[Jeff Head]

They ruled that the individual mandate requiring us all to buy insurance is unconstitutional...and that should be the end of it. BAck to Congress to change, fix it, or shelve the whole thing.

But, no. They then (it sounds like) unilaterally and unconstitutionally took it upon themselves to basically re-write the legislation and call that mandate a tax and then say “now it is ok, proceed.”

How can the US SUPREME COURT WRITE ANY LEGISLATION?

Answer: They can’t. It would be unconstitutional.

The Congress writes laws. So with what the legislation clearly called a mandate to buy ruled unconstititonal, it should go back to congress to alter it into a tax...WHICH WOULD NEVERY PASS THE CONGRESS RIGHT NOW.

I am shocked and severely disappointed in Roberts. They are (if this interpretation is correct) writing legislation from the bench which is not within their power to do.

I guess we’ll see what it all means, but that’s how I am reading it now and it is very disappointing if that is correct.

AMERICA AT THE CROSSROADS OF HISTORY
http://www.jeffherad.com/crossroads.htm

[luv2ski]

They didn't write new law. They ruled based on the government's position once they got into court, that the mandate was a tax and therefore within their power. Obama (and all the Dems) has insisted that it was NOT a tax b/c they knew we could hang that around their heads but when it got into court, their lawyers argued that it was, in fact, a tax. Greta Van Susteren was in court in FL for one of the appeals court cases and heard them argue it was a tax.
So- bottom line- the mandate is a “penalty” that can be levied as a tax but is not constitutional under the commerce clause.

[Lorianne]

They didn’t say the mandate was a tax, they said the penalty for following the mandate is a tax. Slippery way around.