88 Comments

• BigDaddy | Jul 27, 2012, 02:06 PM EDT

  Elizabeth, shouldn't "[y]our conscience" tell us to model ourselves after Christ and not men who hide the crimes of pedophiles? btw if the representative of Christ on earth can be a former Hitler youth, why can't women use birth control? Really...

• Elizabethbyrn34 | Jul 06, 2012, 12:02 PM EDT

  The truth is the US Catholic Bishops have been lobying for Universal Health Care since 1919. Unfortunately any Catholic can not support this effort of Universal Health Care with a clear conscience because of the HHS Mandate. It is against our conscience to use or supply any form of Birthcontrol. As some may see our belief in Birth Control to be outdated saying yes to the mandate does fringe on our Freedom of Religion. We have the god given right to excersise what we are taught at mass throughout the week. If Catholics and the other religions let this HHS Mandate happend it sets a precedant on what the United States of America can do to our Freedom of Religion.

• seanomelb | Jul 03, 2012, 11:18 PM EDT

  How does that affect social justice?? or so!

• Scrivner | Jul 03, 2012, 12:05 AM EDT

  Seano, you said, "In regards to healthcare Justice Roberts,Obama and the pope have one thing in common.It's called social justice." We could add that they both have lifetime appointments, have lots of power and wear quaint costumes.

• seanomelb | Jul 02, 2012, 09:05 PM EDT

  Briano we should sit down to a fish and bread dinner and maybe invite some of our down and out citizens to join us.One ounce of charity is better than a million dollars worth of vitriol.

• BrianO | Jul 02, 2012, 07:32 PM EDT

  Oh and I don't lecture people down on their luck, I have had some pleasant and non pleasant chats though.

• BrianO | Jul 02, 2012, 07:24 PM EDT

  eiriamach you underestimate your fellow citizen,but to work with your analogies how does one deal with addicts? You certainly don't help by enabling them, give your drunk $5 or $50,00 until they decide to change it will not matter, in AA they say there is nothing worse than a "dry drunk"someone who is managing to not drink, but hating everything about it. There are plenty of good souls who volunteer and work in very testy conditions for the lost in the world, they do not do it for profit or money but because they feel they help. You use these lost and addicted people as a reason to justify control of others liberty and freedom. If I rob you to feed my family I could justify the action by saying my family needed food, but you would still have been robbed. On a less philosophical note when I give the drunk $10 bucks I don't tell him what to do with it. I know he will probably drink it, saves him from having to steal it from someone else.

• eiriamach | Jul 02, 2012, 12:46 PM EDT

  BrianO, I could hand $5 to a drunk lying in the gutter, but he'd spend it on more booze. I could give $5 to a senior lying on a park bench with a newspaper over her face. But it wouldn't buy her a motel room for the night, and some drug-addict mugger would probably take it from her. Private charity is a drop in an ocean of need, more so in hard times, and without govt regs, charities help "the worthy poor" and leave others to fend for themselves. But I'm so opposed to living with radical inequality --it undermines my quality of life to see abysmal poverty, to know that great wealth creates a permanent underclass to keep its power-- that I'm willing to support govt programs to rehabilitate, train, and find jobs for drunks, house seniors, and police the parks vs muggers. I'll even pay for some waste IF the programs reduce the problems. You say the drunk's responsible for his own plight and the senior citizen should have saved for retirement? Returning wounded from war, after years unemployed, the drunk slid into alcoholism, and the economic crash wiped out the senior's private retirement investments. Actually, I don't care HOW they fell into poverty; I care that WE not let them die in the gutter or on the park bench. It's not my bleeding heart; it's the hope of the nation's founders, who designed a system to prevent radical inequality and thus ensure the future of democracy. What are YOU willing to do, besides lecturing the poor on individualism being more important than social justice?

• BrianO | Jul 02, 2012, 11:27 AM EDT

  red what prevents people from being charitable? I don't believe you will find any passages that state that you must run your wealth through a government entity and trust that said government entity will cure all ills. I suspect that you are searching for reasons to increase your power and control over your neighbor.I prefer individual freedom, I prefer actually helping my neighbor, not stealing from one to give to another, i am sure you are more well versed than I, but I seem to remeber a phrase "thou shalt not steal".

• redhand32 | Jul 02, 2012, 10:04 AM EDT

  For me it is fairly simply. In Matthew's Gospel Jesus specifically stated that the 2 most important commandments are 1) Love of God; and 2) Love of Neighbor. He goes on to say these directives supersede the whole Law and the Prophets. What this means for me and perhaps the Chief Justice, is that 30 million Americans today and before, lacking health insurance must tell sick family members that there will be no insulin, no brain surgery, nobody to care for the Child with Down's Syndrome. The Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare" is a path to Justice which always trumps charity alone. Last night on Fox "News" Mitch McConnell said "the 30 million [uninsured] are not the problem" except that Jesus, and apparently Roberts agrees, they are !

