In response to:

Conservatives Should Tone Down Criticism of Roberts

msalmon Wrote: Jul 04, 2012 8:10 PM
Ridiculous. A strict reading of the law (required here) would mean that if the Law is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause, its unconstitutional period. If Congress wanted it to be judged based in its taxing power, it would have written it in the law. Roberts and the liberals are judicial activists. Striking down a law because one feels its unconstitutional is not necessary judicial activism.
Matt in N.C. Wrote: Jul 04, 2012 9:08 PM
On the other hand, rewriting a law at the bench to make it kindasorta constitutional IS judicial activism.
Panda Wrote: Jul 04, 2012 10:33 PM
Well stated, Matt and msalmon.

It is not the job of the Court to accept some re-dressing of a legislation after it has been passed in order to push it across the finish line.

The Court must decide if the legislation is lawful AS PASSED. If it isn't, then it must be returned to the Legislative Branch in order to be re-written accordingly. Then, it must be passed again. Only then can the Court accept the legislation.

Conservatives are apoplectic that John Roberts, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, sided with the liberal wing of the court in largely upholding the constitutionality of The Affordable Care Act (ACA). Their rhetoric has been filled with invective and they have described Roberts as “a traitor to his philosophy” who is “forever stained in the eyes of Conservatives.” His opinion has been called “the worst kind of judicial activism” and characterized as “a 21st century Dred Scott decision.”

You get the picture. In joining the majority in upholding Obamacare, Roberts has become the Benedict Arnold of the Bench.

To my...