[Liberty Tree Surgeon]

Don’t expect the SCOTUS to pull our political chestnuts out of the fire

So basically, you're in favor of a pure majority rules democracy, not a constitutional republic? Because that's what you are saying if we can't count on SCOTUS to defend the constitution. Given demographics, I can almost guarantee you won't like the results.

[HiTech RedNeck]

I tend to agree. This clever biz of calling Obamacare a tax rather than a bridge too far of the commerce clause, at the very least just opened up a huge pandora’s box about what can be taxed and why.

[Resettozero]

So basically, you're in favor of a pure majority rules democracy, not a constitutional republic?

That is not what the poster intended to say, and not at all something that I have agreed with. Your assessment went beyond the scope of what I believe was meant.

[RedElement]

I wish the SCOTUS was in the business of guaranteeing us a constitutional democracy. Theoretically, it should. Practically, it has not. It is not my insight, but it has been observed that historically the SCOTUS has not been a bulwark against encroachments on our liberty.

See Powerline http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/06/take-this-tax.php

My point is that our best defense of our liberties it to fight for them. We may lose. But if we delegate that fight, we are almost certain to lose.