• BrianO | Jul 02, 2012, 01:09 AM EDT

  For as many Koch brothers (with whom I am happy they have done well) there are just as many Soros types (whom are allowed to do what they will with their resources). We have a fundamental difference in that I believe in the individual and the inherent good in people. You argue your point well, and I am glad you are a self made wealthy citizen of "oz", I'm am sure you use your wealth to good use. I choose to collect the crumbs and God willing spread them like the loaves and fishes. Individual freedom allows one to do so. If you are happy allowing others to spend your wealth so be it, I hope they spend it as you would, cheers, Brian

• seanomelb | Jul 01, 2012, 11:59 PM EDT

  Brian you to could have a fortunate lifestyle but you allow the right wing oligarchs to oppress the middle class so they can have it all.How does it feel dragging buckets of money along the ground for the likes of the Koch brothers hoping they'll throw you a crumb.I think you people on the right call it "the trickle down affect". But if your happy with that fine.

• BrianO | Jul 01, 2012, 09:15 PM EDT

  Seano, why would I weep at others good fortune, someone doing well only makes me feel better, I agree with the lack of validity of wiki as it generally leans left so I thought you would be comfortable with their definition. I will have to look into taxation in Australia.

• seanomelb | Jul 01, 2012, 07:41 PM EDT

  Briano I would not use wikipedia as it it full of good and bad info.We have social Justice here in Oz and I don't have to share my home with anybody. But I do enjoy our health system and the safety net for low paid workers $600 per week and according to the OECD we have the best economy in the world and an unacceptable unemployment rate of 5% read and weep Briano.

• BrianO | Jul 01, 2012, 06:13 PM EDT

  Sotomayor as qualified as Obama.

• Cranleigh | Jul 01, 2012, 12:48 PM EDT

  Guys, spellchecking programs, editors?? It's Sotomayor with one 'a'..

• Cranleigh | Jul 01, 2012, 12:45 PM EDT

  'Roberts is one of six Catholics on the Supreme Court, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alioto and Sonia Sotamayor are the others.' Erm, I'm counting five on your list - you missed one. I know he doesn't say much but Clarence Thomas is still there. And it's Alito BTW.

• BrianO | Jun 30, 2012, 07:07 PM EDT

  Seano, you have nailed it, social justice.------------------Social justice is based on the concepts of human rights and equality and involves a greater degree of economic egalitarianism through progressive taxation, income redistribution, or even property redistribution.-- this is according to your wiki pedia

• seanomelb | Jun 30, 2012, 06:52 PM EDT

  In regards to healthcare Justice Roberts,Obama and the pope have one thing in common.It's called social justice.

• BrianO | Jun 30, 2012, 05:34 PM EDT

  eiriamch I do, the comment board prompts me by name, I answered the question about out of staters flocking to massachusetts on the other board, but MA> has lost congressional representation for loss of population, those flocking to MA. are illegal aliens who by the way do not have to pay the mandate/tax.

• Kendall | Jun 30, 2012, 05:32 PM EDT

  When you have individuals like Naill who believe Being Irish one must be Catholic. Couple that thought process with certain members of the Orange Order who insist on marching every July. Is it it in wonder why brokering a peace is so difficult. I''m neither Catholic nor Protestant, I'm just a Christian who is tied of religious bigotry and what it has done to Ireland. So Niall when will you stop perpetuating the bigotry?

• eiriamach | Jun 30, 2012, 03:52 PM EDT

  BrianO, please download Firefox or some other browser that automatically signs you in to a website. When you forget to sign in, your post goes up with no name and the name of the next person to post becomes attached to the post that you wrote! When I see a no-same post, I can't write anything after it. To answer your question, I'll just copy some of what I wrote on Cahir O'Doherty's "The Verdict on John Roberts..." where I quoted from the Court's decision at Jun 29 8:58, about Massachusetts. The Massachusetts solution is suffering precisely because it worked!... Out-of-staters drive to Mass. for better quality and less expensive health care than they can find at home. Their use of the system drives up the costs beyond what Massachusetts residents can sustain.... The ACA regulates INTERSTATE commerce in health insurance because any state that reforms its health care system as Massachusetts did is immediately disadvantaged in competition with neighboring states whose overwhelmed systems drive their residents elsewhere. Only the fed can solve such problems in a federalist system! Insurance is a shared-risk financial product. I paid for 20 years' worth of health insurance before I ever once used it. My payments paid for others' health care, and I do not consider them to have stolen from me!

• BrianO | Jun 30, 2012, 03:00 PM EDT

  patrickesq/post1. mine.

• patrickesq | Jun 30, 2012, 12:22 PM EDT

  Justice Roberts voted to uphold the ACA because the facts and legal precedents supported that decision. He is to be applauded for acting as a judge should , and not conforming to the perceptions of his personal political beliefs. Congress makes the policy for the USA, not the Supreme Court, or the Republican party. History will determine if the intended goals of the Act to make health care available to millions of more Americans, at affordable rates, is achieved. That is certainly a worthy goal. I suspect what really motivates the Republican attacks on the Act is their fear that it will prevent the major insurance companies from completely controlling the market for insurance coverage,that has permitted them to annually escalate premiums far in excess of the rate of inflation, freely deny coverage for those with preexisting conditions, cap the amount of life time coverage after serous illnesses, and have little accountability to the health care consumer and our government.

