[tanknetter]

Keep in mind that Roberts opinion could be read as a tough-love action. Iirc he basically said that it wasn’t the Court’s job to save the American public from the consequences of it’s own poor voting decisions.

I don’t disagree with that sentiment, at all. He actually hit the nail right on the head. I did however disagree with his ruling because I wanted a strong and renewed judicial emphasis on the limitations provided by the 10th Amendment.

[DestroyLiberalism]

tanknetter wrote:
<<
Keep in mind that Roberts opinion could be read as a tough-love action. Iirc he basically said that it wasn’t the Court’s job to save the American public from the consequences of it’s own poor voting decisions.

I don’t disagree with that sentiment, at all. He actually hit the nail right on the head. I did however disagree with his ruling because I wanted a strong and renewed judicial emphasis on the limitations provided by the 10th Amendment.
>>

************************************************************

I will never forgive John Roberts for his betrayal to the United Stated Constitution by ruling in favor of the federal individual mandate. Regardless of what ultimately happens to Obamacare, this sets a HORRIBLE precedent that now allows the federal government to FORCE Americans to purchase a product as a condition of citizenship. This is completely UN-AMERICAN!

[Night Hides Not]

I heard it from my liberal "friends": elections have consequences, and ACA was the "law of the land." Now the courts have delivered their judgment on the "law of the land." It's time for them to "embrace the suck" as the signature legislative accomplishment withers on the vine.

The clock is running out on Obama, and the rats are leaving the ship.

Ok, ok, I'll cool it on the metaphors. lol

[Jeff Chandler]

he basically said that it wasn’t the Court’s job to save the American public from the consequences of it’s own poor voting decision

Once this gets overturned by the full court, it will be interesting to see if he really meant that, or if the ramifications of requiring the law to be implemented as written will be too politically dangerous for SCOTUS to face.