[Alberta's Child]

The problem here is that Roberts' opinion is filled with thigns that will become part of the plaintiffs' arguments in future challenges against ObamaCare.

Personally, I think Roberts knew damn well that ObamaCare is unconstitutional but couldn't come to grips with the idiocy of the legal arguments that were brought in this particular case. For example, if I were a Supreme Court justice I'd be asking myself how I could have Attorneys General from 28 states filing legal briefs to overturn ObamaCare when it had originally been passed in the U.S. Senate by a 60-39 margin.

[uncbob]

I could have Attorneys General from 28 states filing legal briefs to overturn ObamaCare when it had originally been passed in the U.S. Senate by a 60-39 margin.

Here in PA we elected a GOP Gov, a GOP senator and the GOP Reps now outnumber the DEMS

This happened in 2010

And if Roberts used that reasoning then he should have taken into account the results of the 2010 election

[Paladin2]

"For example, if I were a Supreme Court justice I'd be asking myself how I could have Attorneys General from 28 states filing legal briefs to overturn ObamaCare when it had originally been passed in the U.S. Senate by a 60-39 margin. "

The Senate no longer represents the interests of the States.

[uncbob]

Too bad you weren’t on the court back after 94 when the GOP trounced the dems and took over the congress and then passed Term Limits and the Line Item Veto BOTH of which Clinton signed and the court declared them BOTH unconstitutional

You could have persuaded them they were constitutional since a GOP dominated congress passed them yet they were signed by a democrat president