• patrickesq | Jun 30, 2012, 12:17 PM EDT

  Eiriamach why do you trust government to do the "right" thing. Is their track record that good in providing efficient effective service? What does government do best? It grows. To your cost argument, I live in Massachusetts the reddest of the occupied red states, Before Mass health those who were freeloaders took advantage of welfare or emergency rooms, hospitals are required to treat all. This cost was passed on to the non freeloaders which resulted in the rate being paid to be larger, You would think if an entity deemed that all must have insurance or be fined to offset the costs the cost of insurance would go down. In Massachusetts the cost of insurance has almost doubled, younger citizens who's needs for insurance are much less, are being fined, people who are just getting by are fined, the non citizens don't belong to the system and are not being fined. This is about power and control, that is why I use the term serfdom, Freedom is not just another word for nothing left to lose, I like control of my life and how I pursue happiness, Giving an entity the power to limit my health care is a reduction in my freedom. They will not stop there. They will deem some other right to impose on me and my fellow citizens that will further control their freedom. It is theft to force people to pay for other peoples services. Why do these plans prevent catastrophic injury insurance to be sold to low risk clients? why should an eighteen year old kid on his own have to have a policy designed for a fifty year old. ---I've gone on too long-- Give your freedom away but leave me alone.

• eiriamach | Jun 30, 2012, 11:02 AM EDT

  BrianO You're still thinking in terms of government existing only to protect your individual right to accumulate wealth. Its broader purpose is to ensure equal treatment of all under one rule of law, so that your rights are the same as my rights, etc. The ACA imposes a fine on people who can afford insurance but who choose to freeload on the national health care system. It fines people who do not pay their fair share but who use the health care facilities we pay for (60% of the uninsured require health care each year). Their use of the system burdens those who pay for the system to the tune of $100 Billion each year in high costs of insurance and services! We carry the freeloaders, most of whom truly cannot afford the cost of insurance and must freeload. How can you call such a fine "theft" and "serfdom"? It frees the serfs (freeloaders). It compels them to pay only a small share of the cost of insurance, not even their fair share, and it does not apply to anyone who truly cannot afford insurance! This fine steals nothing from you; it controls the cost of your insurance! (Roberts' "tax authority" argument for it was so ridiculous that he'd have to approve taxing you for not eating broccoli if congress mandated it! As regulation of insurance industries, however, ACA makes sense.)

• jacersagain | Jun 30, 2012, 10:27 AM EDT

  Incidentally, in matters of proper justice, one’s religion, faith or atheistic belief should not influence proper deliverance of justice. An I for an I, a toof for a toof, says eye agreeing with my God's Bible.

• jacersagain | Jun 30, 2012, 10:18 AM EDT

  I’m a simple man. When I’m unsure about something, I look up traditional, long-established forms of definitive reference. I looked up an English Dictionary for definitions of the words Penalty and Tax. Penalty: Punishment for a crime or offence; a forfeit. Tax: Compulsory payment by wage earners, companies etc imposed by Government to raise revenue. I also looked up Roget’s Thesaurus for alternatives. Penalty: damage, an infliction. Tax: tariff, excise, a toll. From these definitions, it is clear neither word is compatible with the other, so what the heck are these Judges doing making out that both words mean the same? The USA’s Supreme Court Judges should be sacked en-masse for lack of knowledge of word definitions and making a judgement based on a hugely wrong interpretation of words. Just like the members of the European Court of Human Rights, the very few (nine members of the US Supreme Court) should not be allowed to exclusively decide for the very many (millions). From far away here in Ireland, even I, the simple man, can see this USA decision is full of crass stupidity affecting the many millions (of simple people) and serving up to the very few (insurance companies). Surely this decision is a definitive sign that America has gone to pot. Foe once, I'd agree with a tenet of Islam: that no insurance is needed for anything. What you do or get up to is your own business between you and your God.

• shop tom | Jun 30, 2012, 10:01 AM EDT

  I find in interesting that posts indicating the poster has the opinion that Obama is an arrogant failure aren't allowed on this liberal rag.

• BrianO | Jun 30, 2012, 08:48 AM EDT

  eiriamach this bills legalizes theft nicely packaged as mandate but for purpose of constitutionality called a tax. I have life insurance, my neighbor does not, mandate or fine, I have car insurance, i argue transport in the US is essential for maintaining access to health care so if you do not have car insurance mandate a penalty, sounds like the road to serfdom where the control is in the hand of the mandators/executive.

• eiriamach | Jun 30, 2012, 08:36 AM EDT

  McNamara31 says that letting Romney and the far right run the government "would be the same as giving Gordon Gecko the keys to bank." Right, Well said! 'Only problem is that the Gordon Geckos already have the keys to the bank. The ACA is one way to start returning the keys to the people by making the much-praised, great American health care system available to all of us.

• staker42 | Jun 30, 2012, 08:07 AM EDT

  What a bunch of poppycock to suggest that Roberts voted his catholic conscience. I hope he would decide matters based on there constitutionality. Having said that we don't know the full impact of this bill yet. It's cost will be unfunded there will be a two tier health system if the national health systems of Ireland and England are so great why do the best doctors come to this country. Finally nobody has asked how the providers of healthcare feel. My prediction we will have a huge doctor shortage and then the people that this act is supposed to help will be totally left out.

• EamonnDublin | Jun 30, 2012, 04:57 AM EDT

  "McNamara31" - Yes, I do watch Fox in Dublin. I watch it in order to get a different viewpoint to the others, who, in the main, eulogise Obama and mock everybody else. I have a mind of my own and at the end of the day I make my own mind up. I may be right, I may be wrong, but its my own view having listened to other views also. It is my own opinion that Obama is a great campaigner but an awful president. As for your statement that Obama's "predecessor sank (the USA) into financial ruin", surely you must be aware that Obama has DOUBLED the national debt in his three and a half years in power - and that Obama has in fact borrowed more than twice as much in that time than ALL of the previous presidents of the USA COMBINED. Some damn president! Get rid of him, before he gets rid of you, Éamonn, Dublin, Ireland.

