Chief Justice Roberts' opinion actually attacks the very principle of judicial review as embodied in Marbury vs Madison. Remember that nowhere in the Constitution is the Supreme Court given the right to interpret whether or not a law passed by Congress is constitutional. It was the aforementioned case via which the Court annexed that right. In stating that the Legislature had the right to pass any laws it deemed appropriate and NOT the Court's perogative to overrule the Legislature, Roberts abdicated the precident established in Marbury vs Madison. That being the case, why do we even need a Supreme Court?
It will be interesting. Unfortunately we are clueless as to the outcome at least until they hear the case and the talking heads interpret their questions to the attorneys. But we've already been kicked in the n--ts one time. What's the worse that can happen?
I'm hoping the religious aspect of this case gets the conservative justices fired up.
Marbury v. Madison was a bad decision, and has caused 210 years of bad law.
Chief Justice Marshall should have recused himself, since he was a party (Secretary of State) when the original action was filed.
Roberts did not abandon Marbury v. Madison. I thought that he narrowly defined Congress' right to tax, and that Obama Care was a tax.
I agree with BIRDOGS, that the U.S. Constitution doesn't give the U.S. Supreme Court predominance over the other two branches of government. Remember, this same black-robed nonet also gave us Dred Scott v. Sanford, Wickard v. Filburn, Roe v. Wade, and abjectly failed to find the "Missouri Compromise" unconstitutional (finally repealed in 1854 when the Kansas/Nebraska Act of 1854 was passed).
If you're looking for justice, don't look to the judicial system. The system is only interested in self survival, and insuring that the process is carried out by courts. If they were interested in justice, they would insure that laws were moral.
Justice Roberts made sure that Obamacare would Not be upheld via the Commerce Clause which really put a frame around Congress' reckless use of Commerce and Necessary and Proper clause.
Further he made it clear in his opinion (of the majority including the four left wing judges) that the law was not legal in granting power of Congress to legislate that people must Buy a Product, but that people could be taxed as a consequence of the law.
Lawsuit Filed Seeking to Overturn Affordable Care Act On Grounds It Violates Constitutions Origination Clause…
Arizona Congressmen Trent Franks, Chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee
on the Constitution, was joined by 39 of his colleagues - including
Arizona Rep. David Schweikert and Matt Salmon – in filing an amicus curiae
brief over the weekend with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit seeking to overturn Affordable Care act on the grounds that
the law violates the Constitution’s Origination Clause.