Do you think Chief Justice John Roberts will begin a leftward drift like John Paul Stevens & David Souter did?

I'm a conservative, and beyond my initial reaction/outrage, I think he called the Obamacare ruling perfect. He said it was unconstitutional by the Commerce Clause, which we said it was. He said it was unconstitutional for the federal government to punish states by withholding funding for another program if they don't participate in Obamacare, which it was. He also said that since the IRS has the authority to collect the penalty, and the structure under which it was written, Obamacare as a whole, not just the penalty, but as a whole, is a tax. It is under this tax code that it's constitutional. While I agree that Obamacare is a travesty, he's right.

But, he also subtly helped conservatives. By declaring it a tax, the law will now have to be challenged on it's Constitutionality of the fact that according to Section 1, article 7, all tax laws must originate in the House of Representatives, whereas Obamacare originated in the Senate. Also, given that in any number of polls, the amount of detractors from Obamacare range in the 65-75% range, upholding it on the tax basis not only upset that 65-75% for just upholding Obamacare, but it also upset many more when they found out that the 1.7 trillion dollar program will be 100% TAX paid. That's a $1.7 trillion tax increase, and with our economy, we can't afford a tax increase. What all that means, is since Obamacare is such a polarizing issue, and anywhere from 65-75% of people reject it, that's that many more people who could likely vote AGAINST Obama in the election. And lastly, thanks to the ruling, he gave the individual states the ability to completely opt out of participating in the Obamacare program without penalty. So what's going to happen? Half the states are going to opt out as soon as they can.

The decision I read does not indicate a leftward drift. He found that if the law's basis was the Commerce Clause of the Constitution then it was unconstitutional. Likewise, he found that the law did not meet the "necessary" test in the Constitution. Rather, he considered the evidence before him. The Government's lawyers argued that the law (individual mandate) was constitutional because the penalty was in fact a tax, and Congress has the power to levy taxes.

Roberts did not call it a tax, the Government's lawyers did. On that basis he could find it constitutional.

Interestingly, the majority opinion drives a stake in the heart of the Big Government movement. Something was finally found to be unauthorized under the commerce clause. That is the clause that has been used to expand government for decades.

The opinion also found that requiring states to transfer patients to Medicaid or lose all of their Medicaid money was unconstitutional. The practice of Big Government imposing the central will on all the states has been stopped dead in its tracks.

Without the Medicaid transfers there is no money to implement the bill. Without unlimited use of the commerce clause the Big Government movement is stymied. Without the ability to dictate national policy on anything and everything through withholding funds from the states Big Government keeps the carrot but loses the stick.

By the way, opposition to Big Government and encroachment on people's individual lives and liberty is NOT a conservative position. The radical liberals who wrote the constitution did so to protect the people from their government, not the other way around.

The decision is a triumph for traditional liberalism, which has nothing to do with the leftward drift of the Democratic Party.

Roberts feared that the credibility of the high court was at stake due to all the conservative rulings being made, so he backed off and let Obamacare slide, but then he made up for it by calling it a tax.

Here is what I think happened. I think the decision was originally a split right down party lines. Since someone had to end the stalemate, Roberts decided to do so knowing that it would ensure Obamas defeat and would be repealed after Romney was elected anyway. He helped Romney out a bit more by ruling it constitutional but only because it is a tax.

From where I'm sitting, health care WAS a conservative pro-business decision. Scalia, Alito, and Thomas aren't conservative in any sense of the word, they're radical partisans and obstructionists. Roberts will continue to make decisions for the best interests of business. Sometimes this overlaps with real human beings, and sometimes it doesn't. Though I also suspect Roberts will vote pro gay marriage (because he's gay himself).

There was no drift with Souter. It was straight to the left. Stevens was more of a drift.

And one ruling doesn't foretell the future.

I think Roberts is an elite Business Conservative ( who should be in a political party all their own made up of both very filthy rich - Republicans and Democrats ) .

Who support big corporations as these same corporations support his elite cause ,One hand washes the other as the saying goes

Roberts' own written opinion on the ACA essentially states that he will try his hardest to uphold every law brought before him and make the government's argument for it. In short, yes.

And I don't buy that Stevens and Souter were ever conservative.

All of them are obligated to uphold the constitution which Roberts failed to do. That is what I will remember about him as we add a trillion more to our debt on a yearly basis due to his buckling under to global agreements. At least he didn't allow them to force the states to abide by this law but now a penalty through the IRS can be used to compel each and every one of us to purchase anything they demand, and they WILL.

Conservatives got into this situation by trying to predict the future (how many of you were ringing the death knell to "Obamacare" before the decision was made).

I don't see how trying to predict the future again is going to make you guys look less stupid.