• KweenOHearts | Jun 30, 2012, 01:48 AM EDT

  What happens when the insurance for all doesn't cover all? We will find out soon enough. In a country already drowning in debt, the imposition of this boondogle is estimated to cost an additional $875 Billion Dlls. --- But no problem there, it will be partially covered by extracting $500 Billion Dlls. from Medicare. I'm sure the elderly won't complain... they will be appropriately 'comforted' by the long programmed 'death panels'. --- It has been reported that in Britain 29% of the elderly are being euthanized because the government health system does not consider their life as valuable, and the system is broke anyway. If obamacare is implemented in the US... the old folks are sure to be looking at enjoying similar 'benefits'.

• BrianO | Jun 30, 2012, 12:37 AM EDT

  Seano, I live in massachusetts so have already seen increased costs and the same ratio of non insured, with the addition of the government penalizing people for not being insured. I always like when government kicks a man when he's down,and our part time governor has managed to run through the rainy day fund as well. Ephraim what has happened to you, not even worth responding, juvenile.

• EphraimKibbey | Jun 29, 2012, 11:28 PM EDT

  @McNamara31 - You are 100% correct about educating the public and Obama's address Thursday after the announcement was a good start. The actual pieces of the bill (except the mandate) poll at 70 to 80% favorable even with republicans but until today, the bill itself was polling 60 to 70% unfavorable because of all the misinformation being generated by those against it. They are only against it because it is a sign of Obama's success as the bill is identical to Romneycare which was based on a GOP bill offered in opposition to Clinton's attempt at universal health care in the ninties. Interestingly, after being declared constitutional and Obama's one overview of what the bill includes, the polls today are 46% favorable to 46% unfavorable in spite of all the lies about it coming from the GOP yesterday and today. Could it be that attaining constitutionality has made people take a second look? Could it be that if the GOP were lying about it being unconstitutional maybe they were lying about how horrible it was?

• Nicoletta | Jun 29, 2012, 10:25 PM EDT

  The Pope has said that universal healthcare should be available to all regardless of wealth. Having been raised with this principle in the UK (no bills, no insurance needed, wonderful care and best of all - peace of mind) and now living in the US the system here seems totally loony. The only winners seem to be the insurance and pharma companies who are totally screwing Joe Public. They need to scrap the whole system, make the insurance companies redundant, ban advertising of medicines, nationalize health care but not fund abortions and contraceptives.

• McNamara31 | Jun 29, 2012, 09:26 PM EDT

  EamonnDublin Are you by chance watching FOX in Dublin; because if you go by the facts, Obama has done more to right the wrongs and injustices in the country than the eight years of his GOP predecessor who sunk this country into financial ruin. And if you think Romney and the far right is the answer to America's problems' that would be the same as giving Gordon Gecko the keys to bank.

• seanomelb | Jun 29, 2012, 08:23 PM EDT

  Time will tell Briano and living in a country with mandated healthcare we would not swap it for your inadequate system. At the end of the day I bet I'll be the one to say to you "I told you so"

• brianmack | Jun 29, 2012, 07:54 PM EDT

  Good analysis. I think you could be 100% correct. In any case, I'm for Obamacare and pleased with the decision.

• BrianO | Jun 29, 2012, 07:31 PM EDT

  seano, don't be so sure that more will be insured, I would be willing to bet that more will go uninsured, and many down on their luck will be fined/taxed/mandated/stolenfrom/duesed/ you pick your word as words don't seem to matter these days. Politics and politicians are about power, the more restraint on their power the better.

• BrianO | Jun 29, 2012, 07:12 PM EDT

  What made America different? Why did the desperate risk all for the opportunity America had to offer. The forest my friends of the opposition fail to see, blinded by the healthcare tree is that the executive branch is now all powerful. This is fine when your side is in charge, or someone is in charge who loves the country. The danger is when some one in the future gains the presidency with the new mandated powers, he cannot be restrained by the constitution. The system was set up to limit the power of a Tyrant and now the system has been beaten. When the day comes and an American hitler rises thru the ranks the constitution no longer will protect the citizens. I fear this much more than figuring out how to help someone buy a product.

• seanomelb | Jun 29, 2012, 07:01 PM EDT

  Call it a tax,surcharge,levy or mandate or anything you like at the end of the day more Americans will have health cover.No longer will people have to sell their homes or die because of health costs or have insurance withdrawn at a whim by the "dollar over death" private companies. Humanism triumphed over greed at the High court yesterday. The GOP may weep and gnash their false teeth(like their false healthcare promises)but at the end of the day the poor and the middle class won.

• CelticQueenUSA | Jun 29, 2012, 06:31 PM EDT

  I am so pleased that our Justice Department realizes that Obamacare is not evil but quite constitutionally correct for all. Finally the intelligent ones know who is for the good of America. Go President Obama!!

