Did Roberts Change His Mind ?

[Big Fitz]

If I can be taxed or imprisoned for taking NO action, it is harm.

Rhetorical question my ass. I love how the word 'freeloader' is now being twisted to mean "Someone who refuses to depend on the government". Some talking point go out that you must parrot lately? You're the second person in 2 days on the ultra left kook that's spouting this language change nonsense.

How is buying private insurance "depending on the government"? The freeloaders I'm talking about are those who don't buy insurance when they can afford it, knowing that when they need it, we'll take care of them anyway. Morally that's worse than those who can't afford it getting care.

I am being forced by penalty of law to purchase something I may not want. What if I was independantly wealthy and preferred to just pay by cash instead of bothering with health insurance? I'd be fined 1% of my income and if I refused to pay, I'd have my assets and property seized. If I fought to keep my property, I'd go to jail.

THAT... is not freeloading. That is a free choice. Something commies like you hate and desire to take away at every turn.

Oh, and to STEAL a line from your ilk: You have no right to impose your morality on me.

 

[Big Fitz]

If I can be taxed or imprisoned for taking NO action, it is harm.

Rhetorical question my ass. I love how the word 'freeloader' is now being twisted to mean "Someone who refuses to depend on the government". Some talking point go out that you must parrot lately? You're the second person in 2 days on the ultra left kook that's spouting this language change nonsense.

How is buying private insurance "depending on the government"? The freeloaders I'm talking about are those who don't buy insurance when they can afford it, knowing that when they need it, we'll take care of them anyway. Morally that's worse than those who can't afford it getting care.

You are forcing people to do what they may or may not choose to do. So you can no longer say you are pro choice. You are now the party of Pro Tax. mandate. You will do what we tell you do when we tell you to do it or we will punish you with a tax. The government has taken over the health care insurance industry. you damn right it is socialism. you're giving away your rights with boths fist and loving it aren't ya? They're putting the IRS and a 15 member death panel in place to decide your fate. I laugh at your fucking stupidity.

No, he's the party of pro-prison state. Tardtard (aka bfgrn) should be having a stroke over this... if he was intellectually honest.

 

[Care4all]

If I can be taxed or imprisoned for taking NO action, it is harm.

Rhetorical question my ass. I love how the word 'freeloader' is now being twisted to mean "Someone who refuses to depend on the government". Some talking point go out that you must parrot lately? You're the second person in 2 days on the ultra left kook that's spouting this language change nonsense.

How is buying private insurance "depending on the government"? The freeloaders I'm talking about are those who don't buy insurance when they can afford it, knowing that when they need it, we'll take care of them anyway. Morally that's worse than those who can't afford it getting care.

I am being forced by penalty of law to purchase something I may not want. What if I was independantly wealthy and preferred to just pay by cash instead of bothering with health insurance? I'd be fined 1% of my income and if I refused to pay, I'd have my assets and property seized. If I fought to keep my property, I'd go to jail.

THAT... is not freeloading. That is a free choice. Something commies like you hate and desire to take away at every turn.

Oh, and to STEAL a line from your ilk: You have no right to impose your morality on me.

I know of no one that is Independently wealthy, that does NOT have a Cadillac Health Insurance Plan....your scenario is highly unlikely imho....I can maybe see this putting the squeeze on someone working and making just under a 100k, where they've got 2 kids in college, a mortgage way above their pay level, Car payments too...and outside of the reach of federal assistance....but more than likely, I am wrong, because the guy working for 100k probably has his health Insurance mostly paid for by his employer as part of his total compensation package....

 

[konradv]

If I can be taxed or imprisoned for taking NO action, it is harm.

Rhetorical question my ass. I love how the word 'freeloader' is now being twisted to mean "Someone who refuses to depend on the government". Some talking point go out that you must parrot lately? You're the second person in 2 days on the ultra left kook that's spouting this language change nonsense.

How is buying private insurance "depending on the government"? The freeloaders I'm talking about are those who don't buy insurance when they can afford it, knowing that when they need it, we'll take care of them anyway. Morally that's worse than those who can't afford it getting care.

I am being forced by penalty of law to purchase something I may not want. What if I was independantly wealthy and preferred to just pay by cash instead of bothering with health insurance? I'd be fined 1% of my income and if I refused to pay, I'd have my assets and property seized. If I fought to keep my property, I'd go to jail.

THAT... is not freeloading. That is a free choice. Something commies like you hate and desire to take away at every turn.

Oh, and to STEAL a line from your ilk: You have no right to impose your morality on me.

FAIL! It is freeloading, if you can't pay. Your "independently wealthy" example is just a dodge to avoid explaining why you're agreeable to paying for those who need health insurance and can afford it, but choose not to. Your "free choice" only applies to the freeloaders. They're making a choice not to buy, which we're forced to subsidize. Any other time you'd be screaming about the situation! Since we can't enforce our morality on each other, I guess you've got no cause to complain, if I just decided to take of every opportunity for the government to take care of me. Works both ways.

 

[Listening]

the only pressure that roberts had on him was that he didn't want another decision to come down 5 to 4...

but the reality is also that he was correct in his statement that it is the obligation of the court to sustain laws passed by congress unless there is no lawful way to do so... even if you don't think a particular law is a good idea.

that's called being 'conservative'.

unlike the radicals like scalia and thomas.. (have to admit i'm kind of surprised by kennedy)

Yet it was a 5-4 decision. Did someone hack your account to make you look like an idiot or did you really write that?

you're right... i needed to say 5-4 with ALL THE RIGHTWINGERS ignoring stare decisis and making purely political decisions.

but then again..... you know that.

but whatever rocks you.

