In response to:

The Roberts Opinion: It's Not All Bad

Kermudjin Wrote: Jun 29, 2012 12:02 AM
Ms. Hicks engages in spin. Whether the mandate is valid under the commerce clause or the power to tax is a distinction without a difference. It is actually reasonable that Roberts has expanded government sway over individuals. Imagine: Congress wants people to exercise more; so they mandate we exercise an hour a day and if we don't they will tax us for failure to comply. If we resist and don't pay the tax, we go to jail. That is de facto coercion. The example of sin taxes is specious - in each case the tax is for active involvement in a specific behavior - not for inactivity.
John Bull Wrote: Jun 29, 2012 12:11 AM
Not true...

Roberts realizes that the taxing power is politicians power and congress's duty... but courts have to decide on mandates and what is the right exercise...

“The same analysis here suggests that the shared responsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax, not a penalty: First, for most Americans the amount due will be far less than the price of insurance, and, by statute, it can never be more. It may often be a reasonable financial decision to make the payment rather than purchase insurance… Second, the individual mandate contains no scienter requirement [i.e. it’s not punitive for breaking the law].

Panda Wrote: Jun 29, 2012 12:52 AM
James, you're wrong. Read the dissent opinion, and watch those 4 REAL justices take Roberts to school.

It is not Roberts's job to act as the President's lawyer and redesign his argument for him. It is not Roberts's job to look for ways to equate penalties with taxes--or worse yet, to replace penalties with taxes in a legislation that does not do that on its own.

Had Roberts's president wanted to present the plan as a tax, he was free to do so in the original writing--and this would have required steps of presenting the plan as such to the citizenry. None of this occurred. Furthermore, Roberts never even tried to provide SCOTUS precedent for his alarming connection of the tax concept with penalties.

He didn't try because he didn't...
Panda Wrote: Jun 29, 2012 12:58 AM Injustice Roberts is a leftist, pure and simple. He has proven that beyond any doubt with back-to-back rulings.

As a leftist activist, Roberts took it upon himself to cross several lines--and he provided zero rationale for doing so. When you read the dissent opinion, you realize that Roberts simply engaged in judicial activism to help his president.

So please, don't insult our intellect by attempting to defend a man who has gladly declared war on our Founding Fathers. Just don't. Any insinuation on your part that the Founding Fathers would approve of stretching penalties to mean taxes when the legislation went through none of the applicable steps for taxation--is deeply insulting.

There is no part of what Roberts did...
Panda Wrote: Jun 29, 2012 12:58 AM
...that would merit the favor of our Founding Fathers. They would be shocked and saddened at his activism.

And so should you.

John Roberts is not a “traitor to his philosophy.” He is not a liberal. He is, above all else, a very strict originalist, and the Chief Justice of a Court that is acutely aware – and wary – of its role in politics. Understand that his opinion, though certainly not ideal for the Right, contains more good news for conservatives in its pages than it does on its face.

So let’s take a look at his surprising opinion – the controlling opinion, as it’s called, which sets precedent and “say[s] what the law is,” as Marshall said so long...