Roberts adhered to court's task
Chief Justice John Roberts hews strictly to task, and I happen to agree with his conclusion that the commerce clause is overextended, but that the mandate is unproblematic as a penalty the government may impose. His reasoning is technical, a difficult read.
The dissenters, on the other hand, practice an easier rhetoric and lapse at times into arguing a political case: "Avoidable uncertainties are hostile to economic progress ... and the nation's freedom. If these risks and uncertainties are to be imposed, it must not be by the judiciary." An odd remark, since the court is deciding on the legitimacy of an act passed, imposed if it can by quite another arm of government.
It would serve the Supreme Court better if Justice Antonin Scalia, say, were to restrain his eloquence and wit and not insert, as in Bush vs. Gore and above, his own measure of the desirability of an act, or tout the nation's interest. Neither is for the Supreme Court to decide.
Obamacare is unconstitutional
Even Justice Anthony Kennedy recognizes Obamacare as grossly unconstitutional.
But Chief Justice John Roberts, joining the Supreme Court's reliably left-wing prevaricators, has upheld the legislation's insurance mandate anyway, in a perversely contorted decision.
Roberts then twists 180 degrees, personally renaming the payment as a "tax" anyway, proceeding next to legitimize it under his preposterously distorted reading of the limited taxing power of Congress.
So now the taxing authority becomes the fourth horseman of America's malfeasant fifth column -- joining the similarly misconstrued "general welfare," "necessary and proper," and "commerce" clauses as an additional contrivance for enlarging government's intrusion into citizens' lives, cynically bypassing the Constitution's enumerated powers, and diametrically contradicting the Constitution's unambiguous, explicitly stated intent.
Paraphrasing the warped court majority: the federal government cannot force you to eat broccoli, but can tax you now if you don't.
Work to move our country forward
Republicans need to start accepting a majority decision in the Senate and the House, which passed the Affordable Care Act in 2010 and which the Supreme Court just ruled constitutional.
Snap out of it. GOP members of Congress must start doing the job for which the American people sent them to Washington. They must stop gridlocking everything that needs to be done to move this country forward, not backward.
Come November, let's vote out anyone who can't and won't work for the American people and send them home. They work for us and not the other way around.
Affordable Care Act a monstrosity
Chief Justice Roberts accepted then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi's admonishment to "Pass the bill before you read it," by creating his own version of the bill to uphold its constitutionality.
He first declared the Anti-Injunction Act didn't apply since Congress clearly intended that a penalty and not a tax be used to enforce compliance of the individual mandate.
After finding no constitutional support using the commerce clause, he then declares that Congress did indeed intend for the penalty to be a tax, finding support within the taxing clause of the Constitution. So I guess he was against the individual mandate before he was for the individual mandate.
Roberts concludes his opinion by lecturing us that it is the people's problem: "But the court does not express any opinion on the wisdom of the Affordable Care Act. Under the Constitution that judgment is reserved to the people."
The only method left to rid ourselves of this 2,000-plus-page monstrosity, known as Obamacare is to replace President Barack Obama in November.
Health coverage for all a blessing
I strongly approve of the Supreme Court decision on the Affordable Care Act.
A plan for all the people in the United States is long overdue. While not perfect, at least it's a step in the right direction.
The GOP, as usual, would like to throw it out entirely. That just doesn't make any sense. They would have our nation continue the present broken system.
The only way to make this fair is to require that everyone have insurance. That's not a far-fetched requirement; there's a subsidy to help those who can't afford the premiums.
I admit that I'm influenced by how this affects members of my family who have lost jobs and benefits and have existing health problems insurers won't cover.
What a blessing that maybe they will be able to get coverage and the care they badly need!
I hope and pray we re-elect President Barack Obama and vote in more Democratic members of Congress to make sure this health care plan survives and is improved for the benefit of all Americans.
Doesn't support health care ruling
I do not support the Supreme Court ruling. Twenty new or higher across-the-board taxes within Obamacare are bad for economic growth, bad for job hiring, bad for investors and bad for families. A tax is a tax is a tax, according to Chief Justice Roberts' ruling.
What he forgot to say is that if you tax something more, you get less of it. Obamacare is not just a huge tax hike, it's also a major new spending entitlement that's already pegged at $2.5 trillion and will increase the federal debt burden much faster than the GDP expands.
In other words, tax, spend, regulate, borrow -- the Obama mantra. Bankrupting the economy is not exactly a job creator.
We must make our ruling in November by putting President Obama and like-minded politicians out of work so that we can make America great again. This time, I hope the uniformed voters will stay home.
Relieved health care bill upheld
Finally, we have a legitimate health-care bill.
Too many people have suffered for lack of health insurance due to pre-existing conditions and the unaffordable cost of insurance. A sudden illness could mean disaster for the uninsured.
