48 votes

LIVEBLOG Obamacare Verdict: Open Thread

UPDATE: The Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. Big loss for the liberty movement today.

In the verdict announced today (June 28), shortly after 10AM, the court upheld the individual mandate as well as almost all the rest of Obamacare.

SCOTUSBlog is covering the proceedings live at

Further updates are being added to the end of this post.


The Daily Mail reports:

Barack Obama faces one of the deciding moments of his presidency this week as the Supreme Court is set to announce whether or not his flagship healthcare overhaul is constitutional. ...

The ruling could move markets, turn economies and greatly affect the Presidential contest between Mr Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney.


Meanwhile, The Atlantic Wire has a roundup of predictions and pre-written Monday-morning quarterbacking from a variety of sources:

Some are already looking back on the strategies Obama's team used to defend the Act and criticizing their choices. Did they use the right offense, the right defense, the right special teams? The Washington Post's Peter Wallsten and The New York Times' Peter Baker are both looking back and wondering what Obama could have done differently in the event the Act falls. The Times' Baker writes that the Democrats' early confidence over the bill's constitutionality might end up being their undoing.



The Supreme Court deferred announcing the Obamacare verdict on Monday, instead announcing the Arizona illegal immigration law (SB1070) verdict.

Today (Thursday, June 28), the court will announce all remaining verdicts, including Obamacare, at 10:00 AM Eastern.


While we're waiting, here's an article from the good-old Tenth Amendment Center: Obamacare and “Commerce:” Does A Include Not-A?

The Constitution grants Congress power to “regulate Commerce . . . among the several States. . . .” The word “Commerce” was designed to encompass only some designated activities: trading (buying and selling) among merchants, navigation and cargo insurance, commercial paper and finance, construction and maintenance of ports, and a few others.


SCOTUSBlog says there are 344,000 people trying to read the blog, awaiting the High Court's decision. There are a couple hundred protesters outside, a few single-issue protesters, and the rest for and against government health care.


We're a few minutes away from getting the decision. Here's a primer on the issues being decided: http://www.scotusblog.com...


The justices affirmed the appeals court ruling in re: Alvarez. This means that the Stolen Valor Act (prohibiting lying about service medals) is unconstitutional as written.



Here's the Stolen Valor decision, just in case you were thinking about lying about your medals :)


Health care decision is out. It's being analyzed by the legal beagles.


Amy Howe reports "the individual mandate survives as a tax." Wow, didn't see that one coming. Is that the Supreme's way of splitting the difference?


Another big surprise: Chief Justice Roberts joins the left side of the court for this decision.


Bottom line from Tom at SCOTUSBlog: All of the Affordable Care Act is upheld, except for some restriction on the Feds' ability to end states' Medicaid funds.


There's a guy in a patriot uniform marching in front of the Supreme Court with a "Don't Tread on Me" Gadsden Flag. Well, they just did that.

This is definitely falls in the latter half of "You win some, you lose some."


From around the web:


The Court ruled that Congress doesn't have the power to mandate health insurance under the Commerce Clause. But that doesn't matter because five justices voted to uphold the mandate under Congress's taxing power. Six of one, half a dozen of the other ...


Justice Ginsburg is farthest to the left in this ruling. She would uphold the mandate even under the Commerce Clause. She would also uphold the Medicaid portion of the act as-is, which the other justices did not.


Justice Kennedy fails to save the day, stating "In our view, the entire Act before us is invalid in its entirety." But his side had only four votes.


Here's the ruling in PDF. Read it and weep, folks:


The administration had three arguments: Commerce Clause, Necessary & Proper Clause, and the taxing power. Basically, it seems they threw mud on the wall to see what sticks. Looks like the third time's a charm in this case.


It seems the Supremes ruled that the mandate is a tax for the purposes of its constitutionality, but not a tax for the purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act. If the mandate were indeed a tax, the Tax Anti Injunction Act (TAIA) might have prevented the courts from ruling on Obamacare until a taxpayer had actually paid the tax.

