise, she is anything but great.