Chief Justice Brutus Roberts

[PoliticalChic]

1. From the start, Progressives have been opposed to the American view of governance. Specifically, to checks and balances, and preventing all power from being accumulated in the hands of one person or one branch of government.

These usurpers differed dramatically from the views of our Founders, in that, for the first time they professed open and direct criticism and disregard for the Constitution. This revolt from earliest traditions, and desire for totalitarian control, was the backbone of the Progressive movement.

a. The Constitution was ‘old,’ and not equipped to deal with ‘new social ills.’

b. Not limited government, but expansive government was necessary.

c. The outdated concepts of checks and balances were obstacles for the Progressives’ agenda.

d. ‘Social Justice’ requires the redistribution of private property, and the Constitution stood in the way.

e. The Progressive's view attacked the social compact and 'natural rights of citizens' theory that is embodied in the Constitution.

f. The German view of governance: The rights of the collective, the state, surpass those of the individual. The Germans have a history of embracing authoritarian rule. As the German philosopher Hegel said, “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest” (Ralf Dahrendorf, Society and Democracy in Germany).




Chief Justice Roberts, playing the role of Brutus to his legal obligations, has made it plain that the Supreme Court is no longer the guardian of the law.

With the ObamaCare decision, the Progressive's aim has been accomplished: The Executive Branch now enforces AND writes laws. The Judicial Branch has no real function other than rubber-stamping executive orders.



Why would we require a Supreme Court when it no longer has a de facto function???


Why?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your lack of constitutional knowledge equals your lack of historical competency. CJSCOTUS, along with AJ Kennedy, have created an amazing court, the which has been better for America.

 

[Auld Phart]

 

[PoliticalChic]

Your lack of constitutional knowledge equals your lack of historical competency. CJSCOTUS, along with AJ Kennedy, have created an amazing court, the which has been better for America.

Well....at least give me credit for my expertise in this area: I recognized you as an imbecile right from the get-go.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yep, your knowledge is imbecilic in this area.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Yet another OP demonstrating why PoliticalSpice should be posting in the Conspiracy forum.

The fact that it was the dissenters, like Scalia who was throwing a hissyfit, because they had no constitutional basis for their objections was patently obvious to the entire nation.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yep, your knowledge is imbecilic in this area.

To verify that you are an imbecile....let all readers note that you were unable to deny any of the indicia of Progressivism listed in the OP.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Yep, your knowledge is imbecilic in this area.

To verify that you are an imbecile....let all readers note that you were unable to deny any of the indicia of Progressivism listed in the OP.

Your OP conspiracy drivel is merely risible, PoliticalSpice.

It most certainly doesn't merit anything more than derision.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yet another OP demonstrating why PoliticalSpice should be posting in the Conspiracy forum.

The fact that it was the dissenters, like Scalia who was throwing a hissyfit, because they had no constitutional basis for their objections was patently obvious to the entire nation.

"....no constitutional basis for their objections...."

Well, well, well....this imbecile turns out to be a liar, as well.

Both the Constitution, and the ObamaCare bill are written in English.
I am fluent in English.....and fully understand the phrase “established by the state”....





2. The insightful and perceptive Justice Antonin Scalia was shocked by the illegality of the Supreme Court’s decision in King v. Burwell, as I, and all good Americans were as well, permitting the Obama administration to allow Obamacare subsidies to flow through the federal exchange.....even though the clear written language of the bill specified that this would only be allowed through exchanges “established by the state”....



These are Justice Scalia's words.....they are the epitaph of the late, great nation, the United States of America.


a. " “We should start calling this law SCOTUScare … [T]his Court’s two decisions on the Act will surely be remembered through the years … And the cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites.”
9 Quotes From Scalia s Scathing Dissent in King V. Burwell



Nowhere is there an authority for the Supreme Court to re-write legislation.


Nowhere.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Oh, brother.

Another temper tantrum thread from the ridiculous right.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Oh, brother.

Another temper tantrum thread from the ridiculous right.

Oh, noooo!

Another vapid, 'is not, is noootttttt' post from C_Chamber_Pot!