So, they seem to be having it both ways. Anyone care to explain that one? My head hurts. Maybe that's because I'm not a lawyer.


Wrapping up, Chief Justice Roberts provides the one-vote margin of victory for President Obama's signature health-care legislation, all the more surprising because of the President unprecedented attack on the Supreme Court during a State of the Union address. Justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy all voted (unsuccessfully) to overturn the health-care law.


The Telegraph reports that CNN and FOX both got it wrong in reporting the verdict. They reported the mandate had been struck down, and even offered analysis of that. (See link for screenshots.)

Just for the record, DP might have taken a few seconds more in reporting, but at least we got it right!


The verdict in 100 seconds by TPM:


Reactions by Messrs. Obama and Romney (progenitors of this whole mess in their own ways):



What effect will the ruling have on the economy, the election, and the Paul-Romney battle?

And does this mean the Federal government can force you to buy anything it wants, calling it a "tax"? And what will be the next thing they force you to buy? Low-fat margarine? Tofu?

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


Is it legal for the Supreme Court to introduce new taxes?

Obama himself said that the healthcare bill was in no way a tax!

(edit to add)
I thought the House and Senate had to approve all new taxes. If so then this bill should go back to the House and on to the Senate, as a TAX, to be legal. That would give us two more chances to kill it (or at least get it 'shelved').

What was the percentages I saw? Something like 73% of the public are against it?

*** READ: This is EXACTLY What Happened Today !!!

Hey guys, I think I figured out EXACTLY what happened today -- and WHY!

When John Roberts was being interviewed by George Bush's people to be nominated to the US Supreme Court, Karl Rove asked Roberts who his favorite Supreme Court justice was of all time. Roberts said it was Robert Jackson.

Robert Jackson was on the Supreme Court during FDR's administration, and is THE ONE MAN MOST RESPONSIBLE IN SUPREME COURT HISTORY FOR EXPANDING FEDERAL POWER!!!

In the case of Wickard v. Filburn, a farmer grew crops FOR USE ON HIS OWN FARM, not to be sold, much less across state lines. The feds came down on him because he was not abiding by the federal law, which had to do with farmers engaged in interstate commerce, and the case when to the SCOTUS. Justice Robert Jackson wrote the opinion for the court, where he used the convoluted logic that even though a farmer was NOT engaged in interstate commerce, he MIGHT at some point AFFECT interstate commerce, and therefore, his activities could be regulated by the federal government.

In other words, before Robert Jackson, the feds could only regulate "interstate commerce," but after Robert Jackson, the feds could regulate "anything that might affect interestate commerce." This was a HUGE expansion of federal power, and clearly unconstitutional.

And THIS is the justice that current Chief Justice John Roberts looks to as a HERO of all Supreme Court justices in THE HISTORY OF THE COURT !!!

Now, if you read the opinion of the health care case, you will see that the majority of the court had voted to STRIKE DOWN THE LAW. The dissenting opinion was actually written as the majority opinion. Go ahead and read it yourself, but START with the dissenting opinion and you will see it is true:


So, the court had voted to strike down the law. Then, somebody whispered in John Roberts' ear that NOW is the time to go down in history like his hero, Robert Jackson.


"They" knew John Roberts was a big government guy FROM DAY ONE!!! They have just been waiting to unleash him.

Karl Rove, Obama, they are all on the SAME TEAM.

And Karl Rove, along with the other George Bush gang from the past ... ARE NOW DIRECTING MITT ROMNEY'S CAMPAIGN (AND ADMINISTRATION, IF HE WINS).

Is it any wonder that Mitt Romney ONLY came out and said Obamacare is "bad policy," but did NOT say anything about what a travesty it is and a violation of rights???

Nooooo ... because Romney WANTS BIG GOVERNMENT, TOO!!!

