In response to:

Why Not Treat SCOTUS Opinions Like They Treat the Constitution?

camanintx Wrote: Jul 16, 2012 1:01 PM
Chief Justice Roberts found the law was constitutional as written, just not for the reasons the administration argued. How is the health care "mandate" any different than the extra taxes paid by those who choose not the participate in the housing market?

What if we all simply decided to interpret the 5-4 Supreme Court decision to uphold Obamacare as a 9-0 vote to overturn Obamacare?

“Well, that wouldn’t be right!” you say. “That wouldn’t respect the rule of law. People can’t just interpret laws anyway they want.”

Why not? That’s exactly what Chief Justice Roberts and the four liberals justices did in the Obamacare case. They either changed the meaning of Obamacare (Roberts) or changed the meaning of the Constitution (Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan) to pretend that there is no conflict between Obamacare and the Constitution.

I have a couple of questions: 1)...