[1rudeboy]

So, are you saying that Roberts was right about Obamacare?

So, are you saying Roberts sat on the fence?

[ClearCase_guy]

Perhaps "sitting on the fence" isn't le mot juste

"The Affordable Care Act is constitutional in part and unconstitutional in part The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause," Roberts wrote. "That Clause authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to engage it. In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress's power to tax."

So, it's sort of constitutional and sort of unconstitutional and let's have it both ways and have a spending bill originate in the Senate and we'll call it a tax, and we'll let the feds control a huge part of the economy because that's what the founders would want.

I call it having it both ways. And I think the court is cowardly to do so.

[fwdude]

So, are you saying Roberts sat on the fence?

I think Roberts is sitting on something other than a fence, but that's another issue.

The point is that he DID "legislate" in the Obamacare decision.