Maybe it's me but something is really fishy about Roberts supporting ACA

[joshcryer]

70. Reading his statements, I don't believe that's the case.

The Commerce Clause was trumpeted by some lower courts. It would've been a lot easier to use that argument. The Commerce Clause was dismissed by the other right wing justices, though, so from my point of view Roberts chose the only philosophical way out. That it was basically a tax.

For him to contort his logic in the way that he did (as some believe, changing his mind after the fact) suggest to me that he didn't want the SCOTUS to lose legitimacy. The American public probably wouldn't have cared so much, we're a bunch of "have our cake and eat it too" types, but history would've looked back on the decision as a farce. Roberts did what he thought would at least preserve the SCOTUS from a historical perspective.

The same sort of thing, as Rober Reich pointed out, happened during the New Deal, with one of the staunchly right wingers switching sides just to maintain sanity in the SCOTUS. History has a way of repeating itself.

The public option will be passed in the next 5-10 years, depending on whether we can get our act together sooner rather than later and elect a Democratic House.