• EamonnDublin | Jun 29, 2012, 06:03 PM EDT

  Chief Justice Roberts is very obviously not unintelligent. He has a very shrewd, logical brain. It is my own belief that he has purposely driven a stake into the heart of Obama and his team and has gone a long way towards ensuring Obama's defeat in November. In the full knowledge that a President Romney will repeal the Healthcare bill, Chief Justice Roberts has ensured two major things - firstly the defeat of Obama and, secondly, that the Healthcare folly will never get off the ground. Congratulations to a very clever and intelligent man. Of course, Obamarama is too busy campaigning to have a clue what's going on. Éamonn, Dublin, Ireland.

• McNamara31 | Jun 29, 2012, 05:36 PM EDT

  EphraimKibbey |I think you have made some very strong points below. Now Obama has to educate the American people in the benefits of the ACA, as I believe he and his administration had failed to do successfully in the past.

• allentown | Jun 29, 2012, 05:29 PM EDT

  Kudos to Roberts. Why make the Supreme Court the bad guy. Let the people decide in November 2012. You'll get a pretty good idea by which way the polls go in July. Obamacare and uncontrolled spending, which cost the Democrats 62 House seats in 2010 will again be the hot button issue.

• Jaypeet0 | Jun 29, 2012, 05:08 PM EDT

  If he "voted his concience" on this issue, out of Catholic-taught "Concern for the needy" thats great, but he never gave that as even one reason. His reason? The Law is a TAX. Which Obama swore up and down for years that is is NOT. This law also provides for funding of abortions (murder and an act of apostasy for any catholic to commit or facilitate), provides for the HHS amendment, trying to force the church to apostasize and sin against the Holy Spirit by paying for what has always been condemned by HOLY Tradition. I have to wonder how much his Catholic Conscience really factored in to this. Most American "Catholics" in politics have sordidly betrayed the teachings of Christ to either get elected, or stay in office once elected, whether they be of Irish, or Eastern European, Italian, French, or Latin American, descent, and I as one of many, do not regard those people as Catholics any longer. Roberts I will give the benefit of the doubt to, at least until all the facts influencing his decision become available.

• bushmanirish | Jun 29, 2012, 05:08 PM EDT

  The first time we'll know where Mr. Roberts' true motivations lay will be when we read his memoirs. Until then, as King Solomon wisely reminds us, "all is vanity and a chasing after wind".

• McNamara31 | Jun 29, 2012, 04:57 PM EDT

  BrianO... We are the last (and largest) industrialized nation to provide care for all. Sure there will be growing pains, and times of transition however I believe this country can get it right. And as for the cardinals and bishops concerns about healthcare I believe we were given the ability "to reason" for issues like this; and a answer can be found when people work towards a consensus best for all rather than the political maneuvering I have witnessed from Cardinal Dolan and Bishop Wm. Murphy. At the end of the day we are all accountable for our choices good and bad. I am fully covered by healthcare yet would never consider an abortion because of my personal ethics however time and time again I see all sides "play" with this issue. Their are many sick chronically ill children in every part of America and as I see it the only one's who were thinking of them where "the nuns on the bus" and the Obama plan. 32 countries with Catholic Churches within them have resolved healthcare for all; What makes us so different?

• BrianO | Jun 29, 2012, 04:08 PM EDT

  Ephraim penalty vs. tax matters a lot. I know the constitution doesnt seem to matter these days but congress has the right to tax in certain instances, I believe it took an amendment (16) to the constitution to allow the income tax.

• BrianO | Jun 29, 2012, 03:44 PM EDT

  McNamara, what happens when the health insurance for all doesn't cover all? I have insurance what if I choose to be penalized now and not be insured, when I have my massive heart attack who will pay? But I suppose now Arizona authorities can collect the fee/tax/contribution (depends on what the meaning of is is) from the new american invaders they are not allowed to keep out. What if I have nothing to tax am I thrown in prison, for in order for the system to work all must pay, it's only fair. Maybe the government will deem it's alright for some not to be taxed/feed. I wonder what food choice is unhealthy for me, to keep cost down government really should make that choice for me. You know some voluntary mandatory exercise should probably be imposed for my own good, and maybe all that time pursuing happiness would be better used in the government work house. I feel better already.

• pilib04 | Jun 29, 2012, 03:14 PM EDT

  Ephraimkibbey, your comments certainly give an insight into the machinations of the USA jurisprudence system. Thanks for sharing.

• McNamara31 | Jun 29, 2012, 03:06 PM EDT

  It's really so amazing the amount of posters below who consider providing healthcare for all, no matter rich or poor, (as Christ directed all Christians to do) a "Liberal" idea, rather than a moral issue. Maybe it's something for you to ponder when you're in church on Sunday.

• pilib04 | Jun 29, 2012, 03:05 PM EDT

  Niall, did you have a private conversation with Roberts or are you assuming that it was his Catholic faith that brought him to his decision. I have read numerous other reasons why he decided the way he did including: bribery, lower intelligence, turn coat, savior of the USA Supreme Court, Leadership, compromise, but this is the first time I have heard his decision was based on his faith. I guess its as appropriate as the others. In any event, at least Roberts decision brings the USA closer to the healthcare standards of Europe and Canada and the industrialized world. I would guess it has more to do with Roberts being Irish and therefore cantankerous (in the charming sense) than with his faith. But who knows, maybe his conscience got the best of him.

• judiron | Jun 29, 2012, 02:42 PM EDT

  I agree with skibberrean, he said it's up to us to vote them out. Love it.

