Quantcast
Opinion

In our opinion: Roberts' rules of order: Chief Justice continues to cement reputation

Comments

Return To Article
  • peter Alpine, UT
    June 28, 2012 7:00 p.m.

    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
    June 28, 2012 7:40 p.m.

    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
    June 28, 2012 7:51 p.m.

    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
    June 28, 2012 8:40 p.m.

    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
    June 28, 2012 8:50 p.m.

    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
    June 28, 2012 8:56 p.m.

    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
    June 28, 2012 9:07 p.m.

    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
    June 28, 2012 9:22 p.m.

    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
    June 28, 2012 9:36 p.m.

    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
    June 28, 2012 9:52 p.m.

    Roland,

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

  • SoCalChris Riverside, CA
    June 28, 2012 9:55 p.m.

    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
    June 28, 2012 10:53 p.m.

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

  • soldier boy Bountiful, Ut
    June 28, 2012 11:04 p.m.

    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
    June 28, 2012 11:47 p.m.

    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
    June 29, 2012 1:38 a.m.

    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
    June 29, 2012 5:31 a.m.

    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
    June 29, 2012 6:29 a.m.

    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
    June 29, 2012 7:35 a.m.

    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
    June 29, 2012 7:42 a.m.

    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
    June 29, 2012 7:42 a.m.

    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.

  • Nayajja Ephraim, UT
    June 29, 2012 7:49 a.m.

    To write his opinion, Roberts:
    1) twisted language that says citizens “shall” buy insurance and if they don’t they will pay a “penalty,” to conclude that the “penalty” is not a penalty, but a tax (even though the government repeatedly denied it was a tax);
    2. held that even though the mandate is unconstitutional, it is OK to penalize those who don’t comply with it, because the “penalty” is not a penalty, but is a tax;
    3) concluded that his newly-minted tax was not a tax under the antiinjunction act (which otherwise would have prevented judicial review now).
    4) held that Congress’s penalty on states for not expanding Medicare was unconstitional, but then, instead of invalidating it, rewrote the statute to impose a lesser penalty selected by the court.

    What he did is legislation, not adjudication.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    June 29, 2012 8:12 a.m.

    Obama: "its not a tax, its not a tax". Justice Roberts: "its a tax"! For the first time in the history of the US. the SCOTUS imposed a tax upon the American people! American taxpayers will get to have their say in November and John Roberts may have sealed Obama's fate!

  • KTC John Wetumpka, AL
    June 29, 2012 8:20 a.m.

    The SC is not supposed to be a "neutral arbiter." That is a dangerous concept. The author has not properly defined the role of the court. The SC is to determine the constitutionality of federal legislation.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    June 29, 2012 8:30 a.m.

    The good news is it is a "tax" that only those who decide to not take responsibility for their own insurance and instead want to make their health care cost everyone else's problem will have to pay. If you are a responsible person and take care of your family. No Tax. Not enough money to provide that insurance, there is a plan for that where you will get help. But if you decide you want a new 4x4, or hunting rifle, or bass boat - and shift the load of paying for your medical risk to everyone else.... you get to pay the tax.

    Just like other "sin" taxes.... you put a burden on everyone else, you get to pay.

    There is much to left to be desired over the Obamacare bill that needs to be fixed. But I have no problem making people pay for their own healthcare and not rely on citizens and hospitals to suck up your expense because your feeling lucky today.

  • Makid Kearns, UT
    June 29, 2012 8:32 a.m.

    To everyone that cries out that ACA (Obamacare) is socialism, why is it wrong to force individuals to have health insurance even if they don't need it but it is okay to force people that don't have children to pay for schools and schooling of other peoples' children?

    We are still a capitalist country. The penalty for not having insurance is to pay a yearly fine of 1% of your income or $95 which ever is higher. There are also waivers for this based on income. The penalty for not paying the fine is...

    Nothing...

    The language in the bill states that no liens or garnishments or other forced recovery options are allowed. This means that if you don't pay the fine, you don't pay the fine. But there are enough people that will pick up the insurance that private enterprise will benefit, hospitals will be paid for their services now, private insurance companies will be able to offer lower rates because medical costs will go down and this means more income for the average consumer.

    ACA is not moving the country to Socialism, it is adding a social program to our other social programs.

  • KTC John Wetumpka, AL
    June 29, 2012 8:33 a.m.

    Two points:
    1. The framers of the constitution envisioned taxes, what few there were, as a means to raise money to pay for legitimate governmental functions. It was not a means for controlling personal behaviour.
    2. Is it not strange to rule that a tax is constitutional notwithstanding it is used to implement an unconstitutional statutory scheme?

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    June 29, 2012 8:40 a.m.

    Conservatives can have their rebell yell.

