Chief Justice John Roberts:
We do not consider whether the Act embodies sound policies.....We ask only if Congress has the power under the Constitution to enact the challenged provisions.....
Congress use of the taxing clause to encourage buying something is not new. Tax incentives already promote for example, purchasing homes and professional educations. Sustaining the mandate as a tax depends only on whether Congress has exercised its taxing power to encourage purchasing health insurance, not whether it can......
The Affordable Care Act requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not paying for health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax. Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.......

This is judicial restrain and small "c" conservatism......clearly Roberts is trying to steer the Court to where it belongs.....as an arbiter of law.
Justices Scalia and Thomas should resign and pursue a political career......they clearly do not belong on the SC....especially Scalia......

Justices Scalia and Thomas should resign and pursue a political career......they clearly do not belong on the SC.

Yes, that would be just great, than Obama could get two more with
his thinking on and there would not even be a reason to vote on anything.....

Judicial cowardice is more like it. I didn't realize I was taxed if I didn't buy a house. truly he had a dizzying intellect.

"Tax incentives", Windy. You get tax incentives if you buy a house and that's what he said.

Which isn't the same thing and you both know it. It is dishonest and amounts to the government telling us what to buy.

Just lie car insurance. The only difference it is called a fine instead of a tax. That really bothers you?

Just more pundit talking points instead of looking at the big picture. Typical.

I can avoid car insurance if I so choose. To avoid the health insurance tax, I would have to be dead. Typical that people refuse to think for themselves and think what they are told to think.

eljefe: "car insurance=obamacare"...brilliant.

Can you avoid getting sick or injured? That would be impressive.

You are whining about it being called a tax. Did you whine when they forced us to buy car insurance in order to drive or be fined?

That's another question that had nothing to do with the point I am making. This is nothing like car insurance.

Driving is a choice you make. Living is not. Unless you are such a humanitarian that you think people against this should be killed.

So what happens when you get sick or injured, but cannot pay?

Do you even understand the impact that has on the rest of us who are trying to insure our families?

My guess is that you do not and that is the problem.

All we see here are different pundit talking points that do not address the actual issue and how the big picture affects everyone. That is what happens when opinions are formed from pundits talking points, instead of educating ourselves on the entire issue and how it impacts us as a whole.

At 76 years old Scalia has gone way beyond the bounds of even appearing to be impartial. The man is arrogant, rude, and should step down......he makes obvious partisan statements from the bench.......the glowering sphinx Thomas at least keeps his mouth shut........

Windy is ignorant and best ignored......he claims he is an "originalist" and I hazard to say he has never read the Constitution, any case law, or the Federalist Papers.......Roberts was clearly on solid ground here......

Your car does not have to be insured. The law is that you have liability insurance in case you damage someone else's car or injure them while driving. So to compare them makes no sense. There is no health insurance one can get that covers someone that you injure or make sick. Let's stop this stupid comparison.

Well said......hospitals cannot deny care even to ingigent persons. The result is all insured people pay for the uninsured....that requirement in law, btw, is from the Reagan administration.....Roberts is clearly adhering to the law....not a political agenda.

I saw my Dr. yesterday. He said he was amazed and very happy with the ruling......there is only one country in the developed world w/o universal coverage.....that is now going to change.

The political implications are irrelevant to the case....the Court should decide on the legal merits of the law.....period.

Why are you changing the subject again? You haven't answered the first question, now you want to move on to another question that is frankly, a pretty stupid question. When I was younger, I carried a cheap health insurance that had a high deductible. I made sure I had the money to cover that and then paid as I would need any kind of services, which wasn't all that often. It was better than paying for insurance that I really didn't use.

You can stop with the "pundit" BS as I do not listen to any of them as you have. That is the only way you can be ignorant enough to think that health insurance is the same as car insurance.

You have no idea what I have and haven't done, so leave your ignorant comments about me out of this.