Even now, politicians can't stop arguing over the bill. Our Congress operates at such extremes, it can hardly function. Where are the values of truth, fairness and compassion? It seems we have to start over again to bring back government "by the people and for the people."
I was very relieved the Supreme Court upheld President Obama's health plan and infuriated by the Republicans' immediate desire to repeal it.
Socialized health care will result
It is more than agreeing or disagreeing with the Supreme Court decision.
This law is taking our country in the direction of socialized health care and the federal government dictating health care services that will or will not be provided and how much will be spent when we have paid for the coverage via increased taxes.
As the former controller for a hospital that received the majority of its revenue from Medicare, it was a constant financial juggling act when you received less than 60 percent reimbursement for services, yet patients were not refused services.
The real issue is health insurance reform, not a trillion-dollar program adding more government overhead, fiscally irresponsible legislators, financial and administrative burdens, taxes on business and individuals, and another government bureau -- all having a legacy of doing a worse job than the private sector -- and dictating what services will be provided.
Do you think you are going to have better health care in the future run by a government agency?
Universal health care is needed
Satisfied? Yes. Agree? No.
To agree with the Supreme Court's ruling on health care reform would have required a 9-0 decision upholding its constitutionality.
Here's what I agree with, which is a paradigm shift in our national approach to health care: taxpayer-funded; single-payer; nonprofit; no-fault; no pre-existing conditions; keep your own provider; and universal access to health care — or just call it Medicare Part E for everyone.
Universal health care in America is a need, not an option, and not just a privilege for the well-off.
Surprised and deceived again
Surprised and deceived again. And yet, there are those who will continue to robotically applaud and believe President Obama's false promises and fail to realize the concept of anything free from the government comes at a cost.
Although the mandate was declared unconstitutional under the commerce clause, it was transformed into "Obamatax," with Chief Justice Roberts' constitutional contortions, to ever increase the size, scope and growth of government by rewriting the statute.
It is constitutional only as a tax, a sizable one. And President Obama's hiring of 16,500 Internal Revenue Service agents will make sure you pay your fair fine accordingly.
However, due to this ruling, this "Obamination" can be repealed under the reconciliation process by a 51 majority vote with a newly elected Republican Senate in November.
Until then, the economy remains a disaster, the Department of Justice is the theater of the absurd, our national security is at risk, and our foreign policy is a mystery.
Meanwhile, White House salaries have increased. An assortment of 114 special assistants were also added to the president's staff -- no doubt creating more jobs?
I am happy the Supreme Court rendered a favorable decision on the Affordable Care Act. I am glad to know my children and grandchildren will have a secure health care picture before them from here on out.
The Affordable Care Act brought many people into discussions of what it takes to be a healthy nation. Now, I hope we have the opportunity to discuss better and affordable education for our most valuable asset, the children of America.
Martin S. Gottlieb
ruling is scary
I think we all lost a little something with this ruling by the Supreme Court.
For a moment, back Obamacare out of the conversation. This ruling has given new unprecedented power to the government.
Depending on how the political winds are blowing at the time, the government can now impose a tax for not purchasing a commercial product. That is what this ruling amounts to. It doesn't really matter where you stand on Obamacare.
How much of a reach is it for the government to say to its citizens.: " Beginning in 2014, you must buy a membership in a health club or pay a tax for not doing so." Dramatic? Maybe. Scary? Yes.
We all lost something with this ruling. Be afraid.
Roberts rose above politics
I agree with Chief Justice Roberts' decision on health care reform.
Roberts, appointed by President George W. Bush for life, is in a unique position to send a message to federal and state elected officials that they should resist the political polarization that has crippled decisions and has placed public opinion of these elected officials, regardless of political party, at all-time lows.
Roberts, in rising above petty partisanship, has assured his place among great American statesmen.
Beginning New Deal's collapse?
Heaping blame on Chief Justice Roberts is what conservatives have been doing since Roberts, along with the Supreme Court's liberal bloc, voted to make the Affordable Care Act constitutional.
But Roberts did something else: He voted -- with conservative justices -- to begin the unraveling of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal. Roberts' vote with these justices created a court majority that declared Obamacare unconstitutional under the Constitution's commerce clause.
In 1942, the high court, in the case of Wickard vs. Filburn, voted to ban an Ohio farmer's decision to plant more wheat than federal government regulations allowed. That 1942 decision enhanced the federal government's power to regulate interstate commerce.
Now, 70 years later, the Supreme Court has decided Obamacare gives too much regulatory power to the federal government.
President Obama, like Franklin Roosevelt, is an advocate of strong federal regulatory power. Curiously, Obama may be the president under whom Roosevelt's New Deal began to collapse.
Richard S. Colman