    Come November, faced with voting to either keep Obamacare, or got back to the way it USED to -- i.e., Nothing at all for 12 Million Americans -- I predict Pres. Obama will be re-elected by a huge margin.

    Mitt Romney should have embraced his pivitol accomplishment as Gov. of Massachsetts, rather than shun and trash talk it like he has for the last 6 years to appease the Tea-Party extremeists just to win the GOP nomination.

    History will remember Mitt Romney as the could've been President.
    He won the nomination battle, but lost the General Election war.

  • Hellooo Salt Lake City, UT
    June 29, 2012 9:15 a.m.

    Xert, I agree with you. The question is where is he leading the nation and why would any liberated citizen choose to follow and become a slave. Mr. Roberts used great rhetoric to cover his progressive views. Not being real conservative, he used conservative rhetoric to cover a decision to massive expanded the power of the federal government through the general welfare clause. He cemented himself in my mind as a brilliant jurist who is a coward and tyrant.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    June 29, 2012 10:09 a.m.

    The expectation people had that the members of the court would vote this way or that smacks of political hackery. It should be about law, not partisanship, and Roberts may have been the only member to rule as such.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    June 29, 2012 10:15 a.m.

    In answer to AZFarmer, Roberts’ decision was all about deference to the Legislative branch and should be applauded as in the best tradition of judicial restraint… something we conservatives have been clamoring for decades. It is not the Supreme Court’s job to act as legislatures or undo the actions of legislatures (unless it clearly violates the Constitution, which the mandate as tax does not).

    To all you who think it was a terrible decision, ask yourself this question: would you rather live in a democracy that doesn’t always govern the way you want, or a dictatorship that does?

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    June 29, 2012 10:23 a.m.

    So what if it's a tax? It only applies to someone who doesn't buy health insurance, who makes more than 133% of the poverty level, doesn't qualify for medicare or medicaid, and doesn't qualify for a few other exceptions....and chooses not to use the subsidies avialable. You'll be able to count on one hand those that are going to be "taxed..$95 (I know this is hyperbole, but you get the point).

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    June 29, 2012 10:26 a.m.

    In answer to AZFarmer, Roberts’ decision was all about deference to the Legislative branch and should be applauded as in the best tradition of judicial restraint… something we conservatives have been clamoring for decades. It is not the Supreme Court’s job to act as legislatures or undo the actions of legislatures (unless it clearly violates the Constitution, which the mandate as tax does not).

    To all you who think it was a terrible decision, ask yourself this question: would you rather live in a democracy that doesn’t always govern the way you want, or a dictatorship that does?

  • CB Salt Lake City, UT
    June 29, 2012 10:26 a.m.

    After suffering anger, disappointment and a lot of hostility I think the intention was to put the responsibility back on the shoulders on the American people to vote for good, honest and intelligent people. We are where we are because of lies, deals under the table and the constant telling us that this was not a tax. The Obama Administration was shown to be a 'liar' yesterday by this ruling.
    Put unfortunately Roberts has put himself on the wrong side of the line and likely not to be
    trusted or esteemed for this ruling.
    The next election will rest on the number who now think that they will be getting 'free medical care' and have no concept of the utter failure of socialized medical care and those who understand the cost, lost of immediate care and the 'health panels' who will be making the decisions for us.

  • ECR Burke, VA
    June 29, 2012 10:34 a.m.

    KTC John said, "The SC is to determine the constitutionality of federal legislation."

    And so, they did.

  • perhaps Salt Lake City, UT
    June 29, 2012 11:01 a.m.

    A tax on people who are unwilling to pay for health insurance for their kids until those kids are in an ambulance on the way to the hospital is far more sensible than many taxes I already pay. I will never pay this tax because I actually care about the people in my family and want them to get regular, routine, preventative, care.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    June 29, 2012 11:11 a.m.

    I read Chief Justice Roberts' opinion and was very impressed with some of the concepts he put forth that did not get a lot of attention in the media. He emphasized the idea that it isn't for the Court to override the judgement of elected officials. He went on for some length saying that the Court should go out of its way not to overturn the laws of Congress if at all possible. I believe that it what this ruling was all about.

    He's really telling Congress and the American People that its our job to reconcile our political differences and not the Courts'. People all want strict constructionists on the Bench until a ruling doesn't go their way. Not long ago my liberal friends were upset and my conservative friends delighted when this same Chief Justice joined in invalidating some gun control laws because they violated the Second Amendment. You can't have it both ways, folks.

    It sounds like the Chief Umpire is telling us to work out our own political differences, and in the end we'll be a stronger country with better laws for doing it.

  • Steve C. Warren WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    June 29, 2012 11:23 a.m.

