In response to:

Why John Roberts is Mitt Romney's Secret Weapon

Hektor Wrote: Jul 01, 2012 7:39 AM
Unfortunately, the ruling is the ruling. So the question now becomes one of implementation. I've not yet made up my mind on what this ruling really says. I'm glad liberal warping of the Commerce Clause has finally been restricted (although to what extent remains to be seen). I could live with Justice Roberts calling the "penalty" a "tax", if there was a requirement that it be run back through congress for a new vote. (More to Follow)
Hektor Wrote: Jul 01, 2012 7:40 AM
Since Justice Roberts has said it can only stand as a tax, then Obamacare has been dramatically altered, if only in how it will be paid for. Congress should have to consider it as a tax bill. That means back through the committees and to the floor for a vote (House and Senate). Otherwise, isn't the Court actually "dabbling" in the legislative process? Especially since all elements of Obamacare are allegedly "not severable?"
Dave M Wrote: Jul 01, 2012 1:33 PM
It DOESN"T have to go back through Congress. It can be implemented as written.
Get your head on straighter.

I would caution my fellow conservatives on the frustration they may be enticed to express at Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. It is unwarranted, and it is unwise.

The reason I state such is that it is my firm belief that the Roberts' decision on the Obamacare mandate will without question bring about ultimate doom to the government control of healthcare, and through the best means possible--not judicial activism--but through the democratic process.

In boxing terminology no one has pulled a "rope-a-dope" this effective since Muhammad Ali himself. In doing so, it is clear that John Roberts duped the liberal...