[sam_paine]

TCHAD: Not according to Mark Levin. The Roberts remarks about the Commerce Clause were from Roberts alone and were not part of the majority opinion.

That is correct, that vote was 4-1-4. But Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy could have joined that opinion without conceding the tax argument.

So why didn't they take the opportunity and join and make it 5-4 commerce clause precedent?

[Hoodat]

It is my understanding that only two Justices (Ginsburg & Sotomayor) upheld the commerce clause to empower government to impose the mandate. Whether Scalia et al joined Roberts in signing off to his opinion is irrelevant. Those four Justices made it clear in there dissent where they stood on the commerce clause.

So by my count, the vote is 7-2 against the commerce clause, which incidentally was the same vote count in favor of equal protection in Bush v. Gore.

[chris37]

Becuase they wanted nothing to do with Chief Judas Roberts’ traitorous ruling.

[little jeremiah]

I hope that some time a simple summary for the uneducated will be posted. Maybe then I’ll understand all the ins and outs.

[alstewartfan]

Maybe the didn’t want to give Captain Kangaroo cover. What good would narrowing the commerce clause do if you can simply make up ANOTHER phony rationale for stealing Americans’ freedoms? Bob

[Robert DeLong]

Better yet, why didn’t he join them and vote correctly that it was unconstitutional?

[TChad]

So why didn't they take the opportunity and join and make it 5-4 commerce clause precedent?

I don't know. I don't even know where to turn for authoritative commentary on this subject.

[One Name]

They were digusted at that point, maybe.

The commerce clause was way out of line, already. No Constitutionalist could in any way buy into an argument that the federal government can make you purchase something...

The whole thing is off the scale.