Try as I might, I cannot understand or embrace your conclusions. Quite the contrary, I think the majority opinion was sheer brilliance. Mind you, I am not in favor of the so-labeled "Obamacare." But I do think the court painstakingly examined the method used to pass the legislation and equated it to a tax; a tax wherein each states's rights (to a major degree) are preserved.

Several years ago in NJ, the issue of civil union ceremonies led to many debates. Here, public officials were provided a back door of escape if they found performing these ceremonies unconscionable. I submit there exists a congruence in the court's holding.

The government has not, in any manner, altered the intent of our Constitution. The vote of our Congress and the affirmation/explanation by the majority of our Supreme Court have merely applied it in a way many people find objectionable.

The court said it was non constitutional unless it was a tax. The congress did not write it as a tax.. President Obama said it was not a tax. It is a penalty. The court ruled the penalty not constitutional so the court virtually rewrote the law. A court powerful enough to replace its judgement of elected figures to get things we went is strong enough to do things we do not like such as take rights away as it did here. The court twisted the constitution and in the end we will pay with our freedom as the constitution is what guarantees it.

I believe you are misinterpreting the court's holding. The court merely tested what Congress legislated. Here, the court determined that the legislation constituted a tax; Congress has the power to levy taxes.

Penalties click in for non compliance. Little (if any) difference from interest or foreclosure when property taxes are not timely paid.

What Obama or any other politician said or says is irrelevant. In no way did the court twist the constitution. We will pay with our money, not our freedom. The constitution remains very much intact.

The government does not require you to get a mortgage.. case closed.

The case is far from closed. The government does not force you to get a mortgage for sure. But the government subsidizes mortgages, student loans and much more of everyday life. The roads you drive on. Housing. Schools and countless more.

Why? How? Because - - under the terms, conditions and liberties - - of the United States Constitution they are authorized to spend OUR money accordingly; money they acquire via the power to levy taxes.

Nothing wrong with the Constitution as a doctrine. People quarrel as to its application. That is why we have a process that sees cases closed by the Supreme Court, not me, you or any individual.

Now let's enjoy the fireworks this evening. BTW, what tax paid for the display?

Nothing you said challenges anything I said. The court's job is to judge not legislate.

The U.S. Supreme Court tests the constitutionality of laws and application of laws. And that is exactly what it did. Nothing more, nothing less.

The Court held that the so-labeled "Obamacare" does, in fact, constitute a tax. It should not be at issue that the Congress has the power to levy taxes. Thus, the Court affirmed the legislation.

How do you conclude the Court legislated?

The court rewrote the law calling it a tax when and a penalty at the same time.

Quite wrong. The Court interpreted the law. Once they decided its meaning (as written and enacted), they tested the law's constitutionality and upheld it.

I do not fancy the law. But it has survived the test at the highest level and has been declared constitutional and it stands until and unless repealed.

And given the fact that a somewhat strict constructionist like John Edwards was in the majority, I accept the Court's holding' albeit without a smile.

Clearly the law was passes as a penalty. It would not have passed without it being a penalty. The congressional record is clear.. President Obama was clear. The court called the law as written unconstitutional and then rewrote it through re definition and called it constitutional. The court said we cannot be mandated to buy something by congress. It then said however congress can "fine" of sorry "tax" you enough where you must buy it anyway. Our liberty has been stolen and sadly you do not see it.

What I see is clear; brilliantly so.

The process up to and including the highest level of appeal (the Supreme Court) worked. You simply do not embrace the Court's holding - - nor do I.

To say our liberty has been stolen is anything but true. If anything, the concept of liberty was fortified. One of the most controversial pieces of social legislation in our nation's history was put under a microscope to make certain it did not violate the supreme doctrine of liberty - - our constitution.

Mr. Thomas... We need not agree.. but what you say is true. The court rejected the law a written and defended in front of the court. The president and congress justified their actions on the commerce clause. The court rejected it. However, what they said was and unconstitutional intrusion under the commerce clause became viable under undisclosed tax provisions. Disagree with me if you wish but the court rejected the law as written and then turned around and accepted it assuming it was written in a way it was not.

Mr. Splendorio, the Court acted within the parameters of its Constitutional authority(s).

Clearly, neither I nor you are pleased with its holding.

Should the balance of power in Washington shift on November 6, that is the sole immediate hope for relief.

I think that that fool John Roberts was intimidated by Obama's liberal goons into going the wrong way. This act is a disastrous piece of "legislation" that will forever enslave this country in chains in the name of "healthcare"

Roberts displayed a lot of courage to put politics aside and do the right thing for the country.

The role of the a justice is not to consider politics but rather the constitution. Judge Robert's decision opens the door to great tyranny. The unlimited taxing power allowed by this decision allows the government to tax your income at 90%. It then can give you money back if you do what the government wants. For example.. you give the government 90% and you get back 300 dollars a month if you live where the government wants you to. This example may be repeated over and over again.
Judge Roberts said the law was not constitutional based on the grounds the law was passed than made up a law not passed and used dangerous constitutional reasoning to defend it. We wil rue the day of this decision.

No, Mr. Splendorio, that is absolutely NOT what Mr. Justice Roberts did. He made up nothing; except a sound decision that you do not care for.

Please open your mind. Everyone reading your words is now keenly aware you do not agree with the majority of the U.S. Supreme Court. The court's holding is not a threat to freedom - - it is a holding you deplore.

Mr. Thomas my statement stands.. even supporters of the decision comment on Judge Roberts use of taxing authority and rewriting the law. I do deplore it because of the its ultimate effect on freedom and freedom is what the constitution was designed to protect.