• Skibberrean | Jun 29, 2012, 02:24 PM EDT

  He definitely through the ball into the Republican court with a great strategy. I believe it was his Catholic conscience and his ability to see the larger picture of where Obama has The United States of America headed. Kudos to Chief Justice Roberts!!!

• EphraimKibbey | Jun 29, 2012, 02:06 PM EDT

  Was he playing chess while the rest of America was playing checkers?

• EphraimKibbey | Jun 29, 2012, 02:01 PM EDT

  Is Roberts a conscientious conservative or a sly one? With his majority opinion, he has accomplished three things: 1. He has created a precedent for a much narrower interpretation of the Federal Government's rights under the commerce clause upon which most mandates to the states are based. 2. He has given the GOP a taxation attack line for the 2012 elections that they would lack if the ACA had been found unconstitutional. 3. He kept the Roberts Court's fingerprints off of the demise of the first American attempt at "universal" health care. If he believes that a victorious GOP will repeal the ACA anyway, he has kept the Democrates from rallying their base at its defeat and energized the GOP base to repeal it at the ballot box. So was it his Catholic conscience or his ability to see a bigger picture than the rest of us that motivated Chief Justice Roberts?

• EphraimKibbey | Jun 29, 2012, 01:42 PM EDT

  Penalty vs. Tax? It really does not matter since you only pay it if you plan on ripping off the rest of us by refusing to buy health insurance and free loading at the ER. Talk to someone from Mass. as they have lived through this and are doing quite nicely thank you. Every doom and gloom that the GOP has predicted will come from the ACA has strangly failed to happen there.

• EphraimKibbey | Jun 29, 2012, 01:36 PM EDT

  Interesting that Health and related stocks took a temorary hit yesterday then rebounded and are leading the upward charge today. Must be that MANDATE thing. I guess they will have to hire a bunch more nurses, techs and actuaries to keep up with all the new business they see coming their way. Can you say JOBS?

• Jung Woman | Jun 29, 2012, 01:34 PM EDT

  I am holding all of your delusions at bay! I agree with PhlutiePhan here. The big oilers and pharmas are in bed together - make no mistake about it. We have 90 year olds taking up to 20 meds a day - even statins! Part D prescription insurance was another insane plan proposed and disposed of during Bush 2 era!

• FastEddy | Jun 29, 2012, 01:22 PM EDT

  Roberts: "Its a tax"! ... And that makes Nancy Pelosi the biggest taxsucker the world has ever seen!

• PhlutiePhan | Jun 29, 2012, 01:02 PM EDT

  It is more than obvious that Justice Roberts allowed poitical expediency to influence his decision. Justice Kennedy is the most liberal of the conservative wing. His opinion should be judged accordingly. Justice Roberts had a reason for voting (as opposed to judicial ruling) on the side of the liberals. He was worried about his image of a fractious and divisive court. He tried to bridge the divide for the good of the nation. The problem is that he compromised on the truth. The three dancin' Supremes (Ginsburg,Kagan,Sotomayor) are sharks and Breyer is a minnow who does their biddin'. Roberts believes that he was like Lincoln and "saved the Union". In reality, what he did is a sign of weakness and bodes grave ill for the Republic. By callin' it a tax, he pounded a round peg into a square hole. it also would indicate a reaching out to the liberals for some means of compromise. It was obvious that he had met extensively with them to work out that compromise and left his conservative compadres bailin' water in a sinking boat.

• mayoman | Jun 29, 2012, 12:44 PM EDT

  You'll note that the only big businesses genuinely opposed to the Affordable Healthcare Act are Big Insurance and Big Pharma. Not a peep out of Big Oil, or Detroit or even Wal-mart. Why? Because those large companies know that the Act will slowly and steadily bring down the cost of insuring their workers over time. When millions of people are obliged to pay for insurance, and thus have the opportunity to access preventive care from a GP, and not run up the bill for everyone by going to ERs for their medical needs, the cost of healthcare will slow for everyone that now carries health insurance. We should recall that the cost for hospital ERs to attend to the medical needs of the uninsured presently adds an estimated $1000.00 each year to the policies of those of us who are insured. The Act is a common sense solution to a real problem. A problem that, if left unaddressed by the naysayers on the right, would only become more costly to all of us. Thank God Justice Roberts did the right thing.

• Jung Woman | Jun 29, 2012, 12:35 PM EDT

  Great stuff Dublinborn - Ireland is most certainly not unique in these bankrupt issues you declare! Plenty of that to go around. I suspect when you refer to "leftist" you mean those of us committed to changing the archaic way in which corruption replaces conscience? We "lefties" embraces dignity for all human beings. Without that Ireland would never have become a Republic. Monaghan born!

• Bythebay | Jun 29, 2012, 12:30 PM EDT

  Grossly biased headline and attitude. If Roberts voted his personal religion and not the US Constitution he should be removed IMMEDIATELY from the Supreme Court. Such a headline and opinion voiced by any other race or religion would be OUTRAGE, bigoted, anti-Catholic, etc. etc. Yet there is no problem voicing such blatant bias about John Glover Roberts. By what source do you claim or he claim to be of Irish descent? His surname is the same as Maggie Thatcher's.

• warrenpoint00 | Jun 29, 2012, 12:01 PM EDT

  Absolutely hilarious to witness all the religious right wing goofs going nuts over the Obama victory, all because the most basic of human rights was granted to every individual in America.Get a life you religious right wing Klan.Losers.

