[OldNavyVet]

I might be wrong, but my thinking has it that Chief Justice Roberts was right in decidng that the Obamacare law was Constitutionsl. It was, after all, legitimately passed by the House and Senate ... and then approved by the President ... which is pricisely what the Constitution requires for a law to be "Constitutional."

Roberts, as well as a massive nuimber of Americans, probably thought that Obamacare was a lousy law and that the best decision was to let the American chips fall where they may ... as is happening now.

The woman that was protesting at the White House today and leter shot to death by DC police, might have been simply protesting Obamacare.

May she rest u peace.

[wmfights]

I might be wrong, but my thinking has it that Chief Justice Roberts was right in decidng that the Obamacare law was Constitutionsl. It was, after all, legitimately passed by the House and Senate ... and then approved by the President ... which is pricisely what the Constitution requires for a law to be "Constitutional."

The SCOTUS also ruled that slavery was legal. It didn't make it right.The Republican Party killed slavery in this country and if they are smart enough to stick together they will kill obamacare. If nothing else it is a hill worth dying on.

[fr_freak]

It was, after all, legitimately passed by the House and Senate ... and then approved by the President ... which is pricisely what the Constitution requires for a law to be "Constitutional."

Actually, there is a lot more to being "Constitutional" then just having Congress pass it and the president sign it. The US Constitution only gives the federal government so much authority - it can't take more than its authorized authority no matter what Congress or the president does. The healthcare law gives the federal government power it is not authorized to have by the Constitution, and is therefore unconstitutional. Roberts is just a coward.

[DJ MacWoW]

I might be wrong, but my thinking has it that Chief Justice Roberts was right in decidng that the Obamacare law was Constitutionsl. It was, after all, legitimately passed by the House and Senate ... and then approved by the President ... which is pricisely what the Constitution requires for a law to be "Constitutional."

Actually Obamacare originated in the Senate and they cannot legally write any bill that requires funding, only the House can.

[ilgipper]

The Constitution sets limits on what the government can do. Just because the Congress and president sign a bill doesn’t make it Constitutional. For example, they just wacked DOMA, which was passed by a Congress and signed by a President. A bi-partisan one, too. They also wacked parts of Obamacare to give states opt outs. That was passed by Congress and signed by the president.

[mom of young patriots]

My understanding is that the three branches of government are all necessary in fully vetting a law. They all three play a part in the check and balance process. It is the JOB of SCOTUS to determine if a law, duly passed though it might be, is Constitutional when brought before them as a suit. Justice Roberts and the other cohorts on his side failed to do their job as defined by the Constitution. I saw his interpretation as a cowardly way to appease the executive branch rather than “balance” it.

[savedbygrace]

Yes, you are wrong. You should do an Internet search for the USSC decision and read it yourself.

Roberts had to claim that the penalties for not having Obamacare are taxes. The law itself says they are penalties, not taxes. IOW, Roberts had to unilaterally change their wording of the law to decide what he decided.

Also, there is at least one lawsuit working its way through the pipeline that challenges the way in which Reid took an unrelated bill that the House had sent to the Senate, deleted everything in that bill and substituted all of the Obamacare text in its place.