Let's reveal you to be the moron that you are:

1. You are a Progressive twit....another one with no thinking ability...
...and that is why you cannot find any flaw in the list of objections Progressives have with real American values....as listed in the OP>

2. I stated that the Supreme Court....or any court....is denied the authority to re-write legislation.
You cannot deny that, either.

3. The clear language of the bill includes: subsidies are available only to those who purchase coverage through exchanges "established be the state."
Also undeniable.


QED...
a. I am, again, 100% correct.
b. You are a moron and a liar.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Great Scalia speaks:


b. “This case requires us to decide whether someone who buys insurance on an Exchange established by the Secretary gets tax credits. You would think the answer would be obvious—so obvious there would hardly be a need for the Supreme Court to hear a case about it.”


3. “Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is ‘established by the State.’”

4. “Under all the usual rules of interpretation, in short, the Government should lose this case. But normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved.” 9 Quotes From Scalia s Scathing Dissent in King V. Burwell

Imagine.....this is the sort of government that Progressives have imposed on the nation....one in which “Words no longer have meaning."
Especially the words 'honor,' or 'truth,' or 'justice.'




But...as we painfully learned, there are no rules for Progressives/Liberals/Democrats.

Progressive President Woodrow Wilson wrote in “The State,” 1889, that "Government does now whatever experience permits or the times demand." His writings attack the Constitution, and the ideas of natural and individual rights. Along with Frank J. Goodnow, they pioneered the concept of the ‘administrative state,’ which separated the administration of government from the limitations of constitutional government. American Progressivism A Reader - Google Books




If the Constitution is truly the law of the land.....any who break said law should be in prison.

 

[regent]

Perhaps it would be better if the appointing president voted on Court issues rather than the judge he appointed. When the appointing president dies the judge is then free to vote his conscience.
Just trying to help.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Perhaps it would be better if the appointing president voted on Court issues rather than the judge he appointed. When the appointing president dies the judge is then free to vote his conscience.
Just trying to help.

Better still: all Supreme Court Justices may only vote according to the language of the United States Constitution.

Any issue not specific to the enumerated powers may not be legislated by the federal government....and must remain withing the province of the state courts.

That would be American jurisprudence.

 

[regent]

Perhaps it would be better if the appointing president voted on Court issues rather than the judge he appointed. When the appointing president dies the judge is then free to vote his conscience.
Just trying to help.

Better still: all Supreme Court Justices may only vote according to the language of the United States Constitution.

Any issue not specific to the enumerated powers may not be legislated by the federal government....and must remain withing the province of the state courts.
That would be American jurisprudence.

And in a dispute as to the language of the enumerated powers who decides?
Would space travel be an enumerated power?

.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Perhaps it would be better if the appointing president voted on Court issues rather than the judge he appointed. When the appointing president dies the judge is then free to vote his conscience.
Just trying to help.

Better still: all Supreme Court Justices may only vote according to the language of the United States Constitution.

Any issue not specific to the enumerated powers may not be legislated by the federal government....and must remain withing the province of the state courts.
That would be American jurisprudence.

And in a dispute as to the language of the enumerated powers who decides?
Would space travel be an enumerated power?

.

Have no fear!

Your puzzlement is about to be eradicated!

Take notes:

1. As a basis for understanding the Commerce Clause, Professor Barnett examined over 1500 times the word ‘commerce’ appeared in the Philadelphia Gazette between 1715 and 1800. In none of these was the term used to apply more broadly than the meaning identified by Justice Thomas in his concurring opinion in ‘Lopez,’ in which he maintained that the word ‘commerce’ refers to the trade and exchange of goods, and that process, including transportation of same. A common trilogy was ‘agriculture, manufacturing and commerce.’
   1. For an originalist, direct evidence of the actual use of a word is the most important source of the word’s meaning. It is more important than referring to the ‘broader context,’ or the ‘larger context,’ or the ‘underlying principles,’ which is the means by which some jurists are able to turn ‘black’ into ‘white’, and ‘up’ into ‘down.’.” “Originalism,” Steven Calabresi,

Dude.....the Constitution is written in ENGLISH!!!!


