” I’ll add that to me right now Roberts seems to have been swayed by a preoccupation with his own legacy, “
His legacy is now excrement.
Speaker of the House John Boehner tweets: “House Republicans remain committed to #FullRepeal of the president’s health care law and all its tax hikes, fees and mandates” https://twitter.com/johnboehner/
Reporting on the tone in the Court room durring the announcements, Mike Sacks at Huff Po writes, "Summarizing his delicate decision from the bench, Roberts reminded his listeners that it is "not our job to save the people from the consequences of their political choices." Still, the decision appeared to do just that."
Also discussing the courtroom as the decision was handed down: Jeff Toobin tweets, "Roberts was red-eyed and unhappy as he read.” https://twitter.com/JeffreyToobin
At National Review Online Johnathan Adler offers some comfort for those unhappy with the decision, "...as I understand the ruling, the opinion does very little to enlarge the federal government’s power and, in key respects, reinforced federalism limitations on federal power. "
Ilya Somin at Volokh Conspiracy: Although the Supreme Court upheld the individual mandate as an exercise of the Tax Power, a majority of the justices also ruled that it is not a legitimate exercise of Congress’ powers under the Commerce Clause. In doing so, they endorsed the plaintiffs’ argument that the individual mandate exceeds the scope of the Commerce power because it does not regulate “economic activity,” but instead targets inactivity. http://www.volokh.com/2012/06/28/supreme-court-majority-endorses-activity-inactivity-distinction/
David Bernstein at Volokh Conspiracy writes, “I’m wondering whether a close reading of the opinions will somehow persuade me that the individual mandate can be a “tax” for constitutional purpose, but “not a tax” for Anti-Injunction Act purposes” http://www.volokh.com/2012/06/28/tax-or-not-a-tax/
Boehner had released this statement following the decision: “The president’s health care law is hurting our economy by driving up health costs and making it harder for small businesses to hire. Today’s ruling underscores the urgency of repealing this harmful law in its entirety. What Americans want is a common-sense, step-by-step approach to health care reform that will protect Americans’ access to the care they need, from the doctor they choose, at a lower cost. Republicans stand ready to work with a president who will listen to the people and will not repeat the mistakes that gave our country ObamaCare.” http://www.speaker.gov/press-release/speaker-boehner-statement-supreme-court-s-health-care-ruling
Randy concludes, "Academics are sure to react to today’s decision by declaring the New Federalism dead, but they would be wrong to do so. The Founder’s scheme of limited and enumerated powers has survived to fight another day."
At Bloomberg View, Noah Feldman says the Court took the cautious route by upholding the mandate but sent "a direct message to Democratic politicians who refused to call the mandate a tax: You should have told us the truth in the first place." http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-28/roberts-chooses-restraint-over-history-on-obamacare.html
Boehner: "The Court makes a decision on whether the law is constitutional. It doesn't mean that he law is wise It doesn't mean that the law is good for the country."
Orin Kerr at Volokh: "The Chief Justice’s opinion finds an interesting middle ground in the battle of absolutes over the Affordable Care Act. Under the Chief Justice’s opinion, real economic mandates are beyond the power of Congress. Congress can’t force action where there was none. Congress can’t say you must act or else go to jail, for example. The individual mandate is constitutional because despite the name because it’s not really a mandate. Congress called it a mandate, to be sure, but in practice it’s really just a small tax." http://www.volokh.com/2012/06/28/the-mandate-survives-because-its-not-really-a-mandate/
MSNBC has a poll on the decision on the question "Do you agree with this ruling?" 58%: Yes. Roberts provides a rational, nuanced decision in upholding the law. 38.5%: No. The reasoning in this decision is fractured and incorrect. 3.4% I don't know. I'll have to read the whole decision along with the concurring and dissenting opinions before I decide myself. http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/28/12459343-vote-do-you-agree-with-supreme-court-ruling-on-health-care-law?lite