[tentmaker]

Roberts did not rule in favor of the law, only that it was not unconstitutional. Laws can be overturned, constitutional or not and this one should be. He did, however, restrict the authority of the legislature under the commerce clause. Obamacare has an unknown future. It is a bad law and should be repealed and this congress and future ones will see their powers somewhat restricted under commerce.

Well said.

From Roberts ruling:

"Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices."

In other words, you (the people) elected the fools who passed this travesty of a tax/notatax/healthcare bill. You fix the mess by voting them out!

In the meantime, he protected the sovereign rights of the people by limiting the expansion of the commerce clause.

[bigbob]

Absolutely right.

But you see, many here don’t really like the rule of law much when it goes against their ideology. If a liberal judge “makes law” we rant and rail against “judicial activism”, but when they obey the constitutionally-defined mandate of the court system as Justice Roberts succinctly describes, they get mad and call him nasty names.

The source of laws, good and bad, is the legislature, and legislators are chosen at the ballot box. We should feel fortunate to have judges like Justice Roberts who resist the urge to overstep the boundary, even when the result is that we must turn our efforts toward repealing this horrible law in Congress.