And that, my friends, is what the hell happened today.




"They" knew John Roberts was

--"They" knew John Roberts was a big government guy FROM DAY ONE!!! They have just been waiting to unleash him.--




He is stupido not hero

to make such a school mistake to violate the 9th amendment with the taxation clause argumentation moreover against the original Congress version reading of "penalty", and even leave the telling traces behind and even recognizing the right of the people not to purchase the insurance -rendering so the SCOTUS elaborate lies ruling on individual mandate patently null for everybody who ever have really read the US Constitution.
It can make only stupido who longs for unlimited big govt. power and recognition while not much understanding the purpose of the Constitution.
If ever any local judge decides to throw the IRS penalty enforcement case for unconstitutionality of this SCOTUS precedent, as I very much suspect would be the first such case arising, he can make it without any much risk of appeal, because there the whole circus with the Obamacare bill constitutionality would begin again from the very beginning and it would not end well for the Roberts heroic fame nor for the Obamacare and feds facing nationwide class action -not about absurd desinterpretations of the Constitution and intent of the legislator, but money.
The Congress hasn't unlimited taxation power - as now media try to deceive people again simillarly as the SCOTUS idiotic quoting of B. Franklin to support their absurd taxation clause construction ("Our new Constitution is now established... but in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes") a remark written BEFORE the enaction of the Bill of Rights - but this power is firmly limited by the 9th amendment and to construe the Congress taxation power to clearly disparage the right of the people not to do anything including not to puchase health insurance (which the ruling recognized) is simply absolutely forbidden - to everybody, including in-justice Roberts et al.
No Bill of Rights amendment was ever even changed, not speaking repealed and I think it is hardly conceivable it will ever happen, so the prohibition will be there most probably long after nobody would even remember there was an in-justice Roberts who apparently never understood the 9th amendment limitation of power including his own - which was discussed and refined word by word for literally years before its ratification and which delayed Bill of Rights ratification very considerably - and was written by James Madison exactly because he and the states really wanted to generally limit constructive "judicial activist "legislator"" enlargements of the federal powers held by the stupidos as the in-justice Roberts.
Who is the real hero here is James Madison, who more than 200 years ago apparently envisioned even such wicked powergrabs as the individual mandate and once for all achieved that such tricks will never be legal in the true sense of that word and despite any possible absurd, silly or whatever SCOTUS ruling.

Roberts decision doesn't make sense

Plucked from article. Roberts is epileptic. His decisions don't make sense.

In WMD.com


Michael Savage: Roberts affected by medication

The neurologist told Savage that Roberts’ cognition could be affected by taking epilepsy medicine.

“I’m going to tell you something that you’re not going to hear anywhere else, that you must pay attention to,” Savage said.

“It’s well known that Roberts, unfortunately for him, has suffered from epileptic seizures. Therefore he has been on medication.”

Savage said that “if you look at Roberts’ writings you can see the cognitive disassociation in what he is saying.”

“Roberts has no logic in what he said,” Savage asserted.

“He said the law is a tax, but if the law wasn’t written as a tax, how can he say it’s taxation?”


if you read the decision

you can find that primarily it was executive branch of government (the defendant Secretary of Health and Human Services et. al) which argued the penalty is the tax (it isn't, it is - as Congress clearly intended - the penalty for not insuring yourself) - as "alternative argumentation" of the feds for the case the commerce clause doesn't succeed with SCOTUS (- which it didn't).
"The most straightforward reading of the individual mandate is that it commands individuals to purchase insurance. But, for the reasons explained, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power. It is therefore necessary to turn to the Government’s alternative argument: that the mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s power to “lay and collect Taxes.” Art. I, §8, cl. 1. In pressing its taxingpower argument, the Government asks the Court to view the mandate as imposing a tax on those who do not buy that product. Because “every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality,” Hooper v. California, 155 U. S. 648, 657, the question is whether it is “fairly possible” to interpret the mandate as imposing such a tax, Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22, 62. Pp. 31–32.
4. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Part III–C, concluding that the individual mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s power under the Taxing Clause. Pp. 33–

