Quantcast

Comments about ‘In our opinion: Roberts' rules of order: Chief Justice continues to cement reputation’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, June 28 2012 6:03 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
peter
Alpine, UT

The encroachment of government into the freedoms of American citizens established by the Constitution was what our Founders tried to prevent, a point John Roberts and others have foolishy mishandled in allowing this bill to take affect. This battle between tyranny and choice rages on and will for eternity. Roberts said, "It is not our role to forbid it, or pass upon its wisdom or fairness." It is your role to determine a law's constitutionality, to protect the citizens from the oppression of government, something you have failed miserably in doing.

Well Read
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

A very well written and thought out article. Thank you for a better understanding of what the ruling means for the future.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

We were reminded today that as citizens, we have a responsibility. Kennedy was the first President that I remember who reminded us that citizenship equals duty when he said, "Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country." Today, John Roberts told us that nine judges cannot decide the fate of 300,000,000 Americans when a majority of those who voted, voted for a man like Obama.

He told us to take responsibility for our actions and to use more wisdom in November if we disagreed with today's court ruling.

Our fathers gave their all on the battle field against the mightiest army that the world had known to date. They suffered hunger and fatigue and deprivation. We sit on the sidelines and criticize the 535 members of Congress, the President and the 9 judges. Judge Roberts told us to stop being spectators and to get involved.

It's OUR COUNTRY. What WE do will decide what kind of country we will have.

IT'S OUR COUNTRY!

christoph
Brigham City, UT

Mr. Obama campaigned for 18 months on many issues, beginning in April of 2007; health care reform was one of them. It is a conservative idea that all people pay for their own health care. Since it's passing in 2010, prices are falling due to wise people in the industry brainstorming over bringing costs down.

mohokat
Ogden, UT

Mike Richards well said: It is time to gut it up and rid the Country of these Snake Oil Salesman. How foolish the Obama Drones.

sorrytowakeyou
Heber City, UT

I completely disagree with the premise of this article. If Roberts had ruled solely on constitutionality, then I would concede the point. He replaced the word "penalty" with "tax"! Since when can the Supreme Court change legislation written by Congress so that it becomes constitutional??

The original draft of Obamacare had tax as its operative word, but given the political consequences, Congress replaced the word "tax" with "penalty" with its eyes wide open. Roberts truly "legislated" by altering the legislation!

I understand that his intention was to portray the court as impartial, however, in his effort to be impartial he became a legislator.

Kim
Cedar Park, Texas

Excellent editorial Deseret News! Justice Roberts is an outstanding judge and crafted an excellent opinion. He struck the right balance for the court in this instance and has gone along ways towards establishing his legacy as one of the great Chief Justices of the Supreme Court. This issue needs to be decided in the legislative branch of government.

annie
Tomball, TX

Christoph,

I agree with the ruling but insurance hasn't gone down. Every member of my extended family is paying more than we were before for health insurance. Our family's rates have been raised by 25% in the last year and we are all healthy. You, sir are wrong and that is not just anecdotal--research shows the same.'

Roland Kayser
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Many court watchers have speculated that Chief Justice Roberts was initially going to vote to strike down the mandate. But the other four conservatives on the court went far beyond that and wanted to overturn the entire law, including parts that are clearly covered by the Commerce Clause. Due to this, Chief Justice Roberts changed his vote to the liberal side so he could write the opinion in a limiting fashion.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

Roland,

You must have information that the news media doesn't have . Care to share your sources?

SoCalChris
Riverside, CA

I appreciate the DN trying to stay above the fray, and in concept I like the idea of partisan free nuanced decision, but the Supreme Court is there to prevent an overreach by Congress.

I guess the message is that Congress can do just about anything it wants with its power to tax. Sorry DN that's not what the Founders had in mind.

Roland Kayser
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Mike Richards: Look for an article on "the Daily Beast", on David Frum's page.

soldier boy
Bountiful, Ut

While I am disappointed over the ruling, I believe that Chief Justice Roberts is on solid legal footing. The two questions I have are 1) had the Soliciter General not stated during oral arguements that the penalty was a tax, would CJ Roberts have decided the way he did? 2) in deciding the way he did, was he hopeful that he could get a stronger majority of justices to agree with his line of reasoning?

