And all this time we thought bada bagster ginster was the thief main main.

ala Akbar and enjoy Sharia Rule Yaw´all

The Chief Justice lost his integrity on Obamacare. I don´t care about him, and have no respect for him.

The maoist would have preferred to have o-care deemed unconstitional. Now he has to produce something that cannot be achieved.

He´s going to be in a world of trouble for this untenable plan.

As for Roberts, keep in mind that anything written in the NYSlimes is most likely a LIE.

Can´t leave the Beltway for fear of getting a drink in your face ? . Then QUIT , you lousy bum .

I lost all respect for the man when he shoved obamacare up our butts. He´ll never have to deal with it can´t say that for the rest of us.

Psalm 109-8 to him too!

Reading this, I am reminded of what a truly worthless cast of characters inhabit Washington. Obama, Bernanke and Roberts-a hat trick of epic fail. The law of averages suggest this could happen at some point, just wish it weren´t in the middle of a depression.

The Chief Justice obeyed the law when he ruled on health care. It is a tax; if you need proof, check out how many new IRS agents are being hired to enforce Obamacare.

Liberal justices make up laws because they "feel" it´s right. Don´t upbraid Roberts for following the law. Congress does have the right to tax. It is our own stupid fault as a country that we have such an inept president and senate. Put the blame where it belongs.

The attitude I see here a lot reminds me of how NYT editorial writers are scorned when they publish liberal drivel, but are quoted when they agree with conservatives. Just like everyone loves Roberts until they hate him.

If president zero signs a bill into law tomorrow, that would require me to have whitewall tires on my car, or pay a tax, the logic of Roberts would be that the feds could constitutionally do that to me. Since it has the power to tax, it can impose anything it wants on all of us.
That is the impact of Roberts´ reasoning on kenyacare. Article I, section 8 of the constitution, the ´all things necessary´ which establishes powers of the legislature and president, has been trumped by Roberts´ decision.

Well #8, if it is a tax why is the law not then Unconstitutional? The bill originated in the Senate.

#8. From what I understand the law was first written in the House, sent to the Senate which made all of the changes and then sent it back to the House for their approval...all very legal.

Chief Justice Roberts’ haughtiness in nitpicking a minor attribution so deep in the weeds of an arcane technical footnote is amusing in view of his risible treachery in the AHA (Obamacare) ruling.

In that case, Roberts couldn’t muster the courage to debate his position openly with the other Justices, but rather waited until the last moment to do about face and rule in the 11th hour, safe from the questions of his incredulous colleagues.

It´s mindboggling, #3, that you even have to write your last sentence. Only those who´ve never been close to any news story (that´s been totally misrepresnted in the media) could possibly accept what they read in ANY paper as fact. Absolutely mindboggling.

I read the article,...then , after a shower, I was ok.
such slime

#11, actually, the senate gutted a bil from the house that had nothing to do with O´care and then sent it to committee. That´s one part of the slime practiced in ramming it through. Similar to Tip O´Neil determining the GCA1986 passed on a voice vote when it clearly didn´t. He was the speaker of the house and rammed it through, ignoring the protests of the pubbies present.

How may read the article? I like what Roberts did here. The Secretary of Labor did not have a change of heart. There is now a different Secretary of Labor.

Elections have consequences. Many Obama
s voters don´t seem to think those consequenced run much deeper than a vote for the next American Idol.

Roberts - irredeemable.

Number Six.....if you´re going to pray that, please add that he lasts thru the Obama regime. You really want a CJ of the Supremes appointed by the antichrist?

Roberts is an owned man. His frustration is showing, that´s all. Øbama care was that important to the Administration they crammed it down everyone´s throat and the last best chance of defeating it wholesale was Roberts. He sold out or knuckled under to the pressure- regardless, he´s a dupe and that´s all there is to it. Roberts can go pound sand for all I care. We had better just get on to the next best thing the SCOTUS is not an arm of Justice anymore- it´s a wholly owned subsidiary of Øbama, Inc.

Well, John Roberts - since you rolled over once, the Libs expect you to do it again... and again... and again...

Your lack of integrity and honor have damned you. Maybe you need to do some soul-searching before it´s too late. Or has that horse bolted into the burning barn?

Maybe Obama had the goods on Roberts, like he did on Patreaus. Rather than have his affair exposed, he ruled in favor of Obamacare.

I´m with #16. Read the article.

"The chief justice scolded, “Don’t say the secretary is now of the view. It’s not the same person. You cite the prior secretary by name, and then you say, the secretary is now of the view. I found that a little disingenuous.”

It´s deceptive language, intended to mislead the casual reader. Roberts called him out on it, as he should have.

This is what he chooses to lose his cool about??!

