Not really, he flipped flopped on this issue.

I don't really think he sees it a a siding in any capacity. I believe he has interpreted correctly. Under the commerce clause it does not fly. Call it a tax and it does fly according to the Constitution.

Oh. I agree. In the light of the Constitution, it is a sound decsion. I was more referring to the ideological expectations of those who championed his appointment in the first place. There were and still are expectations from the rather more conservative factions that "their" Justices will fall in line, in lockstep, to hold back the intents of the "liberals". As I pointed out, ideologies can and are tempered by actual experience on the bench and exposure to other well thought out and considered viewpoints. (I do exclude Justice Thomas from this effect: anyone who does not even ask questions or raises issues on Court matters for as long as Thomas has and who apprently just functions as a "rubber stamp" to the Court's more "conservative" elements is doing little else than taking up space and breathable air)...

Another interesting question may be how Robert's reframing of the issue from a Commerce Clause issue to one of a taxation issue in order to "achieve" a decision will fly with the Tea Party and other who decry "judicial activisim"? Or is this to be seen as just Roberts "letting down the side"?...

...

What I don't understand about the SJC's ruling is how can they call it a tax when it's not being paid to the government? Does Blue Cross now have the power to tax individuals as well?

Page 32 of the opinion - The tax being considered is the extra payment to the IRS made when you don't purchase insurance.

As a BTW: did anyone else notice how the thread about the German Court decision banning circumcision is getting way more replies than the two threads about the SCOTUS Obamacare decision? Subsimmers (most of us male) seem to have vividly indicated their priorities... :D

...

It's a play on words August. It's like saying I was "billed" or I was "invoiced." Money is being paid to the government in a form of a tax. Not a bill or invoice for healthcare. Blue Cross has the power to send you a bill or invoice. Depends on what you chose to call it. :up:

Off with their heads.

:haha:

lol

anyway I cant go on facebook at the moment, to many people celebrating when they dont even know whats about to hit em. Most people I know can't afford health care, so they are going to get screwed out of it and end up paying a fine. I dont have the exact quote but obama said they wont raise taxes on couples making less then 250,000 dollars. Once again another obama lie as this is essentially at tax (by definition used today). Also in new york you cant have anything larger then a 20 Oz of pop, I forsee with this law upheald as a tax, the government will soon make a tax on those who drink soda.

We are from the government, and we are here to help.

Like I stated. This is a precursor of things to come. It is not a commerce clause. It's a tax! :D

again it all depends what Roberts is trying to achieve. As Chief Justice of SCOTUS ( a dream job for any lawyer btw), he has to worry about what effect the ruling has on the country now and for centuries to come.

He could just as easily justified that the law was unconstitutional. But his Court would then be viewed as totally partisan and worse, all the tough issues that Congress refuses to deal with would be dumped on SCOTUS's lap.

Justifying it under the "commerce" clause was becoming more and more of a stretch also and opened the Court to more of this type of political cases in the future. Justifying it under the general power to tax basically throws all these issues back to Congress where they belong. Actually a smart play if that is what he was trying to achieve.

I think those are the parasite class. I think they believe their fellow taxpayers will pay a higher tax to cover theirs. Some jerk calling in on our local radio said as much this morning.

You're right though, they're going to get hit. And they get what they deserve. I'm just looking for somebody on the other side of the aisle to bring up legislation requiring all citizens to own a gun to fulfill 2nd Amendment guarantees.....or pay a tax. The precedent has been set for anything now. It's just a matter of a vote, and a signature.

The liberals in this country are jerks. Why so many supporters of this law (ala Unions) are requesting waivers from the law they fought so hard to get? 20% of new waivers in Pelosi's lefty district nonetheless.

No he didn't, he said he won't raise one type of tax.

Well despite that not being true lets see how your foresight is.
You already are taxed on soda in some states and some outlets, plus your taxes already go to the manufacturers and their suppliers so you when you buy soda you again pay for their product which you already paid for.

This is a very valid observation. I also have the feeling Roberts was perhaps a liite weary of being the "loyal conservative" of the Court and may have wished to exert a bit of differentiation from the more rabid elements of the Right. I have been listening to Hannity on the radio, and ,as expected, hRoberts is being excoriated for his efforts to justify the decision as a tax. It is oddly amusing the same Tea Party factions who yelled loud and often that Obamacare was really a tax in sheep's clothing for all these months are now enraged SCOTUS has found Obamacare constitutional as a tax and not a "penalty". "Daughter, sister, daughter, sister, daughter, sister..."

...

Boy...that was hard....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8erePM8V5U