Trojan horse? Yes, the decision limited the reach of the Commerce Clause, but that would be equally true if the court had struck the law down entirely. Upholding it as a tax was unnecessary if all Roberts was interested in was degrading the Commerce Clause.

Why would opposing the Stolen Valor Act be a liberal position?

John Roberts, with his ruling on the Affordable Care Act, finally proved he is a true Chief Justice. After countless rulings in which he took an ideological stance, he has risen above the role of partisan. For this, he deserves our respect. More significantly, the ruling confirms the role of the Supreme Court; namely, to adjudicate the most contentious issues and arrive at intelligent, reasoned judgments.

"which much civil rights legislation is built on. Watch out!"

Stephen, what are you smoking?

Please book someone from Firedoglake.

Lake readers were NOT surprised. Roberts is a corporatist, if Kennedy didn't vote to give the insurance companies their kick-back Roberts would.

Roberts' should not be considered a darlin' of the left. Definitely a trojan horse. Look at what is on next year's docket. He will kill a ton of affirmative action, title 9 and other civil rights legislation.

Roberts' decision is a trojan horse to kill the Federal government's ability to regulate interstate commerce which much civil rights legislation is built on. Watch out!

If someone lies about receiving military honors for a benefit, like a job (whether or not it's an elected position, as Brian just mentioned) isn't it fraud? Could someone who did that still be prosecuted for fraud, & would that be under state or federal law?

Part of me says that it's just a dispicable lie, like pading your resume and is free speech but another part of me say that it's like lying on a mortgage application or impersonating law inforcement.

I guess it was the right ruling after all.

@Jack Jackson
Agree with both of you, but it helps Obama win in the fall and they'd be hoping that people are really against this once they live with it for a year. Remember, this goes into effect in 2014 but that taxes won't be paid until everyone files in 2015.

@Laura -

No doubt in my mind about it. The GOP will use discomfort and ignorance about the law to try and rally votes for this November. [Romney going 100% hypocritical and running AGAINST an individual mandate tells me all I need to know about his personal integrity.]

IF the GOP does not get the outcome they want, they will bring it all back up again in the court once the 'taxes' are collected. Of course, the outcome of that depends on who is sitting on the Supreme Court when the case comes up. Does that give Democrats enough motivation to get to the polls this November?

I can only hope so.

I realize this segment is supposed to be about Stolen Valor. But if the Healthcare ruling comes up, I'm wondering if the guest could comment about the following question which I have not heard addressed (though I admit I wasn't able to listen to the entire coverage yesterday):

I recall hearing that a tax cannot be challenged as possibly unconstitutional until AFTER it is paid. In narrowly approving the healthcare legislation, and framing it as a tax, are the justices (and possibly Roberts) covertly setting up this legislation to be challenged and overturned in a few years, once the taxes begin to be paid?