Thank you for asking.
There are several reasons that come to mind, but I will offer a few for starters: 1) by declaring the mandate fines a tax, it makes it far easier for a new executive and a new congress to repeal. When, and it is now whether but when, the Republican party gets a majority, preferably cloture proof, in the senate, and the new President is inaugurated, it only takes a simple majority to totally repeal PPAC. If in the unlikely event that the Dems retain either the Senate majority, or the WH, the House can stall it forever by refusing to fund it.
2) It forces Obama to defend Obamacare AS A TAX, and the Democraps down-ballot to either distance themselves from the issue in order to save their own skins, or to stand with him in defendinding the indefesible and suffering the same fate as he earns.
3) This decision has energized the TEA parties like no other way could. What was the single greatest factor in the landslide of 2010? It was Obamacare’s riling a hornets nest of public sentiment. Further, a vast majority of libertarians (likely including Ron Paul himself), independants, and more than a few democrats will be happy to vote to remove Zero from office, which will also enhance the down ballot a bit.
Chief Justice John Roberts did, indeed act bravely at the peril of his own personal reputation and credibility. For that, he is to be commended, and in the future, hopefully honored.
My only criticism of him is that he voted politically rather than judicially, but his sacrafice of his queen likely enabled a checkmate of Obama and company.
It forces nothing on the lying little bastard commie. He is already lying to the liberal minions and has his staff doing it also. What the pirate Roberts did was follow orders. He cares not a whit that his action further denegrates our Constitution and further endentures millions to the leftist agenda which is to bring about a collpase of the insurnace system and usher in single payer healthcare under the globalist agenda to reduce population. Robrts is a traitorous creep. He even joked about the outrage he has caused, so we know he is amused rather than worried. He works for the globalist agenda.
I suspect all your wonderful praise for Roberts is premature at best.
You say: If we get a majority in the Senate and Congress... If Romney is elected and if he repeals it and if he has support? Ya say the Tea Party is energized? Where were they when this was all being developed?
Lots of big ifs.
What about the tens of millions of foreigners, millions of illegals, most of which have zip health insurance?..What about the tens of millions of Americans who lost their jobs, health benefits, or the millions who are now underemployed and had their heath insurance reduced to near worthlessness if they still have benefits?
Ya think they will not see this as a benefit?
I thought his oath of office required him to rule according to the Constitution, rather than gaming the results.
How do you justify supporting someone breaking their solemn oath?
used car salesmen fight over people like you.
When, and it is now whether but when, the Republican party gets a majority, preferably cloture proof, in the senate, and the new President is inaugurated, it only takes a simple majority to totally repeal PPAC.That is the hope. However, I would caution the future ripple-effect of this precendent that Roberts set: That congress can tax inactivity.
Both dems & repubs have always danced around what they can get away with. Most of the crap they propose never makes it out of committee -- perhaps because they just were not sure they could get away with it.
Roberts has now signaled to current & future politicians that they are truly "weapons free" and can coerce citizens into something they have no interest in, under threat of IRS prosecution. All they have to do is enforce the legislation with a penalty-tax. The only limitation is their imagination.
Personally, I don't want *ANY* politi-slut having that option. I don't even want the truest, bonafide conservative hero you could imagine having that option. Can you imagine what some future moon-bat-crazy liberal majority could do with that option?
No sir, What Roberts did was reprehensible! Who knows what future congressmen will dream up and justify under "the roberts ruling". Obamacare may be the *least* of our worries now.
Now we have to either get a future SCOTUS case to reverse roberts -or- get a future SCOTUS case to constrain taxation -or- get a future congress to legislate the option away -or- amend the constitution to preclude the option.
I hope history doesn't prove we would have been better off if SCOTUS had declined to hear the case at all!