This is a BS statement. It is indeed the Supreme's duty and responsibility to save us from unconstitutional laws written and passed by the legislature, especially, as in this case, when they are passed against the express wishes of the electorate. Most people were against Bozocare but the legislature passed it anyway.
If the Supreme court isn't supposed to rule on the constitutionality of laws then what the hell good is it and what exactly is their job?
Finally if you agree with the above statement you aren't too bright in my opinion.
Roberts himself said the law was constitutional. He didn't say it was good law, just constitutional, and if the voters didn't like it, they had the power to change it by electing people who would change it.
That didn't happen, of course, but that's not to say the final word on this saga has been spoken. It obviously hasn't.
Disabling the law with one fell swoop is now unlikely. It will have to be done piecemeal, until the fabric that holds this law together becomes so frayed it will no longer functionally exist.
We're in this for the long haul, for better or worse. That's the way wars are.
CA....
The Supremes can only act in the following cases and ways:
1) When a case is brought before them
2) When a case is ARGUED PROPERLY before them
3) When the case brought before them and argued properly clearly spells out that the law is Unconstitutional
The problem with the first case brought before the Supremes is that it was not argued properly. The Government countered that the individual mandate was a tax, which the law states it is. The Constitution allows the Congress to levy and collect taxes. The Constitution does not put a whole lot of restriction on what they can tax.
Think about it this way; before the 16th Amendment, the Congress was levying an Income Tax as an excise on incomes.
Roberts unfortunately ruled properly. The problem is not with the ruling, it is a defect of the Constitution which does not properly limit what Congress can place a tax on. The problem is also with the electorate who voted in a Congress who understands they can tax darned near anything they so desire.
But ... nobody took the First Amendment angle to the Court which is why this issue is now back there.
Likewise, the Commerce Clause is defective in that there are no limits on what parts of "commerce" can be regulated. If the Founding Fathers had put in there a little snippet that said, "limited to regulating the actual movement and provision of goods and services across State borders" ... think about that. How much of what the Feds do today would have never happened if that small little phrase had been attached to the Commerce Clause?
Our problem is we have an 18th Century Constitution put up against 21st Century Lawyers. In the 18th Century, many things were "known" or "given". In the 21st Century, it all depends on what you can strangle out of it.