Chief Justice John Roberts in the spotlight after Supreme Court health care decision

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • worf Mcallen, TX
    July 6, 2012 12:08 a.m.

    Only a fool would believe yesterdays lies can justify the ones of today. Irrational!

  • wrz Salt Lake City, UT
    July 5, 2012 2:11 p.m.

    The irony is stupefying... The Constitution is supposed to limit the powers of the federal government per the Tenth Amendment, yet Article 1.8 gives the government power to tax and also regulate commerce. If one penny is spent on a transaction it is considered commerce and thus subject to regulation. With those two tools the government can do anything it wishes despite supposed limitations which we now see as ethereal.

    We can see this by the Obamacare case. Many thought the government could not compel citizens to buy anything, including health insurance. Yet, we see we must or incur a heavy penalty (tax).

  • Mark B Eureka, CA
    July 4, 2012 11:26 p.m.

    Gee, what must have gone through worf's mind when it became apparent that there were no WMB's in Iraq? And should I compile a list of lies told (and believed) about Obama in the last 3 plus years?

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    July 3, 2012 4:48 p.m.

    Hope I'm a fool, but I feel we'll be paying more for healthcare in the near future.

    Did anyone really believe the deficit would be cut in half, or ninety percent of working Americans getting tax cuts?

    I dislike being lied to.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    July 3, 2012 4:37 p.m.

    The is a constitutional crises to many.... and yet granting Organizations and PAC citizen status, with the ability to manipulate and influence policy through unlimited spending is not. It is funny how Roberts has become a the bane of all conservatives, yet was a hero when proclaiming companies as people a week earlier.

    How quickly emotions swing.

  • HS Fan Salt Lake City, UT
    July 3, 2012 4:37 p.m.

    Reports are all hearsay, not fact. I agree the ruling is by an large more conservative than liberal. To overturn the law would have limited congress's right to tax. The votes by the 4 conservative judges seems the most ourrageous. They basically said congress does not have the right to tax or impose a fine. If that were true, states would not have the right to force people to buy auto insurance or tax for services that people did not want to particapate in.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    July 3, 2012 4:28 p.m.

    Give it a rest.

    He's got a lifetime appointment. It would take a 2/3 vote of the Senate to remove him from office.

    Republicans are the ones who always complain about legislating from the bench - at least until someone refuses to do it on their behalf.

    Republicans put Roberts on the Supreme Court and appointed him Chief Justice. They've had their day in court and lost.

    Can we move on now?

  • Jimmer77 Salt Lake City, UT
    July 3, 2012 4:27 p.m.

    Government is supposed to exist to preserve the freedom of citizens. What happened with this decision did not preserve freedom but rather enslaved us to a much greater degree.

    Please explain the crushing burden of taxation to your grandchildren. May God have mercy on us for creating future debt for our children to pay. This is theft. Kick the can down the road some more.... absolutely disgusting!

  • A1994 Centerville, UT
    July 3, 2012 4:01 p.m.

    He switched his vote. I'm not sure why, but he switched it. It makes no sense.

  • kishkumen American Fork, UT
    July 3, 2012 3:58 p.m.

    Maybe he did his job and interpreted the law based on his understanding of the constitution. I appreciate The Deseret News for compiling all of these conspiracy theories, but they all seem to be the creativity of people who didn't get their way.

  • ouisc Farmington, UT
    July 3, 2012 3:17 p.m.

    As one who tries to believe in his own country, I can not believe that our Supreme Court can be swayed by politics. They read their cases, they study the laws, and interpret their findings.

    Justice Roberts did exactly that. Personally, little old me has a hard time with his interpretation, as I have always thought "tax" was a proportion of monies paid for goods and services, but I'm so far from being a lawyer, let alone a judge, that my opinion simply doesn't count.

    If we start thinking our Supreme Court can be motivated by an ongoing political climate, then we're in trouble.

  • spudlydoright McCammon, Idaho
    July 3, 2012 3:09 p.m.

    Sounds to me like a lot of people are jumping to conclusions as to why Justice Roberts ruled the way that he did. Did it ever occur to anyone that he did what he thought was constitutional without any ulterior motives?