Letters to the Editor

Chief Justice John Roberts, appointed to the Supreme Court by George W. Bush, wrote the majority opinion that saved President Obama's Affordable Care Act. CHARLES DHARAPAK / Associated Press
Chief Justice John Roberts, appointed to the Supreme Court by George W. Bush, wrote the majority opinion that saved President Obama's Affordable Care Act. CHARLES DHARAPAK / Associated Press
Posted: July 02, 2012

The essence of conservatism

Chief Justice John Roberts, in writing the majority opinion to uphold "Obamacare," showed the real meaning of conservatism ("Health law upheld," Friday).

First, Roberts stated that it is not the job of the court to look for ways to overturn laws. In fact, Roberts referred to former Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in stating that you should err on the side of upholding law if you can find any reason to do so. This is the opposite of a judicial activist who believes the court should, in effect, create new law. An even more conservative position was Roberts' statement that we get the government we elect and have to live with the consequences of the actions of those who legislate.

Declaring a law unconstitutional, like impeachment, is an awesome power that must be used with utmost discretion. Roberts confirmed this in his opinion by choosing to find a way to preserve a law passed by the elected representatives of the people. In short, if those who are elected lie to the people and to each other to pass a law and the people accept it, or if politicians sell the people something that is too good to be true and they buy it, then it is not the job of the Supreme Court to protect citizens from the consequences of their actions. This is what elections are for.

In his opinion on Obamacare, Roberts came closer to explaining the true meaning of conservatism than anyone I have ever heard and I applaud him for it. I believe the founders would be proud of him.

Dennis M. Powell, Clark Meeting

Questioning Roberts' motives

Immediately after the Supreme Court ruled on Obamacare, pundits on CNN and Fox News were suggesting that Chief Justice John Roberts voted as he did either because he was concerned about the court's partisan legacy or to set up President Obama to fail in November by declaring the individual mandate a tax. Roberts' job is to decide constitutionality, not politicize a decision. If he did the latter, I agree with calls for his impeachment. Otherwise, the decision should stand as constitutional.

C.X. Dellinger, Wilmington

Now time for adjustments

Now that the Supreme Court has ruled on the constitutionality of the individual mandate, it is time for our elected public servants on both sides of the aisle to take a serious look at the various laws related to this historic set of reforms. They should keep those aspects that benefit America, and adjust or remove those that do not. That is the essence of governing, and that is what we, the American electorate, must demand.

Joe Pugnetti, Perkasie

Sad day for some

It must be a sad day for those who have health care and don't care about those who don't.

James Saldutti, Philadelphia

The battle continues

The Supreme Court's decision is cause for relief for the millions of Americans whose medical and financial wellness were jeopardized by the challenge to the law. However, Democrats must continue to make their case in the face of the relentless onslaught of venom from the right wing that will continue until November and beyond. Democrats must communicate facts and common sense to counter the right wing's lies to the American public to whip up phantom fears and gratuitous disdain for President Obama and his policies.

Cory F. Newman, Palmyra

|
|
|
|
|