In response to:

John Roberts in Context

GRUP Wrote: Jul 07, 2012 2:43 AM
Wasn't it RR who had the quote about not turning down 80 % ? Has Roberts in fact defenestrated one of the totalitarian stool legs used to prop up BB since the 1930's ? " ‘Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Congress already possesses expansive power to regulate what people do. Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clause would give Congress the same license to regulate what people do not do. The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it. " A " Thomas Majority " ahead ? GBUSA
Dave M Wrote: Jul 07, 2012 2:57 PM
OK-once again.
Roberts limited nothing. His comments on the commerce clause is not the opinion of the court but a dicta and thus not binding on anyone. Neither the dissenting justices or the other four joined Roberts in it.
Dave M Wrote: Jul 07, 2012 3:00 PM
In addition as has been pointed out a gazillion times already- striking down the ACA under the commerce clause would have been far more restrictive and immediately effective than a hypothetical future limitation that will be used under circumstances no one really knows.

While conservatives feel appropriate indignation, even rage, over John Roberts’ surprising, unpersuasive decision to uphold ObamaCare, we should avoid personalized denunciations of the Chief Justice.

He previously served in both the Reagan and first Bush administrations, and voted with the court majority in the landmark 2008 Heller decision, finding a fundamental right under the Second Amendment for citizens to keep guns in their homes. He also cast decisive votes in Citizens United, protecting free speech in elections, and in Crawford vs. Marion County, allowing states to require photo identification for voters.

Roberts is only 57 and...