[garjog]

“I’ve wondered this too.. Could be grounds for another lawsuit headed to SCOTUS since Roberts “changed” what 0bamacare is.”

First let me say that I agree that this case ranks up there with Roe v Wade and Dread Scott.

But, actually Roberts didn’t change the law in his ruling.

My wife is an attorney and she says that the justices don’t have to follow only the arguments given by the defense.

If they see other ways that a case can win they have the right, a duty even since they are supposed to be seeking justice, to add to the case.

He argued that it is constitutional when viewed as a tax. He is wrong, but has that right to view it that way.

(We are doomed to TSA style health care. Thanks, Bush!)

[Maurice Tift]

   “I’ve wondered this too.. Could be grounds for another lawsuit headed to SCOTUS since Roberts “changed” what 0bamacare is.”

  Seems that way to me.... If the current law has to be changed to make it constitutional, then how can it be valid now?

[goodn'mad]

Huh?

[Abundy]

one of the rules of judicial interpretation is that the statute in question is presumed to be lawful/constitutional

invalidating a statute is a court’s last option

not saying I agree, but that’s the ground truth

[GeorgeWashingtonsGhost]

Thanks for clarifying. I think Kagan worked the magic here. She is a persistent, Marxist 'psy ops' critter. That's why Obama was so hell-bent on her as Justice; Because she's supposedly highly adept at CHANGING people's minds.

What was CLEARLY unconstitutional was Kagan's FAILURE TO RECUSE HERSELF. There is NO disputing that.

[GeorgeWashingtonsGhost]

It figures that Obama would accuse the SCOTUS of going ‘activist’ on him. Well they DID and IT WORKED OUT WELL FOR HIM, DIDN’T IT? I wonder if the first black, Marxist Muslim gay illegal alien POS POTUS will apologize now for the threat? NO.