It would be quite possible to say that I am a very vocal critic of the Roberts led court. I personally credit the Roberts Court, in my opinion, two of the worst decision in Supreme Court history. Those being Citizens United v FEC and the recent decision to overturn a Montana statute that restrict corporate spending in elections. However, today the Chief Justice did something that I don’t think any of the other eight Justices, or anyone in Congress would be willing to do very often; buck his ideology in favor of the rule of law.

Whether or not you agree with the Affordable Care Act, with the blessing of the Chief Justice the act has been ruled constitutional. Thanks to this decision the constitutionality of the bill is no longer in question and the defense or attack of the bill becomes a values based issue. And that is where it will play out in the 2012 election cycle.

Thanks to Chief Justice Roberts, Conservatives will now have to do something that they weren’t planning on. Come up with a plan to replace ObamaCares. Rhetoric is all fine and dandy for the base but when Mitt Romney stands behind a sign that says “Repeal and Replace ObamaCare” it’s not good enough for the millions of Americans who will now have access to affordable health care insurance. The Republican Party will have to develop a plan to replace, if they intend to replace a bill that requires our health care providers to:

 no longer impose lifetime limits on the amount of care you receive. They can no longer discriminate against children with preexisting conditions. They can no longer drop your coverage if you get sick. They can no longer jack up your premiums without reason. They are required to provide free preventive care like check-ups and mammograms — a provision that’s already helped 54 million Americans with private insurance. And by this August, nearly 13 million of you will receive a rebate from your insurance company because it spent too much on things like administrative costs and CEO bonuses, and not enough on your health care. (President Obama’s remarks on the Supreme Court upholding the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act http://www.freep.com/article/20120628/NEWS07/120628081/Text-of-Obama-s-remarks-on-health-care-supreme-court-ruling)

How will Mitt Romney and the Republican Party provide the same quality of care without going back to Romney’s original health care reform that he enacted in Massachusetts.

There is one final note I would like to make. In response to the petulant moaning of Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) denouncing the Roberts Court upholding the Constitutionality of ObamaCares, as he stated:

“Just because a couple of people on the Supreme Court declare something to be ‘constitutional’ does not make it so

 http://www.businessinsider.com/rand-paul-the-supreme-court-doesnt-get-to-decide-whats-constitutional-2012-6#ixzz1z8E1iBhS “

is quite counter to Chief Justice Marshall’s ruling in Marbury v Madison where the Marshall court declared:

“It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department [the judicial branch] to say what the law is.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison)

The Supreme Court, through the direction of Article III section II of the United States Constitution responsibility is to rule on issues of constitutionality:

“The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority”

In other words, besides putting your foot in your mouth and crying like a little baby who had his toy taken away by his father, Rand Paul made one of the feeble-minded remarks a United States Senator could ever make. A better way to phrase it would have been how I respond to decision I disagree with: The Supreme Court may have declared this law constitutional but that doesn’t mean I have to agree with it. However, refusing to accept the authority of the United States Supreme Court because you disagree with a decision is quite delusional, especially for an elected official whose own authority is vested in the same document that the Supreme Court is apparently not allowed to interpret, unless they interpret it the way you want.