Romney deems Obama a liar ex post facto

I have long marveled at the verbal contortions Romney must go through to a) justify current GOP nonsense positions and b) align his own prior pronouncements and actions with current nonsense.  Often this Operation Twist further involves c) differentiating his past and even sometimes his present position from a functionally similar position of Obama's, with whom the dear departed centrist pragmatist Massachusetts Mitt has often been aligned.

Hence Romney must regularly wax paradoxical, continually compiling new verses to this lover's rune:

I gave my love a cherry that had no stone,
I gave my love a chicken that had no bone,
I gave my love a story that had no end,
I gave my love a baby with no cryin'.

But Romney outdid himself this week when reversing the position taken by his aide Erich Fehrnstrom and his own long-held position that the individual mandate is a penalty, not a tax. Listen carefully:

“While I agreed with the dissent, that’s overtaken by the fact that the majority of the Court said it’s a tax and therefore it is a tax. They have spoken. There’s no way around that,” Romney said. “The American people know that President Obama has broken the pledge he made — said he wouldn’t raise taxes on middle-income Americans.”

Not only does Romney here assert that his own reasoning is negated in some existential sense by the Court's 5-4 ruling, along with the reasoning of the four conservative justices with whom he agreed. He is claiming that Obama's long-held position, which matches his own, retroactively became a lie the moment Roberts read the crux of his decision from the bench.  An ex post facto lie.

Conservative justices deny Congress a power that Congress doesn't want

[Reposted, with new post-mortem comments from Randy Barnett, chief architect of the case against the mandate.]

The first really substantive part of the "syllabus" or executive summary of the Supreme Court decision upholding the individual mandate and the ACA looked like Armageddon for the Administration:

2. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III–A that the individual mandate is not a valid exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. Pp. 16–30....

Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Congress already possesses expansive power to regulate what people do. Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clausewould give Congress the same license to regulate what people do not do. The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers. The individual mandate thus cannot be sustained under Congress’s power to “regulate Commerce.” Pp. 16–27.

That is a straight exposition of the plaintiffs' core argument.  Congress cannot create commerce; Congress cannot regulate inactivity; Congress cannot compel commerce. It's a miracle that Roberts turned around and upheld the mandate as an exercise of Congress's taxing power.  But hasn't this decision dealt a blow to Congress's power to regulate commerce?  Does it kick off a rollback of the series of decisions in Roosevelt's second term that expanded that power?

Probably not. Congress's right to compel purchases is a conservative worry, not a liberal one. Verrilli's core "limiting principle" was essentially that insurance is unique (because you never know when you'll need the benefits), and health insurance a singularity within that singularity (because if you lack it, your fellow citizens will ultimately foot much of the bill).  And he meant it!

In his reply brief, Verrilli identified democratic accountability as the ultimate limiting principle that would confine the purchase mandate to health insurance: