PPACA | ACA | Obamacare | Mandate | Shared Responsibility Payment | Tax - It's All The Same Thing: What do you agree or disagree with in the decision? Could be the majority opinion or concurring ones or opposing ones. What exactly turns you on or of to it (the opinion/decision)? I see little difference to get excited about in how Chief Justice Roberts joined the majority (and in his separate concurring opinion) in Citizens United and how he ruled in the PPACA. He seems to me to be fair and consistent. What I see are ideological and partisan arguments for and against him concerning these two decisions. But here I will argue that his reasoning was sound in deciding the 'shared responsibility payment' can not only function as a tax for constitutional purpose, but that it was his duty and obligation to be consistent here (PPACA) as he was in Citizens. We'll start with his own words and reasoning, not those of a pundit or pol: ... The reach of the Federal Government’s enumerated powers is broader still because the Constitution authorizes Congress to “make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers.”Art. I, §8, cl. 18. We have long read this provision to give Congress great latitude in exercising its powers: “Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional.” McCulloch, 4 Wheat., at 42 Our permissive reading of these powers is explained in part by a general reticence to invalidate the acts of the Nation’s elected leaders. “Proper respect for a co-ordinate branch of the government” requires that we strike down an Act of Congress only if “the lack of constitutional authority to pass [the] act in question is clearly demonstrated.” United States v. Harris, 106 U. S. 629, 635 (1883). Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices. Our deference in matters of policy cannot, however, become abdication in matters of law. “The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those lim- its may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 176 (1803). Our respect for Congress’s policy judgments thus can never extend so far as to disavow restraints on federal power that the Constitution carefully constructed. “The peculiar circumstances of the moment may render a measure more or less wise, but cannot render it more or less constitutional.” Chief Justice John Marshall, A Friend of the Constitution No. V, Alexandria Gazette, July5, 1819, in John Marshall’s Defense of McCulloch v. Maryland 190–191 (G. Gunther ed. 1969). And there can be no question that it is the responsibility of this Court to enforce the limits on federal power by striking down acts of Congress that transgress those limits. Marbury v. Madison, supra, at 175–176. The questions before us must be considered against the background of these basic principles. Now what is there that is so unheard of, so unsound, so partisan, or ideological?n It has been said that CJ Roberts was something out of the ordinary in order to save the PPACA. What was so out of the ordinary here?