[Servant of the Cross]

Some great analysis of the silver linings by an impressive young lady. A good argument that can explain the behavior of the Chief Justice.

[Parmy]

Ping for later.

[Jumpmaster]

Regardless, 5 to 4 majority raises importance of throwing the leftist bums out and putting conservatives in place. I have no doubt Obama would nominate Holder for the next SC vacancy.

[HIDEK6]

Bump.

[yuleeyahoo]

Too many people can't see the forrest for all the trees in their way.

This is no longer about Obamacare. This ruling proves that there is now, no branch of the federal government that will protect the Constitution. They all have nothing but contempt for the Constituion and the law abiding, tax payers of this country.

SCOTUS has decreed that there is no limit to the power of the Government. It has the power to literally force you to do anything.

R.I.P. The American Republic 07/04/1776 - 06/28/2012

[zeugma]

The biggest problem with the ruling, is that Roberts ruled for something not requested of the court. The administration was not making arguments about the law being constitutional because the 'mandate' was a tax. I can't tell you how many times I've seen supreme court rulings where the justices essentially say "well, if such and so had been brought up, we could have ruled on it, however since it was not, we cannot."

Further, I believe there is legislative history with the act, whereby it's status as a tax was specifically rejected by congress. Roberts totally abandoned his role as a justice and assumed facts and arguments not tendered.

I still haven't made it all the way through the ruling, concurrance, and dissents yet, but I'm not really impressed with it so gar.

[Kevmo]

“[A]ccording to the Government…the mandate can be regarded as establishing a condition—not owning health insurance—that triggers a tax—the required payment to the IRS. ”
***So it is a tax on the poorest of the poor, those who cannot afford to buy healthcare. We should call it the poor tax.

[Kazan]

John Roberts is not a “traitor to his philosophy.” He is not a liberal. He is, above all else, a very strict originalist,

It's hard to take the rest of the column seriously after reading that.

[BuckeyeTexan]

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.

[raccoonnookkeeper]

Some of it is not bad because it’s downright TERRIBLE!

[Revolting cat!]

[spunkets]

"He is, above all else, a very strict originalist"

Nonsense! The Constitution was penned with the intent that taxes could only be raised for the limited expressed purposes indicated in the Document. Only a moron, or a complete nitwit would believe and claim otherwise.

"It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices."

What a BS cop out fool.

[GlockThe Vote]

More polishing a turd.

[PhatHead]

Roberts threw out the government’s argument that it could regulate inactivity because of the “substantial effect” abstention from the market would have on the market as a whole. This, he said, was way too much power

Therefore, he ruled, I shall grant exactly that power.

That Roberts guy. Man, he is a genius. So strategic.