Democrats and other socialists may celebrate this SCOTUS decision; but, it’s too bad that most people in the U.S. disagree with their view.  I look forward to a new Congress, after the coming election, with Republican majorities in both the Senate and House, with a Republican president, who will completely overturn this monstrosity which has been fraudulently imposed on the American public.  How’s that for a contrarian view of this ruling.  This decision will galvanize the Tea Party, of which I am a proud member.

To be positive about this decision (there are potential conflicting layers) of the Supreme Court, I think Justice Roberts pulled off a magnificent coup on this (un)Democratic administration.  As thinkers absorb this decision, I believe they will reason accordingly, and refute the socialist knee-jerk reaction.  I’m afraid Obama’s past incautious remarks have come back to haunt him, although he may not realize this until he is decisively defeated in November.

For those who are celebrating, consider three things that Justice Roberts has engineered:

1.  He has isolated the Supreme Court from any Democratic Party criticism for the remainder of this presidential campaign.

2.  He has removed the ONE potentially major claim that Obama could campaign on…..that he tried to pass healthcare “reform”, but that darned old Republican-dominated Supreme Court negated his massive (and fraudulent) efforts.  Please note that NOW, Obama must run on a healthcare “reform” platform which most voters detest, something he has avoided thus far.

3.  Roberts has punted the “reform” law back into Congress, where it will be dealt with, quickly, by the Republicans after the election.

This should be a lesson to the Democrats (eventually, when their brains catch up with their emotions), and their (socialist) supporters.  There is a specific reason why I use “socialist”; the only countries where “universal” healthcare has been implemented, and has subsequently failed miserably (hint: outrageous waste and cost) have been ruled by either overt socialist parties or socialist-oriented, like in Britain and Canada.

Putting aside the silliness of Roberts’ legal “construct” which is devoid of any serious constitutional fealty, the legacy of this decision will remain with us far beyond the the hoped for repeal of obamacare. Roberts also decoupled the “tax” mandate from the very specific taxing authority expressed in the constitution’s article I section 8 and 9 taxing powers, or the income tax. This is not an excise or income tax but a “tax” on behavior. Thus, we can expect an unquenchable power grabbing future Obama or Reid or Pelosi to, for example, tax homeschooling parents who refuse to teach a homosexual curriculum. And despite Ginsberg’s gratuitous footnote you cannot distinguish taxation of individual behavior from the power to “tax” the behavior of religious institutions.

This article fails to educate and inform your readers of the very real and serious consequences of the Roberts’ decision.

I applaud Chief Justice Roberts for pointing out that if we, the people, want a Government of our choice, we cannot duck our responsibility by expecting either the Legislative or the Judicial branches to do what ONLY, WE THE PEOPLE, can constitutionally do. By blaming the Congress and the Supreme Court for what we have failed to do, that is, exercise the constitutionally guaranteed ultimate power, we are individually and collectively responsible for the success or failure of our country.

1. this ruling does nothing to restore or protect the commerce clause. wickard v. filburn still rules the day and *none* of the leftist political justices signed on to robert’s opinon. the vote not withstanding, he was writing entirely for himself against the other 8.

2. this ruling lets stand the principle that the federal government can force any living individual citizen to buy a private sector product it deems necessary for the “general welfare” (a phrase in an introductory clause with no limiting function that leftists commonly use to justify their false belief in a “living, breathing” constitution. in fact i believe that roberts actually cited that introductory phrase in his opinion. stunning). show me the enumerated power in the constitution that allows this. show me the founder or framer expressing this federal interpretation of power in the constitution (which express purpose was to limit federal power to the absolute minimum to protect the lives, and private property of states and individual citizens from external threats, other states and criminal individuals). this ruling *creates* a whole new federal power out of whole cloth. how does that square with the fact that the constitution was to hold federal power constant at the level established in 1789 with the only additions being further amendments?

3. finally, the sheer lawlessness of a judge rewriting a statute (substituting an new and itself unconstitutional catagory of tax for a penalty) is something that should demand immediate impeachment. no definition of justice under the constitution allows a judge to make up law on the spot in a constitutional republic. that act is logically excluded from a constitution that holds federal power constant. also, to continue with my refutation of the article above. rewriting a law is not taking the difference between constitutional or unconstitutional interpretation. that implies that an existing law is ambiguous. no, this is tyranny. and roberts is unmasked as a leftist. pure and simple.