This is a challenge and believe me, the American people are up to the challenge, just as we were with the Dred Scott decision.
Of course, I hope the US can avoid a civil war where over half million people were killed & presumably Beck does, as well.
Similar to Taney, Roberts seems to have said in his ruling that the private sector has no rights which the public sector is bound to respect.
During Roberts' Senate confirmation hearings, Sen Specter (then-RINO, PA) made Roberts commit to his theory of super stare decisis for Roe v Wade:
when Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, asked him whether he agreed that certain cases like Roe had become superprecedents or "super-duper" precedents - that is, that they were so deeply embedded in the fabric of law they should be especially hard to overturn.
In response, Judge Roberts embraced the traditional doctrine of "stare decisis" - or, "let the decision stand" - and seemed to agree that judges should be reluctant to overturn cases that had been repeatedly reaffirmed.
In contrast, Roberts was purportedly more swayed by a quote from Oliver Wendell Holmes than with the stare decisis of Marbury v Madison:
Justice Roberts suggested that even he didn't find the tax argument especially plausible, but he quoted Justice Holmes to explain why it was good enough. "As between two possible interpretations of a statute, by one of which it would be unconstitutional and by the other valid," Justice Holmes wrote, that would be Oliver Wendell, "our plain duty is to adopt that which will save the act."
Hence, stare decisis stands for Roe v. Wade which allows individuals to kill babies that were presumably created in a fit of irrational passion but are subsequently unloved and unwanted. However, stare deisis does NOT stand for Marbury v Madison which thus prohibits justices from killing laws that were similarly crafted by irregular procedures & are unconstitutional and equally unwanted.