[aruanan]

This is our fight, not John Roberts’, and we should accept the challenge without whining over his decision.

Yet another of the many dumb-ass remarks regarding Roberts's ploy. Roberts basically said that if he were to decide things based on how Congress and the President described them (It's not a tax; it's a penalty), Obamacare would have to be considered unconstitutional. Then he decided that he didn't want it to be unconstitutional so he interpreted it to mean exactly what they were all claiming it did NOT mean in order to give to them what they were wanting all along. This is not being a good judge. This is sophomoric word games designed to arrive at a predetermined end no matter what. He pulled a bigger wad of dreck out of his butt on this one than Blackmun did in Roe v Wade.

[Tublecane]

“He pulled a bigger wad of dreck out of his butt on this one than Blackmun did in Roe v Wade.”

Yes, because at least according to the 9th amendment there are such things as unspecified reserved rights. So the Roe argument is over whether abortion is or is not a right, not whether or not it’s in the Constitution. Obamacare, whether the penalty is a tax or not, goes against explicit portions of the Constitution, as well as its overall logic. Rewriting the law to make it constitutional goes against the most basic priciples of what it means to be a judge, as everyone understands it.