And to poster #8: John Roberts is the only person to consider the financial mandate a tax. The Congress that wrote and passed the bill said it wasn´t a tax. The president who signed the bill into law said it wasn´t a tax. The dissenting justices went to great lengths to explain why it wasn´t a tax. And the liberal majority agreed it wasn´t a tax, but that the law was constitutional under the Commerce Clause. John Roberts stood alone. It was an 8:1 decision with the one prevailing.

In any event, John Roberts is dead to me.

Did someone turn off his fan?

Chief Justice Roberts is mentally ill. Michael Savage reported Roberts is on powerful mind-altering drugs to help control his Parkinson´s disease. The guy should resign for the good of the country. He is a slimeball traitor.

I think the one poster is right. Obama has something on him like he had on Petraeus. Roberts may have properly called the Gov´mnt Lawyer on some point - but the point is, the Dems feel he is bought and paid for, and will smuggly keep pushing for their agenda, no matter how uncomfortable Roberts is.

His days are numbered. His soul is not his own. He either goes public and confesses his misdeeds, or Obama will continue to damn and belittle him.

If I am reading this correctly, the leftist creep from the Soliciter General´s office tried to rewrite a rule, blaming the change on someone from the Bush administration. But Roberts wasn´t buying into the ploy, and chided the attoney who was attempting to blame Bush, again.

The NYT times has, therefore, branded Roberts a ´bully.´ I suppose it was assumed that Roberts ´could be had,´ after the ObamaCare fiasco.

My assumption is that this is mainly a Leftist attempt to (further) delegitimate the Supreme Court.

Leftists really have fallen in love with the trope of "bullying." It is popping up everywhere these days. This is the first time I have ever heard it deployed in reference to the behavior of a judge. For Leftists, bullying is like racism and other politically correct shibolleths. They use the terms in the service of character assassination.

The legal, technical point in this case is minor and not worth reporting. Such differences of interpretation happen all the time in courtrooms all across the nation. They are one of the main reasons there are courtrooms and judges.

The writer of this piece and the NYT have an agenda. The title of the article gives it away: Chief Justice Loses His Cool. The writer then goes on to inflate a perfectly routine courtroom exchange into a supposedly newsworthy event that reflects badly on Chief Justice Roberts and ab extenso the U.S. Supreme Court.

It is almost impossible to believe or even to conceive - but the NYT is still getting worse! How much worse can it get? We will find out.

Never forget that Roberts is suspect on the swearing in of Zippy.

I fail to see how this is losing his cool. All other comments above, aside.

to commenter 10 - unfortunately, the bill that ended up as Obamacare was initiated in the House of Representatives.It is a myth that it started in the Senate. and it was not born as the law it became. You can read about the origination in various sites online. Chief Justice Roberts CHANGED the Government´s law on the individual mandate into a tax, as it was a levy or a fine or a penalty until it hit that Court. He made up a law to fit the situation.

Who can trust anything anyone in the 0bama Administration says when they repeatedly spin, -sometimes even fabricate, information like this, even in the highest court in the USA? How many other flim/flams are these Administration revisionists perpatrating if an assistant to the U.S Solicitor General can´t be trusted with seemingly, ´little,´ factual details like this? mmm mmm mmm

Wake up, snoozing lsm.

I guess this makes it official that anything the NYT doesn´t like is bullying.

In my second law school class, in 1982, a professor told our class that if we didn´t enjoy - or at least learn how comfortably to deal with - verbal aggression we should get out now and find some other profession. For what goes on between lawyers - whether transactional negotiators, civil litigators, or judge and appellate lawyer - this is pretty mild, and for a grown up to suggest it´s "bullying" is juvenile and whiny.

I hope and pray that the five moderate to conservative US Justices stay in good health during the rest of the Obama 2nd term in office. The US doesn´t need the US Supreme Court to move further left to far-left. Traditional American values of all kinds are under severe political attack now 24/7 sadly.

#18...of Course ...you´re right! Amen!

To me,the challenge was done under the wrong pretense.We´re all forced to pay SS,Medicare and income tax.The way to avoid them is not work but theyre aren´t any other special interest carve outs I know of. This law say EVERYBODY Must BUY health insurance or pay a fine. Ten minutes later half the country was carved out for thsi or tha reason which violated the pretense of the law.. So to me,it´s an equal protection case.If you´re on government assistence or even work forthe government you should pay something towards. If you´re illegal you shouldn´t even qualify for it because it puts the payment burden on real Americans.

There´s not enough peole working to pay for this and it´ll get even worse as Obama kills more jobs.

We´ll soon have under a 100 million people working in this country if the Obama trendline on jobs continues. He didn´t blink an eye as Hostess going under because he just expanded his dependency class. Now he wants more unemployment extensions under the guise it stimulates the economy. Free money from government stimulates a persons wallet for a short time,it´s called n rich.

Wealth redistribution doesn´t work unless you freeze wealth creation. That´s how you get even with the enemies.If a bully steals a sandwich and the person still has a pile of sandwiches,it doesn´t hurt the victim very much and there´s no punishment involved.