[Alberta's Child]

Am I being unreasonable here, folks? Flame away.

[liberalh8ter]

I understand your point but it's not Robert's job to make us eat our peas; it's his job to determine the Constitutionality of that flaming heap of dung known as Obamacare. He could have voted the way he should have and then made a public statement excoriating the Congress for continually playing the SCOTUS game against the people with their contemptuous legislation.

[mom.mom]

I am trying to deal with my Roberts hatred, but after reading the ruling I think he is saying:

This is a tax. You can call it anything you want to. If you are all stupid enough to believe somehow that it isn’t (God help us all) then pay it and shut up. We can’t rule against a tax that you all agreed to. We can’t rule against a bad law unless it is unconstitutional and that is a big test. Fix it.

We can’t depend on the SC to conservatize our legislation.

[matt1234]

In the common vernacular, you are describing a “punt.” The judicial branch is supposed to be coequal, which presumes the justices fulfill their constitutional role with due diligence and adherence to their oaths. These standards are not met by simply punting the ball back to the legislative branch.