(page 3-4 of the decision syllabus)
So the government came with this argumentation and CJ Roberts only accepted this argument on the basis of the really stupid Hoper v. California argumentation.
But it's very clear that the argumentation with Hoper v. California in this case is in direct contradiction to 9th Amendment and so unconstitutional and also the SCOTUS ruling that the "penalty" is "tax" using Hoper v. California is defective because it doesn't in fact "save the statute" but substantially changes it in meaning - which is again unconstitutional, because the SCOTUS has NO right to impose taxes - and therefore the ruling is NOT BINDING anybody due to supreme law of the land clause in art. 6 and all judges must throw any penalty enforcement case arising if using this SCOTUS ruling, so the individual mandate is thus unenforceable in court of law and thus effectively void. (one can find that the original intent of the 9th Amendment prohibition, writen by James Madison and more than 2 years discussed with states -to be sufficiently powerful was exactly to tackle any attempts to construe additional powers of the federal government using judicial activism, so all judges bound by supreme law of land clause must (not "could" or "may") apply it preferentially.)
You maybe ask how is it possible the SCOTUS violated the 9th Amendment interdiction, clearly exceeded it's powers given to it by the Constitution and delivered unconstitutional ruling? Well, we can only guess. My bet - it is result of the stupidity of longing for unlimited power.
I really don't know whether this was faillure of SCOTUS to deliver sound rulling, or there was hidden intention to void the bill. I personally guess it was the faillure to understand the Constitution in rush to uphold the individual mandate - because there's no trace whatsoever of the very relevant 9th amendment reasoning in the ruling.

My opinion of it all


Now if only I had some for the Supreme Court and Romney. Then I would be happy.
Hope I didn't violate any rules.

The first of my ancestors arrived in 1687, Indentured to serve another for 4 years, we fought in the Revolutionary war, Civil war, WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, and Served during Desert Shield/Storm, Now my Family and I serve The "Revolution"

We are losing this country

And we are the only people that care. We have to become the freedom fighters. It will be an uphill fight. Not that many people are on our side.

But at least we are willing to fight. I will spend the rest of my life fighting. I have been fighting since the late 1960's. It's great to have people willing to fight with me.

For years (actually, decades) there were less than 500,000 of us.

Thank you for joining. I feel that Ron Paul is finally being validated.

A lot of others really do care...

...they are just massively brainwashed by the media and need to be woken up badly. I know because I was one before 2007. The media is more powerful that one would think. It took me a total of two years to be deprogrammed...no joke. The crap that was fed to me hour by hour and day by day was very effective for years! It's very hard to believe in something you don't want to be true anyway. People feel doomed and helpless right now. Good time to talk to them!

You are so blessed to have been rooted in this for so long! Thanks to you all for your wisdom!=)

I hope more people read the

I hope more people read the ruling, at least the syllabus and the main judgement of the court... I feel there should at least be a great deal of relief that the individual mandate was NOT deemed constitutional under the Commerce Clause, nor was it deemed constitutional under the Necessary and Proper Clause.

Had the supreme court decided that the individual mandate was constitutional under the Commerce Clause then today would have been a MUCH larger catastrophe for the republic. Today's ruling went directly against the "progressive" trend of continually expanding congress's power under the Commerce Clause, on the contrary the ruling embedded within constitutional law the judgement that congress does NOT have the power to create commerce in order to regulate it.

Nevertheless, it's hardly comforting that our supreme court was 1 judge away from deciding that congress's power under the Commerce Clause has virtually no fundamental limiting principle.