Stop being led by that Progressive ring in your nose......you don't need a Rosetta Stone to figure it out!!!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Perhaps it would be better if the appointing president voted on Court issues rather than the judge he appointed. When the appointing president dies the judge is then free to vote his conscience.
Just trying to help.

Better still: all Supreme Court Justices may only vote according to the language of the United States Constitution.

Any issue not specific to the enumerated powers may not be legislated by the federal government....and must remain withing the province of the state courts.
That would be American jurisprudence.

And in a dispute as to the language of the enumerated powers who decides?
Would space travel be an enumerated power?

.

"Would space travel be an enumerated power?"

1. Judge Bork makes the point that Originalists can easily apply timeless constitutional commands to new technologies, such as wiretapping and television, and to changed circumstances, as suits for libel and slander. All the judge needs is knowledge of the core value that the Framers intended to protect. And, while we may not decide every case in the way the Framers would have, “entire ranges of problems will be placed off limits to judges, thus preserving democracy in those areas where the framers intended democratic government.” Calabresi, Op.Cit.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Sour Grapes from a loser is all the OP is

.Exchange stablished by the government" and "exchange established by the state" aren't literally synonymous terms, but they so embody one another that the latter is meant to function as a perfect substitute for the former. That's why Scalia's new favorite sentence of the Affordable Care Act doesn’t really mean people in states with federal exchanges should be denied subsidies. In every other context, including his own dissent, Scalia understands that a sentence's meaning often arises from more than just the order and way its words are arranged on a page.

Scalia s Dissent Disproves His Own Reading of the Affordable Care Act The New Republic

Roberts saved his court from being nutty like all the RWnutjobs that run amok in this country.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Oh, noooo!

Another vapid, 'is not, is noootttttt' post from C_Chamber_Pot!

Let's reveal you to be the moron that you are:

1. You are a Progressive twit....another one with no thinking ability...
...and that is why you cannot find any flaw in the list of objections Progressives have with real American values....as listed in the OP>

2. I stated that the Supreme Court....or any court....is denied the authority to re-write legislation.
You cannot deny that, either.

3. The clear language of the bill includes: subsidies are available only to those who purchase coverage through exchanges "established be the state."
Also undeniable.


QED...
a. I am, again, 100% correct.
b. You are a moron and a liar.

Saul Goodman (C_Clayton) has the legal reasoning skills of a sand crab. The JD he got off the back of a matchbook in the Philippines failed to prepare him for any sort of legal reasoning. Better call Saul thinks IRAC is a type of Chevy Camero.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Yet another OP demonstrating why PoliticalSpice should be posting in the Conspiracy forum.

The fact that it was the dissenters, like Scalia who was throwing a hissyfit, because they had no constitutional basis for their objections was patently obvious to the entire nation.

"....no constitutional basis for their objections...."

Well, well, well....this imbecile turns out to be a liar, as well.

Both the Constitution, and the ObamaCare bill are written in English.
I am fluent in English.....and fully understand the phrase “established by the state”....





2. The insightful and perceptive Justice Antonin Scalia was shocked by the illegality of the Supreme Court’s decision in King v. Burwell, as I, and all good Americans were as well, permitting the Obama administration to allow Obamacare subsidies to flow through the federal exchange.....even though the clear written language of the bill specified that this would only be allowed through exchanges “established by the state”....



These are Justice Scalia's words.....they are the epitaph of the late, great nation, the United States of America.


a. " “We should start calling this law SCOTUScare … [T]his Court’s two decisions on the Act will surely be remembered through the years … And the cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites.”
9 Quotes From Scalia s Scathing Dissent in King V. Burwell



Nowhere is there an authority for the Supreme Court to re-write legislation.


Nowhere.

Ironic that Scalia, who is a self proclaimed champion of "original intent", chooses to ignore that principle when it suits his partisan political agenda.

On the plus side he has just destroyed his own credibility as far as "original intent" goes for all time.

So there is a silver lining to the ominous brooding shadow that Scalia casts upon the court.