Pundits are commenting endlessly on what went through Chief Justice Roberts’ mind when he rewrote ObamaCare, changing the mandate into a tax, thus giving himself an excuse to cast the deciding vote to uphold the law. But with all respect, I couldn’t care less what went on in Roberts’ mind. All that matters is the result – namely, that life-and-death decisions for 314 million Americans will now be made by remote, unaccountable, unelected, faceless federal bureaucrats.
But with all the psychoanalysis of the chief justice, and all the legal analysis of the decision, we are missing some of the practical results. Consider this chain of events:

President Obama states that illegal immigrants will not be covered by his health-care plan.

Supreme Court overturns most of Arizona immigration law.

Immigration will no longer cooperate with Arizona police unless illegal immigrant also committed a felony.

President Obama grants amnesty to illegal immigrants who arrived as children, thus bypassing current immigration laws passed by Congress.

Supreme Court upholds ObamaCare by 5-4 vote as Chief Justice Roberts sides with liberals.

Pundits seem unconcerned with the relation between ObamaCare and immigration. They seem unaware that there is a relation. But there is – a big one. Recall the words of the late Nobel Prize economist Milton Friedman:

It’s just obvious you can’t have free immigration and a welfare state.

Note that Friedman had libertarian beliefs and in theory favored open borders. But he saw clearly that no matter how rich a nation might be, it could not possibly be rich enough to give generous welfare and health-care benefits not only to its own citizens, but also to everyone who wandered in the open door.
While psychology is a fascinating and useful field of study, in the end why people do things is largely unknowable. My own motives are often mixed and sometimes subconscious. If I am uncertain of my own motives, how can I be sure of other people’s motives?
Do I really care why Chief Justice Roberts decided to call the mandate a tax, while President Obama and congressional Democratic leaders insisted it was not a tax when the law was proposed? And do I really care why Roberts thought he could he call it a tax, despite the fact that the bill originated in the Senate, while revenue bills must originate in the House?
That is, if the law is interpreted as a mandate, it is unconstitutional in Roberts’ own words, because it exceeds the powers vested in Congress by the Constitution. But if the law is a tax, as Roberts claims, it should be unconstitutional because it did not originate in the House, and because it is not among the types of taxes authorized by the Constitution. So what happened?
Did Roberts feel that his role was to placate the liberal media, rather than to apply the Constitution? Did he hope to increase the prestige of the court by seeming to be impartial, rather than by actually being impartial? Did he want to increase his personal prestige by being the man to “save health care”? Did he still see himself as an advocate, which he had been, rather than as a judge, which he is now?
I don’t know and I don’t care. The net result is that we’re stuck with ObamaCare, at least until January 20, 2013, when the next president will be inaugurated.
And do I really care why President Obama is creating a vast new entitlement to government-controlled health care, and at the same time is doing everything possible to open the borders and increase immigration even further?
Is it because Obama is ignorant, and just can’t foresee what will inevitably result when an unlimited number of new immigrants arrive to take advantage of an unlimited amount of new benefits? Or is it because he foresees this very well, and intends to crash the system, just as Cloward and Piven predicted?
Again, I don’t know and I don’t care. The net result, if this process is not halted, is that the system will indeed crash, perhaps sooner than we imagine.
Only God can see our hearts. We can observe what people do – and judge them accordingly. As a first approach, we can assume that people intend the reasonably foreseeable consequences of their actions.
Judged by this standard, Chief Justice Roberts intends to defer to liberal legislators in order to avoid harsh criticism from the liberal media, until either (a) the Constitution as written is just a vague memory, or (b) the people take matters into their own hands – whichever occurs first.
And we can assume that President Obama intends to increase the size and scope of the federal government until either (a) virtually every aspect of our lives is controlled, or (b) the bloated welfare state collapses, as its European counterparts are already doing – whichever occurs first.
Psychoanalysis of political leaders is an unproductive hobby. Political action is an absolute necessity.
Dr. Stolinsky writes on political and social issues. Contact: dstol@prodigy.net. You are welcome to publish or post these articles, provided that you cite the author and website.
www.stolinsky.com