Here is the full ruling (including the disenting opinions):

Agree - the tax portion of

Agree - the tax portion of the ruling granted no new powers to the govt - they already give preferential tax credits to several industries

This is bigger than any individual

If the government can give me

If the government can give me a tax credit for energy efficient windows or for having a mortgage, then they can certainly give me a credit ( or reverse penalty) for buying insurance. If they claimed this type of tax was unconstitutional, it would have in effect made all tax credits unconstitutional under the grounds that they compel people into commerce....

This is bigger than any individual

Why don't they impeach

Why don't they impeach Justice Roberts? He basically used an argument the Government did not even dare make. He lawyered for the administration even though the administration flatly denied that Obamacare is not a tax. It's alright to use the argument if the outcome was negative to the proponent but in this case the argument benefitted the government. Basically he threw away the constitution under the bus disguising Obamacare as a new tax instead of seeing the law as it is: a government fiat forcing everyone to purchase a service.

This is what I have to say

This is what I have to say about the ruling:

^#*$$*$&&@()((#!!!! &&^##%% &^(# **&# m #**&E!!!!!

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

I got into a discussion on

I got into a discussion on Facebook when a friend of mine was posting a pro-healthcare comment. I simply said "Force is not freedom" and the onslaught came. I took the criticism and insults by several socialized healthcare supporters to the tune of upsetting my day. I did it as an educational opportunity for them. The discussion lead all the way to Keynesianism, the Great Depression, Weimar Republic, hyperinflation, American history, the Constitution, etc. I took a lot of heat today for it and I feel terrible. But I remember how Dr. Paul says speak and speak often because it can't be taken back what they've heard (paraphrased of course). I know Dr. Paul has taken a lot of heat too over the decades and I guess for once, I saw how it felt a tiny bit. I have a veteran friend that I let read that entire Facebook conversation and about 15 minutes after reading it, he told me he felt like he was going to be sick. He said he felt sick because he couldn't believe that soldiers have died for the attitude of those people. I told him that several did not know that they didn't know; that they were young did not know anything else but the system they were born into. The one that probably hurt me the most and I shouldn't have let was one of those in disagreement making fun of "freedom" by changing the word to "freedumb". I think this is what made my veteran friend highly upset. But they have freedom of speech as well and can say controversial things such as that. But it really upset me to see so many people who have no clue about why people have risked their lives for liberty. Very sad day indeed.

How does this affect us?

El Duce is in big trouble before this. The only question really is who takes his place in November. He's the latest NWO puppet, but can't shake his marxist dictator dreams, making him very unappealing, plus for all his smooth talking he looks more like an idiot each day. Mitt is the next annointed one, but Dr. Paul is a huge wrench in the plan. So just as 'fast and furious' ramps up we also get this ruling and Roberts decides it??? hmmm Anyway, it's being portrayed like a victory for El Duce...yet most of the nation is against this and now are raging and galvanizing behind (as they now describe Mitt)'the Leader of the Fight to Repeal 'and 'The Presumptive Nominee'. So how do you think WE will now be viewed in Tampa when we fight this sham of a primary? Think they won't now portray us as the villians who want to derail the repeal of Obamacare? I'd be making as many signs as I could simply saying 'Ron Paul was right!!!' and start getting them up ASAP while this is hot. Talk to people about it, remind them again DOCTOR Paul warned us about this crap way back when Romney was laying the blueprint in Massachusetts. Seriously,they are going to use this issue to portray Romney as the second coming of Christ and WE had better start some positive public opinion going our way right now because you know the campaign will not do anything. Even if we pull off a delegate miracle, you have no idea how ugly it will get if there is little public support. No conspiracy theory here, I'm just saying watch how this plays out if we just sit on our asses and wait for Tampa.
Of course if you have given up, then never mind.

What about this....

Is it possible that the GOP went to Roberts and said, "Figure out a way to uphold this". This will piss off the independents and give Mitt a chance to proclaim his vow to repeal this. This will get Mitt more competitive again and once elected, he can just blame Obama when it fails....cuz we all know Mitt isn't going to repel jack crap.