    My fear was that the Deseret News would lament the Supreme Court's ruling in a clearly partisan way.

    Therefore, I very much appreciate this thoughtful, nonpartisan editorial about John Roberts.

  • byufootballrocks Herndon, VA
    June 29, 2012 11:31 a.m.

    The Deseret News editorial staff has been overtaken by the liberal mindset?

    I am stunned. We should not be applauding but rather defending the Constitution and individual liberty.

    You refer to disappointed limited government conservatives. Conservative is by definition advocating for limited government. Who are the others?

    Roberts is no conservative. No jurist with a conservative judicial or political bone in his body would have written this. Admit it. He joined the liberals.

    Why are you not praising Kennedy, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia as great jurists for their stinging dissent that is based clearly - contrary to the majority opinion - in the constitutional protections against encroaching government?

    What Roberts did here, on the flimsiest argument, is keep intact legislation that is so far beyond the bounds of the constitutional powers of Congress that the ordinary citizen can clearly see it. And he authored new legislation from the bench.

    Congress can now force you to buy anything it pleases by calling it a tax, and then send the IRS after you and throw you in jail if you don’t buy it.

    Your editorial attempts to dilute the fight. We will continue that fight, with or without the Deseret News.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    June 29, 2012 11:31 a.m.

    Mike Richards,

    Sometimes you and I disagree. Though I do not oppose the ACA, I do agree 100% with your 7:51 post. If we want to change things, then we need to stop carping, take some responsibility, get off the sidelines, and vote. Better yet, run for office or help someone you know do so. It IS our country and the apathy and lethargy of the voters is not to our benefit as a nation.

    Mountanman,

    How this will play out in November is yet to be seen. But one minor point of disagreement with your post. The SCOTUS did not impose the tax. Rather, they correctly observed that what looked a lot like a tax, was in fact a tax. I never understood the argument that it was not (fee or tax seems about the same to me).

  • Marilyn Lindon, UT
    June 29, 2012 1:29 p.m.

    Brilliantly handled by Roberts! Especially enjoyed his very insightful comments. Now back to the ballot box!!!!

  • Commenter88 Salt Lake City, Utah
    June 29, 2012 1:59 p.m.

    Who wrote this editorial?

    This is, by far, the best editorial I have ever read coming from a Deseret Media source. For years, I have hated, hated the fact that DMC has ventured editorial opinions, which frankly have been less than desirable in critical examination and insight. This editorial is worth cheering. It's insightful and actually led me to realize something I had not before: John Roberts is very, very smart. And not just as an arbiter of the law, but also in understanding the political dynamics on the bench itself. He outfoxed everyone else on the court on this suit and pretty much played them to make him look spectacular. That's not to take anything away from his earnestness or intellectual work in legal analysis and writing--it just shows his gifts in addition to these merits.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    June 29, 2012 2:47 p.m.

    I assume that Roberts ruled based on Constitutional Law.

    The SC does not exist to pick and choose which legislation is good or bad.

    I applaud him.

    I do not think the Citizens United ruling was good for our country, but I have to believe that the justices ruled based on constitutional law.

    Just because you do not like a ruling, doesn't mean it was not correct based on law.

  • JTW Orem, UT
    June 29, 2012 5:29 p.m.

    Too bad that the people can't un-elect Roberts. What a turn coat. How can he sleep a night?

  • christoph Brigham City, UT
    June 29, 2012 6:29 p.m.

    The government says you CANNOT drive under 40 miles per hour on the freeway; or you will pay a fine. The government tells us all the time we need to do this or do that. The insurance companies will make a lot of money by adding 40 million more people to their customer lists; economy improves dramatically when people have health care: they can go to work. Both Messrs. Obama and Romney would make great presidents. They both have similiar ideas on reforming health care.

  • red state pride Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 29, 2012 8:59 p.m.

    obviously the Court ruled the way it did because the solicitor for the "National Government" made such a compelling argument before them e.g. " can I get a drink of water". That smooth-talking devil.
    Like Mark Steyn said in his column " The Supreme Court is a lot like Britain's National Health Care Service- you wait two years to get in, they tell you nothing's wrong, and you can't get a second opinion".
    Oh well- we had a decent run- 1776 to 2012 = onward to the abyss.

  • Mike in Cedar City Cedar City, Utah
    June 29, 2012 9:51 p.m.

    One of the few times I have agreed with a DN political editorial. Legally and constitutionally the majority of the court was correct. It is the duty of the Supreme Court to try to find a constitutional way to honor the decisions of the legislative branch. However, I continue to disagree with the DN news that the ACA is bad policy. It's by no means perfect, but it is a step in the right direction that had to be taken at this critical time.
    Justice Roberts has upheld the integrity of the court by clearly taking a non politically based position. And considering the Conservative uproar, he has been quite courageous as well.

