[cableguymn]

Sorry.. Not buying it..

Roberts sure stuck it to Obama by upholding his bill.. What next? He’s going to side with in on AZ? Opps.

[Leaning Right]

Sorry.. Not buying it..

Me neither. In fact, the title of the article is actually laughable.

Because of Roberts, will ObamaCare stand? YES

Because of Roberts, will ObamaCare be the law for years to come? YES (good luck repealing it, dem's will forever filibuster any repeal attempt)

The very best anyone can say is that Roberts threw an soft-boiled egg at the ObamaCare train as it roared past him.

[kingu]

Roberts sure stuck it to Obama by upholding his bill.. What next? He’s going to side with in on AZ? Opps.

Let's extend upholding Arizona... How long before Berkeley or San Francisco decides that smokers violate the clean air act, and therefore are subject to arrest and indefinite detainment until the EPA picks them up?

Or decides to arrest the CEO of a power plant for failing to use a particular biofuel derived from switch grass?

I've yet to see a Roberts ruling that doesn't take into account the long term viewpoint of protecting the constitution. Does Congress have the power to tax 100% of your earnings? Yes. It does. It might not like your reaction to it, but it sure has that power right now. And I say right now, as I don't expect that absolute power of taxation to be as long lived as liberals in Congress imagine it will live.

But most significant, we've finally got a ruling limiting the commerce clause, and a ruling explicitly stating that Congress can not compel participation in commerce. It can regulate commerce, but it can't make you party to it.

That's a departure from really bad rulings of the past, and I sincerely believe that many a filing will be quoting this ruling as a limitation to the Commerce Clause. Expect a lot of revisits of past opinions after this, and a few liberals on the court having egg on their face for having voted to limit federal powers in their all consuming lust to expand them.

I see the Arizona ruling as being perfectly consistent with this unwinding of infinite federal powers. And, no, I'm not trying to turn bat urine into a golden ray of light where all around is dark. These are rulings that will last for generations and are consistent with a constitutionalist viewpoint. Alito, Thomas and Scalia probably overreached in their dissents, but I very much appreciate Robert's viewpoint that the SCOTUS is not the third house of Congress and a restoration of the balance of powers.

[Brad from Tennessee]

Roberts also ruled that the states can opt out of the Medicaid expansion portion of the law without penalty. ObamaCare would have withdrawn all Medicaid funding from states who did not expand their program. Expanded Medicaid, covering about 20 million new clients nationwide, would have been federally funded the first two years after which the states would fund most of it. Roberts said the government could not coerce the states by threatening to defund their existing Medicaid systems. This means in a state that opts out of expanded Medicaid—maybe as many as 26 states—the new clients who would have been covered are moved over to that state's insurance exchange program. Since these new clients can't afford insurance the cost of their policies will have to be subsidized by ObamaCare. This upsets the whole funding formula. People who live in states with expanded Medicaid will be footing the bill for people in states that have opted out of expanded Medicaid. This disparity would encourage more and more states to opt out and ObamaCare goes broke without a new funding source.

That's the Trojan Horse.

[Carry_Okie]

They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce,not to compel it.

The framers' idea of the term "regulate" was to make regular, frequent, and unimpeded. Roberts stands that idea on its head (as do most people today).

Does that make me qualified to be Chief Justice?

[Steelers6]

I think Grace Wyler needs to have her head examined. Barry is saying demolish me some more.

[Steelers6]

I think Grace Wyler needs to have her head examined. Barry is saying demolish me some more.

[Happy Rain]

Right, because Roberts ON HIS OWN made the individual mandate a tax issue noncompliance to Obamacare now means prison!

It was better when it was still a mere “penalty.”

Not since Roe v Wade has the SCOTUS screwed up so bad that countless lives have and will be destroyed.

Roberts is the devil.

[scrabblehack]

Another such victory and we will be finished.

[Leep]

Sorry.. Not buying it..

Roberts sure stuck it to Obama by upholding his bill.. What next?

---

This would be like electing a Republican President, during one of America’s worst economies in its history, who is closer to Obama than Reagan and expecting he will rule right of center and appoint conservative judges.

[sam_paine]

Sorry.. Not buying it.. Roberts sure stuck it to Obama by upholding his bill. (sarcasm implied)

Congress tried to make SCOTUS shine this turd, and Roberts told Congress and the American people to put their big boy pants on and clean up this mess that THEY MADE.

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT
BUSINESS v. SEBELIUS p. 6

...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.

The limits on taxation are the votes of our representation!!!

That's the deal. Tax law can be changed every two years. Commerce Clause expansions can last centuries.

If we let a future Pelosi do this again, then we deserve it. If we're not going to participate in the political process, then SCOTUS has said they're not going to become a subcommittee of Congress.

Roberts put a wall up at Wickard. The Commerce Clause expansion of the last century has stopped.

The above could've just as easily come from Scalia, but if Kagan or Sotamayor had written the opinon it would've read like a Marxist manifesto. Remember, lower courts MUST use the reasonings in here immediately. This may have an effect on interstate CO2 regs, who knows?

For those who say this is a novel "tax." What is an earned income credit? It's a NEGATIVE TAX on income you didn't create.

Repeal it. It didn't originate in the House.

Kudo's to Roberts for telling the American voter to get their act together.

[Slambat]

It’s simple, Bush wanted to appoint a liberal so he tried
Harriet Miers but she was a no go so they sent in a stealth
liberal and we got Roberts. Or, Bush was the bozo that
SNL tried to make Ford out to be and he got duped. Either way
Roberts is not the conservative he lead us to believe at his
confirmation hearings so he’s either a lying snake in the grass or he’s been compromised.

[Salvation]

Are you an attorney and know things better than what the Justices of the Supreme court do?