Its been a really sad day, but at least I can look forward to writing in Ron Paul's name on the ballot regardless of which jack hole is on the ticket.

Time for Nullification

One solution to the tyrannical feds is for states to assert their power under the Constitution and IGNORE federal laws and mandates that are not ENUMERATED in the Constitution, as per the 10th Amendment.

Nullification at the state level. Nullification at the individual level. Anyone who sits on a jury where the state is claiming that the defendant broke a law but did not violate anyone's rights, should be not guilty.

And starving the beast. Each person who believes in limited government owes a duty to his own principles to reduce any taxes paid, and there are many ways to do that "legally" (not to mention the not-so-legal ways).

Either a person is in favor of smaller government, or they are not.

Only two sides to the debate now. Makes no difference if libertarians and conservatives and anarcho-capitalists agree on everything or not.

Are you in favor of SMALLER government or not? And what proof can you demonstrate that your answer is actually true?

Only thing that is relevant now.

Vote for Obama? Don't make me laugh. Vote for Romney? Don't make me puke.

Find those who will WALK THE WALK for smallER government, whether his name is "Ron Paul" or something else.

ONE LITMUS TEST for politicians, judges, and friendships: Are you in favor of smallER government or not, and can you prove it?

ONE TACTIC: Nullification.

Just spent a couple hours

Just spent a couple hours having fun with the people on the Huffington Post (for the unenlightened, the Huffington Post is home to a few educated people of all political stripes and a lot of ignorant, reactionary progressives). I'm not sure why I ever do that, since those people aggravate me, but I thought I'd share some of the main things I saw:

First, it should be noted that experience has taught me to clarify on there that I am a libertarian, because otherwise I will be insulted with dozens of Bush related straw man arguments.

Most of the comments were the expected gloating, and I generally ignored those, with a few exceptions:

- One person said that Obama has accomplished something no other president has in two centuries. I pointed out that this isn't the first thing by listing "accomplishments" such as NDAA, declaring congress defunct, and claiming the right to kill citizens. The person responded by saying that Obama wasn't perfect but better than republicans and "wrote himself into the history books." I, of course, pointed out all the fun things Bush did to lead up to things that Obama did (PATRIOT Act leading to NDAA, for example). I was then told this enlightening bit of information: "not being able to see the difference between Bush and Obama is unbelievable.."

- Another, more fun one, was someone who said the following: "Republican hatred of our Fine Leader has backfired on them more than they could have ever imagined…" Okay, so I couldn't resist pointing out the parallels between calling Obama "Fine Leader" and the "Dear Leader" of North Korea.

Other people actually had discussions, though HuffPo discussions are usually rather heated…

- One person started with the "auto insurance is mandated" argument, but soon went into the "you're the unabomber" argument

- One person, after I stated that the government doesn't care about what the people want, but about "power, money and control", provided this somewhat inexplicable remark: "I have insurance and think everyone should have coverage. That's your opinion." I responded, in part, "...I think no one should… watch CNN or FOX News. Unlike you, though, I don't try to force them not to do these things…"

Of course, this isn't to say they're all bad. In fact I'm currently having a rather pleasant discussion about the viability of mandates. Of course, I just said that I think people should be able to opt out of Social Security, so this might be about to turn in the "you stupid libertarians should move to somalia" direction.

Okay, so since the beginning of typing this I forgot why I was posting this. Maybe people will find it amusing or insightful and say stuff, or maybe they'll think it's stupid and thumb me down. However you feel about it, people, I won't get angry if you find it stupid.


I have no time to play but enjoyed your recap.

Patriot News
Stand up For your Civil Rights

You do it for the same reasons I do.

Because some times I get tired of being civil. Some times I want to be a bloodthirsty ass and HuffPo is like shooting fish in a barrel. For libertarian thinkers it's like going to a fight club with 5 year olds. It is fun to point out hypocrisy. It is fun to let the air out of their bubbles. And the minute they start lobbing insults, you have achieved the thrill of victory. But only in doses because the mass delusion and stupidity can be frustrating and contageous. Small doses and walk away.


