[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

If Roberts made his ruling on the basis of some political calculus; then I completely agree with you.

If, on the other hand, Roberts made his ruling on the basis of his interpretation of the law, and in particular, the Constitution, that's another matter. In that case, the ruling should be attacked on the basis of the law, rather than the political issues involved.

It seems to me (as nothing but an interested outsider) that the SCOTUS has become far too political -- in the worst sense of the word. It was supposed to be a body that interpreted Constitutional law in a disinterested (and particularly a non-partisan) fashion. Now, as you point out, four of the members are left-wing idiots -- and four others seem to be partisan right-wingers (although that makes them enlightened, rather than idiots, it's still a partisan political mindset). Roberts is the only one whose vote isn't easily predicted; because he appears to put the law above partisan politics. Anyhow, that's how things seem to this foreigner, based mainly on things I've read on FR.

[freedomfiter2]

There are few portions in the US Constitution more clear than the 10th Amendment. Roberts had to use an extremely twisted world view to reach the conclusion he came to.

[AZLiberty]

... Now, as you point out, four of the members are left-wing idiots -- and four others seem to be partisan right-wingers ...

The problem is that people -- apparently even you -- interpret belief in the Constitution as being partisan right-wing behavior.

To a first approximation, the Supreme Court currently consists of four Constitutionalists, four anti-Constitutionalists, and one who joined the second group last year.