[80sReaganite]

This article is nonsense.
1) My understanding of the way the majority decision way written with regard to the commerce clause was that it was incidental to the argument that it cannot be used as precedence for future cases. [It's called dicta: n United States legal terminology, a dictum (plural dicta) is a statement of opinion or belief considered authoritative though not binding, because of the authority of the person making it.] As such, it does nothing to limit the commerce clause, as we will find out in future cases.
2) On this he does get it correct. This will have far reaching effects (think highway funding being held until state speed limits or seat belt laws are brought in line with “federal guidelines”.
3) His 3rd reason is a circular reference to back to #1. Therefore it is invalid.

When he states we did not come out to badly, he is simply in denial.
1) John Roberts gave THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THE POWER TO “TAX” US FOR SOMETHING WE DID NOT DO.
2)THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN FORCE US TO BUY A PRODUCT FROM A PRIVATE COMPANY.

This law was unconstitutional from the day is was jammed down our throat. The only thing good about this decision is that it'll force conservatives into action. I will go door-to-door if I have to in order to register and turnout voters for the Senate and President.

Let's face the facts. We face an uphill battle. We have to get control of the senate and the presidency. THEN we have to force them to repeal this monstrosity. This is no small feat, given the GOP’s propensity for spending when holding all the legislature and presidency....

[George189]

Your understanding of dicta is incorrect.

Roberts explicitly stated: “without deciding the Commerce Clause question, I would find no basis to adopt such a saving construction.” Thus in order to reach the ultimate decision, he had to reach the Commerce grounds first. It’s a holding, despite the fact that leftists wish that is was not.