Supreme Court and Health Care

My family and I were heading to Canada for what turned out to be a wonderful vacation the Thursday when the ACA ruling was announced. We were listening to the audio from MSNBC on satellite radio.  The initial reports were that the court had found it unconstitutional.  We then began listening to "The Diane Riehm Show" on NPR.  The panelists slowly determined that the court had actually upheld the ACA--ruling it was unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause but was within Congress' power of taxation.

Since hearing the decision I have had the feeling that Chief Justice Roberts has outmaneuvered everyone who supports health care reform.  My concern comes from much of the analysis I heard around the time the case was argued.  Almost all analysts agreed that the Court could "kick the can down the road" by stating that the individual mandate was a tax, then ruling that no one had yet paid the tax so no one had standing to challenge it.

I suspect that conservative activists are preparing to challenge the constitutionality of "taxing inactivity."  Justice Roberts will be able to argue that Congress cannot regulate inactivity; then in the coup de grace he will be able to say that while Congress has the power to tax, the individual mandate tax is unconstitutional once someone has standing to challenge it.

Now I am not a constitutional scholar.  The decision may be perfectly clear on the constitutionality of "taxing inactivity."  The wording of Chief Justice Roberts may be airtight and not allow for a future challenge once a specific individual has standing.  But I will remain skeptical until the individual mandate has been fully implemented.  Since Citizens United, I believe the conservatives on the court are willing to use any reasoning necessary to increase the power of the powerful while negating advances for middle-class and working Americans.

I hope I am wrong.