AZfarmer
Orem, UT

I have listened to Justice Roberts in the past and thought he was very intelligent and articulate, but I think he greatly erred in his decision today. I think he opened a whole can of worms with this precedent to tax people for not doing something the government wants. It seems very different to me to tax people on a product they buy and taxing them for not doing anything. This limits people freedom to make decisions. What stops the government from telling people to do other things that are supposedly good for society and taxing them if they don't. What if they say that you must eat a balanced meal everyday and go to the gym 3 times a week or you get a 10% tax? What if they say you must vote or you get taxed? or you must take parenting classes or you get taxed? Some of these types of things might seem good but why does congress have the power to essentially force us to do things. It seems to be a dangerous precedent to me.

xert
Santa Monica, CA

A great day to be an American--and to be on the right side of history. Chief Justice Roberts told the nation today, that politics is not as important as what is right and what is lawful and I thank him for it. President Obama? What can I say? This is a leader. You may not agree with him, but I'm sure you will respect the fact that in the face of the biggest Congressional stonewalling of our lifetimes, he has succeeded time and time again. Heads up Utah--the guy who stood on a carrier in a Top Gun costume under the banner of Mission Accomplished was not a leader. The man who took a little stroll down "I got bin Laden blvd" and stood up to the microphone tonight? That, my misguided friends--is--a leader.

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

The GOP was calling this a "TAX" early on. Looks like that strategy, while ultimately correct, had some unintended consequences.

What I find absurd is that many people like pieces of the bill.

Kids on parents insurance till 26.
Cant be dumped for getting sick.
No restrictions on pre-existing conditions.

But, you cant pick and choose as the viability of the program depends on all parts.

Without a forced insurance, the pre-existing conditions piece cannot survive, as people wont buy insurance until they get sick.

I am not in love with this healthcare bill, but history has shown that the GOP wont touch healthcare. They have had years and did NOTHING.

This is a major problem. Why is the GOP content to leave it alone? They had an opportunity with complete control of congress. NOTHING.

patriot
Cedar Hills, UT

Let's be real here. What Roberts did was open the flood gates to socialism and HE alone will be tagged with that dreadful collar throughout the ages. His clever tax ruling manipulation doesn't hold water and all 4 of the dissenting judges agreed. What Roberts did was to 'change' the intent of the law and make it something else - a tax. The reason?? So he could find a way to pass the bill. Pure and simple. If you try hard enough you will find a way and Roberts found a way. Roberts disgraced himself as a reasonable and intelligent justice and crossed the line into liberal - land where ideology and emotion out weigh common sense but more importantly the common good of the people of the United States. Justices aren't computer programs that lose track of who they are and what they are supposed to be representing ... but Roberts did just that. It seems to me this man showed his true colors and made a long held political leap into social - justice... as he saw it. You have to blame - at least in part - George W Bush for appointing this imposter to the court.

Furry1993
Clearfield, UT

To mohokat 8:50 p.m. June 28, 2012

Mike Richards well said: It is time to gut it up and rid the Country of these Snake Oil Salesman. How foolish the Obama Drones.

-------------------------

Unfortunately, Romney would be much MUCH worse. He wants to go back to Bush's filaed policies and programs -- the policies and programs that got us in the mess we're in now. NO THANKS, Mitt -- don't want you, don't need you.

pragmatistferlife
salt lake city, utah

To AZfarmer, and others " What stops the government from telling people to do other things that are supposedly good for society and taxing them if they don't. " In essence the government all ready uses it's taxing power to encourage certain activities. If you buy a home you are forgiven some of your tax obligations. If you have children, you are forgiven some of you tax obligations. Even the President has played this role by forgiving entrepreneurs some of their tax obligations for starting businesses.

I clearly remember the ahha moment for me when in graduate school an economics professor detailed our tax system and explained it was a distinct purpose of taxes to encourage or discourage certain activities.

We've always done this so Roberts got it right.

Nayajja
Ephraim, UT

In your caption you said: "a stunning victory for constitutionally limited government."

I am stunned indeed, but stunned because I see this as a death blow to a constitutionally limited federal government. While giving lip service to the idea that the Commerce Clause does not encompass the entire universe, Roberts created an end run that allows Congress to do whatever it wants, wherever it wants. Unless this opinion is reigned in in the future, federalism is dead. By unbridled use of its spending power, Congress can do anything.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments