First, you do understand that decisions aren't limited to arguments or briefs, right?

C.J. Roberts didn't "rewrite" any portion of the act, but found that most of it was not in violation of the US Constitution.

Your misunderstanding is therefore quite reasonable, I suppose.

Is it the Court's duty to go out of their way to support a law? It seems like Roberts was trying to find a way NOT to overturn the whole thing. Is that a re-defining of the role of SCOTUS?
If so, is it a good thing? Will it still be a good thing when the Court rules against whatever your current position on some future law?

__________________
1982 300SD " Wotan" ..On the road as of Jan 8, 2007 with Historic Tags

If the test is whether it violates the Constitution or not, then yes, there is no practical reason to limit results to only what is being argued or briefed.

C.J. Roberts result is what is expected of all appellate jurists, an examination of legal precident and a recognition of what the purpose of the judiciary is in the checks and balances of our government.

That is what the Court is supposed to do. If it's a close call, they should always go with the argument that upholds the statute. That's what judicial restraint means.

On the other hand, I don't think he had too look too far to find a way to uphold this particular statute. That it falls within the taxing power seems clear to me.

Obama made a political statement, Roberts a constitutional decision. Oranges and grapefruits.

Yes.

OK. I'll take your word for it.
Is there a case to be made for a tax Bill originating in the Senate? Does that create a problem, or does it not matter?

__________________
1982 300SD " Wotan" ..On the road as of Jan 8, 2007 with Historic Tags

Hasn't seemed to matter in a couple of centuries. Hell, even the presidency originates spending bills.

Penalty? Or Tax?

In the opening paragraphs of Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion, he clarifies that the law specifically does not involve a tax. If it did, Roberts clarifies, the Court would have had no choice but to reject the case for lack of jurisdiction as a tax case cannot be brought until someone is actually forced to pay the tax. This is, as we know, not the case.

The fact that the Court found that the mandate was constitutional under the taxing authority granted Congress by the Constitution is an entirely different matter. This finding does not reduce the individual mandate to the status of a tax—it merely says that as the penalty for failing to purchase health insurance will fall to the Internal Revenue Service for collection, it was something Congress could provide for under its Constitutional authority.

So, is the GOP narrative, that the ruling creates a tax on the middle class . . . is this just more "death panel" misinformation?

What says the man behind Romneycare?

On Monday, Eric Fehrnstrom, Mr. Romney’s senior adviser, said the Massachusetts mandate was a penalty and that Mr. Romney agrees with Democrats that Mr. Obama’s health care mandate is not a tax, either.

“The governor disagreed with the ruling of the court,” Mr. Fehrnstrom said on MSNBC’s “The Daily Rundown.” “He agreed with the dissent written by Justice Scalia, which very clearly stated that the mandate was not a tax.”

so, all the conservatives loved roberts when he overreached on "citizens united", but suddenly are upset with him on this ruling? so, now you...

1) want citizens united to be reviewed?
2) want roberts impeached, but citizens united left in place
3) are just being angry children, who are going to quit playing and take their ball home, becuase they didn't win this time

p.s. scalia is a inconsistent hypocrite, a catholic ideologue, who sucks up to the koch brothers, dick cheny etc., and then refuses to recuse himself when he has clear conflict of interest issues. ditto clarence thomas. look it up.

__________________
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."

Some tasty renderings coming up next session involving civil rights, gays and some other subjects. He will soon be another con azzwhole.

I don't know the answer to that one.

WJ Clinton "it depends what the "origins" of "originating" is! Hee Hee Hee

But the four doctrinaire liberals are beyond reproach, and Kagan should not have recused either, right?
No politics in the Supreme Court? ha ha

__________________
1982 300SD " Wotan" ..On the road as of Jan 8, 2007 with Historic Tags