I only do it rarely, and usually when something frustrating like today has gone down. Their self righteous attitudes are quite hilarious, until they realize they're left without a rational leg to stand on, then the insults come which usually involve libertarians either being a) racists b) anarchists living in i) a militia camp or ii) the woods or c) CEOs that will somehow according to their logic stand to benefit from a libertarian society.

Darnit 425

Then just how the heck are we supposed to make ya mad?

Actually, I enjoyed the post!

I was out today..

in a very nice location... rocking and looking at the mountains. Two older women sitting next to me. We chatted for awhile and then I told them that Obamacare had been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court today. They were shocked and when I told them that Roberts was the deciding vote, the first words out of their mouths: "he was threatened." Maybe they are right, but I said, no, his wife was probably worried they would not be invited to any more cocktail parties if he didn't pass this thing. It's one or the other.

post this everywhere

“Today we should remember that virtually everything government does is a ‘mandate.’ The issue is not whether Congress can compel commerce by forcing you to buy insurance, or simply compel you to pay a tax if you don’t. The issue is that this compulsion implies the use of government force against those who refuse. The fundamental hallmark of a free society should be the rejection of force. In a free society, therefore, individuals could opt out of “Obamacare” without paying a government tribute. -Ron Paul


To punish somebody by penalty (of fine or by tax or by anything) for exercising his right to not purchase something is forbidden by 9th amendment and any judge is bound to the Constitution not the law imposing such punishment due to Art. VI 2nd clause of the US Constitution. Therefore the individual mandate is unenforceable in the court of law despite the SCOTUS ruling.

Forget the Court - it is meaningless, unless congress' spineless

The whole Court, each and every one of them, is not a tyrant for life, but only if congress allows them to be tyrants for life! To long have the people thought this court was all powerful. They can be impeached just like the president!

Again... it all goes back to the will of congress to remain true to oath and office! That does not look good for liberty! But, that is where it all lies, that and the states!

The most immediate recourse to this tyranny may have been handed us by Roberts himself, maybe unwittingly since it seems that he is helping the people fear Obama in order to support Romney against Paul!

That is... the power of Congress with a simple majority vote to strip the subject matter from the Supreme Court, just like Paul's bill taking abortion from the hands of the court! This would thereby leave the matter properly to the states! And we know how the states have been looking at this!

The issue being tax, this may become much easier!

I think

that this definitely shouldn't be handed to the states.
Nobody, not feds nor states, has the right to punish somebody for not complying (-simply by doing nothing at all and not purchasing health insurance) with the Congress laws justified solely using enumerated powers. The 9th amendment explicitely prohibits such legal constructions and the Art. VI of the Constitution makes them unapplicable in court of law.
The most important is to know own rights, not to delegate an issue on states where the individual mandate anyway doesn't fall the same way as it doesn't fall under federal authority and nobody can expect the states in this corrupt globalist establishment would do something much different than the feds.
Abortion is the same way for some murder and in any case - except the life of mother is in jeopardy - a violation of unalienable right to life - whether it is regulated by feds or states.

Maybe you misunderstood...?

In reference to the Supreme Court, their having no legislative power can only mean the matter of deciding constitutionality of the law passed by congress in this case. It cannot mean handing legislative power to the state courts.

Congress under Article 3 Sec. 2 can with one simply majority vote essentially nullify this decision, leaving all challenges in the state courts! Some have already decided.

It is of course the duty of a sound congress to have never passed such a monstrosity in the first place! It is ultra vires... 'without the power' to perform, being on it's face contrary to the constitution.

It has been since the founding, a maxim that, any law passed contrary to the constitution is in fact, no law! The court commented even further on this principle went it said in the late 19th century, essentially it is the duty of the citizen to disregard!