• Jung Woman | Jun 29, 2012, 11:58 AM EDT

  I would rather have to pay this tax than one that pays billions to The Pentagon or any bomb makers out there! This is about changing how we take care of one another. I am in healthcare and see the nasty side of "sick insurance." If and when it is your elderly parent or child and they are cut off because they have gone beyond their insurance payment time limits your rage is justified - especially when the CEO of that insurance company is earning a 6 figure income and you have had to mortgage your home - or even leave it - in order to care for your loved one This IS about conscience - it IS about all of us and if not now when?

• jerrydonovan | Jun 29, 2012, 11:46 AM EDT

  The naysayers i.e.right wing republicans as ajustification for opposing Obamacare wrap themselves in the claim that the mandadate is a tax.So accepting this as fact, can we reasonably assume that they would oppose social security or/and medicare.If politics were judged like soccer the score would be OBAMA2-ROMNEY0.

• handsome68 | Jun 29, 2012, 11:46 AM EDT

  Glancing at remarks made by many of the commenters below, I agree with the ones, like bostonhof, who say, "What a Liberal Rag you have." And, too, what's with this "Catholic conscience" crap? So-called "Catholics" are as split as anyone else in the USA, if not more so. I'm seriously thinking of deleting you idiots altogether.

• jflanagan | Jun 29, 2012, 11:43 AM EDT

  Justice Roberts ruled that it is okay to lie and pass a tax by claiming vociferously it is not a tax. That robs us of our right to support or oppose tax increases. A sad, sad day for our Representative Republic, at least what it used to be. I don't care whether the ACA is law or not, it doesn't affect me much outside of making health care more expensive. What I do care about is the new hidden taxes and lies by our President and Congress.

• bostonhof | Jun 29, 2012, 11:34 AM EDT

  What a Liberal Rag you have. Ireland has changed a lot in the last 20 years since I left for the worst. You cannot keep spending and not expect to pay it back. What happened to the old Irish way of not buying anything unless you could pay it back and living within your means. Work hard, go to Church and Abortion is wrong but yet you all vote differently when you get to the poll both. Just remember when you get to the pearly gates you can't say he was Catholic, Irish and a DEM so I had to vote for him. This is the greatest country in the world and it is going down the tubes because of the people looking for the free hand out. Whatever happened to working for a living. Roberts Catholic voted conscience give me a break. Yea how is the EURO working out!!! Just report the news and don't spin it your way.

• CitizenWhy | Jun 29, 2012, 11:28 AM EDT

  I do not know why you make this claim about conscience. Judge Roberts did not endorse Obama's health care law. He endorsed the Republican view that it is a tax, and won the liberals over to letting him write the opinion that makes it so. Now the issue is political rather than legal, just what the Republicans wanted. They can accuse Obama of imposing a new tax on the middle class. ... Roberts also probably wanted to distance himself from the increasingly clownish reputation of the other conservatives on the court. This ruling also assures him a place in history and an important place in future law textbooks. It will be his legacy. ... If anyone in Ireland wants thatchers who know what they are doing they will have to hire them from northern Ireland. At least that's what my relatives used to say and do. Only people with some money can afford a thatched cottage because of the maintenance.

• CitizenWhy | Jun 29, 2012, 11:24 AM EDT

  Justice Roberts deemed the law to be legal because taxes are authorize by the Constitution, He ststed that it is not the job of the court to write law or fix a bad law, that is the job of the congress. So if you agree with Barrack Hussien Obama vote accordingly, If you believe in stopping the largest tax increase in history and the government take over of 20% of the nations GDP vote accordingly.

• alicepbyrne | Jun 29, 2012, 11:19 AM EDT

  What a terribly uneducated bunch so many are on here. You detest socialism yet it is all over this country already. And you talk about it like it's a disease. Until you have lived in a European country, don't knock it. America is in dire straits right now and apparently it's not a socialist country. BUT it's owned by a communist one. Wake up!!!

• Taho1221 | Jun 29, 2012, 11:04 AM EDT

  Niall, Is there anyone you have not met? Brittany Spears, perhaps? P.S. Check the typos.....again

• Springfield9 | Jun 29, 2012, 10:50 AM EDT

  Brilliant, just brilliant. The American SUpreme Court is prohibited from introducing religion (any religion) into it's actions. However, it is not beneath you to bring in the "Catholic Libel"

• snakehips | Jun 29, 2012, 10:48 AM EDT

  We Americans are a strange bunch. We aspire to help the "tired" and "poor", we believe in "liberty and justice for all" We are a government "for the people by the people" until at one point we go into the selfish dark place where it is all about me and who is threatening what I have or in most cases what we think we have. No one understands that we are an aging society in which people are going to need a comprehensive health care system. No one undertands that uninsured sick people drain our national resources now without a comprehensive health plan. No one understands or cares, until they are affected, that 26,000 Americans die each year because of lack of healthcare and an inability to afford it.No one understands that, in the richest nation in the world, 50 million people can't go to a doctor because they can't afford it. Does anyone care that the Health Insurance Companies made billions of dollars in profit this year? Did any of you "pontificators" about Obamacare get any of that profit? Probably not. You just hate because you hate. Shame on you! Insurance is based on the law of large numbers, i.e., claims are paid by premiums paid not only by those who utilize benefits, but by those who don't. Same thing with unemployment benefits and Social Security benefits. Everyone gives a little to get a lot in the event you have to use it, which I'm sure we all do. So instead of using your distorted ideologies, use your brain to think these things out just like Justice Roberts did, who now is a "raging incoherent liberal" to all you angry haters.

