[gusopol3]

IMO, the biggest problem with his argument is that if Roberts could use “flimsy reasoning” to turn the biggest Supreme Court case of decades on its head, why won’t he in particular for decades to come, or somebody else in general, be able to do the same thing on any case.

[FreedBird]

This action is a gigantic wake up call. The majority of the country disagrees with Robert’s interpretation of this new law. Kagan shouldn’t have even been permitted to vote.

[izzatzo]

He/they will do whatever suits their whim at the time, what we call the Constitution means nothing to those people.

[HerrBlucher]

It wasn’t “flimsy reasoning” it was completely fallacious reasoning. Roberts held that two contradictory ideas can BOTH be true i.e. its a tax, its not a tax. His ruling was blatantly ridiculous.

[Paladin2]

This whole Commerce Clause "restriction" could easily be overturned by 5-4 in the near future.

Read the Ginsburg Dissent. The wholesale use of the Commerce Clause to limit personal liberty is frightening.

[MissMagnolia]

This is why it is SO important to know who you are electing (congresscritters) & what they stand for, who you elect as president, and thus who gets appointed. The other part of this issue is laws, rules, etc. are only for those who are lawful. Sort of like gun laws - the criminals don’t follow them, only the law abiding. We currently have elected a LAWLESS president who thumbs his nose at the Constitution - he should be impeached or voted out. The congresscritters WE elected don’t have the courage/will to deal with a lawless president so it is up to us to vote him out. It should have been up to us to keep him from being elected in the first place. Obviously, he has appointed 2 Supremes which is worrisome. Now we find out that Roberts is willing to twist the law into a pretzel to get a specific outcome. The ‘vetting’ of everyone elected/appointed to represent the people currently stinks and until we start paying attention & making some demands & enforcing accountability, this is what we’re going to get.

[BCrago66]

Even if we had won the entire Obamacare case 5-4, with Roberts on board, we would still be in the same precarious position we are in now. The Supreme Court libs to not respect any precedent that restricts government power over economic affairs or curtails the Commerce Clause. The first of such precedent in recent times happened almost 2 decades ago, US v. Lopez (1995), and every single lib on today's court - Breyer, Ginsberg, Sotomayor & Kagen - would reverse it (and Morrison from 2000) in a New York minute if Obama got another lib on the court to form a majority block. And the majority lib block would do the same thing to a 5-4 decision killing Obamacare. Obamacare would be dead, but a all-encompassing Commerce Clause allowing for a even more coercive ObamaCare II would be on the way. Right now we have 3 solid conservatives (Thomas, Scalia, Alito), with 2 waverers: Kennedy & Roberts (but Kennedy was great on this decision, reportedly angry when reading the dissent from the bench.) We need a couple more conservative justices for when Ginsberg & Breyer exit stage left post-2012. A solid conservative block of 5, with the occasional help of 1 or 2 of the waverers, is the only solution to our present predicament.