  • red state pride Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 29, 2012 10:22 p.m.

    @Mike in Cedar City- what exactly is "critical about this time"? Do you know anyone dying because they do not have health insurance? It's law that a person cannot be denied treatment to medical care. So what's critical other than State and Federal budgets? Is it not "critical" that we are running trillion dollar federal budget deficits? Go ask the Governors of Illinois and California what their budgets look like based on anticipated outlays and income. Is that not critical? What happens when a State throws in the towel and says "we can't go on- we're essentially bankrupt"? What then? Print money in perpetuity? The jig is almost up and finally I ask you- how much of your income are you willing to give up to perpetuate the welfare state? Be a man and tell us - how much do you demand that a fellow citizen give up to perpetuate the welfare state? How much income should Doctors and Nurses give up to lead us to the "perfect state"?

  • Mike in Texas Cedar City, Utah
    June 30, 2012 8:49 a.m.

    Red state full of pride

    I Think you should sell all that you have, give it too the poor, then come and follow me.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    June 30, 2012 5:16 p.m.

    @ Red state pride,

    Obama was elected by a majority of the States. That's a fact.

    John Roberts reminded us that elections have consequences. That's fact.

    America is ruled by law. That's a fact.

    Obama is telling us to abandon the law and to do what he tells us to do. That's a fact.

    You are telling us that because you don't agree with the Supreme Court, that we should listen to Obama and abandon law. That may be a fact, depending on how well I understand your point.

    Other posts have pointed out that the ACA walks like a tax, talks like a tax and is a tax. That's according to law, not the opinion of a President who wants to pull a fast one on us, or of his lawyers who would have us believe that a tax is not a tax unless they say that it is a tax.

    The Supreme Court told us that the ACA is a tax. You may choose to not believe it. You may prefer to not believe it. That doesn't change one thing.

    America is a nation of laws. You are an American.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    June 30, 2012 6:05 p.m.

    "When in the course of human events . . . "

    What magnificent words! What a glorious vision.

    King George told the colonists that he could tax them as he wished and that they would pay his tax.

    How similar those times were to our times.

    Obama has told us that he will tax us as he pleases; that he will determine whether a tax is a tax; that he will determine whether the Court can render a verdict and that he will determine how Congress will legislate. Times have not changed much since a King controlled the colonies.

    Noble men carefully evaluated what King George told them to do and then they gave a reasonable and measured response. They did not act from emotion. They did not act in haste. Instead, they thought of the consequences to them, to their families, to their peers and then decided that to live as pawns to someone who would dictate to them the condictions of their lives was not acceptable.

    John Roberts has asked us to reflect on how we voted and how we will vote in November.

    Let us think carefully on the founders' vision of America and then vote accordingly.

  • hardware Erda, Ut
    July 1, 2012 5:19 a.m.

    This article has completely convinced me that Deseret News has joined the ranks of the liberal machine. Someone must have pressured him to pass this if he is conservative. Sad day for all of us who believed the Supreme Court was Supreme.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    July 1, 2012 6:51 a.m.

    A Judge has to always balance interests. A conservative blogger can go Hannity every day.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    July 1, 2012 8:16 a.m.

    I'm confused. Do conservatives want judges to make rulings based on law and the constitution or don't they?

    The constitution of the United States gives congress the right to tax to promote the general welfare. So why would conservatives say the court errored?

    According to conservatives, the courts duty wasn't to decide the wisdom of Obama care, but merely to decide its constitutionality.

    Okay, so Obama said the mandate wasn't a tax. Well the supreme court respectfully disagreed and that is their right.

  • Grundle West Jordan, UT
    July 2, 2012 2:15 p.m.

    Mike Richards,

    In philosophy, you and I are much aligned. I also agree with your sentiments about our need to be engaged and held responsible for our choices.

    I feel that the point you are missing with the recent Supreme Court action is that the framework by which we operate has been changed. The constitution is a manifest of negative rights. That is to say a list of that which our government can NOT do. The boundries for these limitations have been tested and pushed over time. The problem is that once compromised, forever compromised. Chief Justice Roberts just opened a can of worms by setting a precedence of of a positive right. That is, social engineering and enforcement via the tax code due to failure to act.

    See...The framework has been altered. As a conservative, this is the worst of outcomes.

    This may provide the short-term motivation for the conservative base to act this November, but the long-term effects are chilling.

    This isn't about the healthcare law, this is about the constitution.

  • Pete1215 Lafayette, IN
    July 3, 2012 2:45 p.m.

    If I buy stamps, and they are taxed, I thus will have to pay the tax. But if I don't buy stamps, and am penalized, how is that a tax under the normal notion of tax?