• BulldogMania | Jun 29, 2012, 10:44 AM EDT

  Roberts is a HUGE PIECE OF SHI*! He has betrayed the American people, which will now suffer from this unsustainable mandate and takeover of the finest health care system in the world. This will accelerate our national decline, add TRILLIONS to the national debt, and American's will be dieing sooner...which is what they want to save money on social security...another government mandate that is destroying the country. We ARE now a nanny state like most of Europe. The world has always come here when they got really sick...ask the Canadians...where are we to go now? This will go down in history as one of the most destructive decisions of the SCOTUS. I never thought I would HATE my country...but I do today. The ideals of America are gone...this will be the ruin of America. The Chinese government, and the handful of Chinese that run that country are the only winnners in this decision. They will now get richer and more powerful. In less than ten years they will be the most powerful economy on Earth. People will be shocked to see how quickly Obamacare brings down America!

• dev4 | Jun 29, 2012, 10:42 AM EDT

  the left would like to turn the U.S. IN TO SOCIALIST EUROPE BY THE WAY HOW IS EURO LAND WORKING OUT.

• hermitTalker | Jun 29, 2012, 10:37 AM EDT

  Presume you meant Faith, not Fate in this piece? It may be unfair to say he voted his Faith and conscience here, we await further analysis of his decision. So far he rejected the Commerce clause for logical reasons, and in so doing rejected the four "liberals" which is never a good label. BTW one of those is not a practicising Catholic, Sotomajor, and was named with the other female by Mr Obama for being pro the "invented right" to abortion, which is definitely not in any principle of the Constitution. Mr BHO voted against CJ Roberts and J Alioto for the same blind prejudice. Mr R Roberts did seem to stretch the taxing power of the Congress in the Constitution, judgment reserved here for further study, but rejecting the Commerce clause was reasonable. The cost of health care may not save the cash and create the jobs as expected from the original scenario. Next term, the Court will honour the first amendment and allow citizens to be free of the agenda of Big Brother who insists that his abortion agenda be pushed with immoral pieces and unconstitutional Mandates. The good parts of this Law need to be kept IF the math makes sense.

• aobrien1 | Jun 29, 2012, 10:35 AM EDT

  You said Justice Roberts was one of six Catholics on the court, yet you only mentioned five. You either deliberately left out Justice Thomas, a true conservative, or you can't count.

• micky74007 | Jun 29, 2012, 10:30 AM EDT

  I think Roberts punted away any credibility he might have had by upholding obamacare. It is a shame that he did not have the courage to stand up to obama. I expect he will be placing the crown on king obama's head if not kissing his behind.

• McNamara31 | Jun 29, 2012, 10:16 AM EDT

  Well Done Justice Roberts! Thirty two of the thirty three major industrialized nations have healthcare, and today the 33rd (richest) and largest nation joined them. Now the "for profit" insurance companies can NO longer drop you when you become ill, or you meet the lifetime cap if you are unfortunate to have chronic illness. Today, people with pre existing conditions will no longer be ignored by insurance companies just because they were the unlucky ones. Today's young people can stay on their parents policy until age 26 and best of all, for the first time Americans will no longer go bankrupt and lose their homes, just because they lose their job and their healthcare with it.Medicare when established was good for the American people, and this too will be good for the American people. When the vote came down,I thought of the "nuns" presently going across the country in their bus, on behalf of the poor and the sick and I think God answered their prayers.

• seanaci | Jun 29, 2012, 10:03 AM EDT

  More likely he voted his image in a feeble attempt redeem his legacy.

• faberm1 | Jun 29, 2012, 09:32 AM EDT

  He did what he always does: He interprets the Constitution to the best of his ability and he tries to apply it and be faithful to it. Contrary to what most liberals think, he is not a constructionist or a judicial activist. He is faithful to the Constitution as a true conservative. He deferred to the Legislature as he should have done. This retains the power to govern in the people/citizenry themselves.

• eiriamach | Jun 29, 2012, 08:39 AM EDT

  The Chief Justice may be a lovely person and not "the right wing ideologue" some consider him, but he is certainly no Justice Louis Brandeis, nor does he have one-tenth the understanding of enumerated powers in the Constitution that Chief Justice John Marshall clarified for the Court. Roberts' incredibly narrow reading of the commerce clause of the US Constitution as prohibiting the ACA, at a time when astronomical health insurance costs price 50 million Americans out of the market, show why he cannot succeed in bringing the other Justices along on his opinions. He did not understand the current (and soon to double) burden of health care costs on citizens and states to fall under the duty of Congress to regulate "those activities that substantially affect interstate commerce"-- really? Seriously? What is he doing on the Court, let alone as Chief Justice? His opinion shows narrow thinking and no understanding of the history of commerce in the US! Worse the worry: If you're right that he acted on his Catholicism, then he is a greater danger to the nation than if he acted on conservative ideology. Given the interpretation of Catholic teaching by the current American bishops, we could soon be looking at anti-contraception and pro-discrimination laws gaining approval by the high Court!