Fabricated cornerstone.

Liberals don't care for it when it does not apply to them. Or else Roe v. Wade would be the bane of liberals too.

You can't have it both ways.....

But you try.

 

[Listening]

Rumors had been circulating in legal circles for weeks that Chief Justice Roberts in particular was under enormous political pressure not to be the vote that would overturn the most significant piece of social legislation passed by Congress in decades. Indeed, in April President Obama took the unusual step of issuing something of a public warning on the subject, saying that he was “confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”

It is impossible for a lawyer to read even the first few pages of the dissent without coming away with the impression that this is a majority opinion that at the last moment lost its fifth vote. Its structure and tone are those of a winning coalition, not that of the losing side in the most controversial Supreme Court case in many years. But when we get to Page 13, far more conclusive evidence appears: No less than 15 times in the space of the next few pages, the dissent refers to Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s concurring opinion as “Justice Ginsburg’s dissent.”

There is one likely explanation for this: The dissent was the majority opinion when those who voted to overturn the entire ACA signed off on sending their text to the printer. In other words, Chief Justice Roberts changed his vote at the very last possible moment.

Did John Roberts switch his vote? - Salon.com

*******************************

Enormous political pressure to not overturn ?

How in the hell does a CJ bow to political pressure. I don't give a rats ass about the "legitimacy" of the court. If Roberts caved, he should remove himself from the court. We don't need him.

The very idea that we have this sorry assed legislation because he bowed...makes me vomit.

And, I like that the article specfically points out that Obama made those public statements.

Obama...our so-called "Constitutional Scholar"/Moron-In-Chief basically would be guilty of interfering with what is supposed to be a separate branch of government.

But you libs liked that...anything for the victory...You've joined Obama in wiping your asses with the constitution for decades. You might as well have it printed on Charmin so you can make the job easier.

This is all very interesting. "Ginsberg's dissent" should have been altered to avoid this speculation. It is telling.

And it answers the question I had from the beginning. The mandate was ruled by Roberts as unconstitutional as the law was written under the Commerce Clause, but then he reached way too far and took the arguments presented in court that the penalty was not a penalty, but a "tax."

How could he do this when it was not written in the law? He was reaching and even said, "the tax may not be fair or wise", but it is constitutional. It may have been constitutional, but that is not the way the law was written.

So, I believed he reached too far, giving it a ruling of constitutionality but warning folks, it wasn't fair or wise to do so.

He caved.

the justices aren't your tools.

Who do you think you are ?

If you want to play opinion nazi find somebody who cares what you have to say.

His opinion is as welcomed as anyones....

And justices do answer to us in a very roundabout way......through the senate.

They are there to protect us from the overreach of government....so yes they are our tools (if toos means an implement and not some stupid insult).

And Roberts has seemingly failed.

 

[Big Fitz]

How is buying private insurance "depending on the government"? The freeloaders I'm talking about are those who don't buy insurance when they can afford it, knowing that when they need it, we'll take care of them anyway. Morally that's worse than those who can't afford it getting care.

I am being forced by penalty of law to purchase something I may not want. What if I was independantly wealthy and preferred to just pay by cash instead of bothering with health insurance? I'd be fined 1% of my income and if I refused to pay, I'd have my assets and property seized. If I fought to keep my property, I'd go to jail.

THAT... is not freeloading. That is a free choice. Something commies like you hate and desire to take away at every turn.

Oh, and to STEAL a line from your ilk: You have no right to impose your morality on me.

I know of no one that is Independently wealthy, that does NOT have a Cadillac Health Insurance Plan....your scenario is highly unlikely imho....I can maybe see this putting the squeeze on someone working and making just under a 100k, where they've got 2 kids in college, a mortgage way above their pay level, Car payments too...and outside of the reach of federal assistance....but more than likely, I am wrong, because the guy working for 100k probably has his health Insurance mostly paid for by his employer as part of his total compensation package....

Whether you know of them or not is irrelevant. But do you think fining the poor who can't pay for health insurance 1900 for not purchasing it, and then threatening to put them in jail for non payment of taxes is a help?

What do you do when given the choice of food and heat or healthcare, which for some is what it will come down to. This will put the squeeze on ALL Americans. Why? Because as you just pointed out, those who DO have the money, WILL have the insurance, or the ability and desire to pay the fine. So where is the tax going to come from to pay for people who are poor?

Unless you look at the typical family owned business that 'makes' over 100k a year, but it's all in the business. You're going to fine them 1% of their income, which they can't afford to pay, and then seize their assets, putting them out of business and ruining them. How is this a positive???

Care4all? Try Care4none at this point. There are poor families and individuals who cannot afford 100 bucks a month extra. And what if they lose their job and coverage lapses at the wrong time of the year? Ding, fined, seized or jailed. There is no care in Obamacare.

You make a lot of assumptions without thinking through the effects of the government force you wish to inflict on others because "it won't bother you any. You got yours." Just like KommieKonnie.

 

[Big Fitz]

FAIL! It is freeloading, if you can't pay. Your "independently wealthy" example is just a dodge to avoid explaining why you're agreeable to paying for those who need health insurance and can afford it, but choose not to.

Bullshit. He pays cash and goes home. As Rush pointed out when he had his heart issues in Hawaii (when you were wishing he'd drop dead) he paid cash for his bill and went home getting a massive discount for doing so.

It DOES happen. Oops, historical fact kills your presumptive arrogance it can't.

State-Run Media Has Cow Over Rush's Hospital Press Conference - The Rush Limbaugh Show

Key pull quote:

A, I don't have insurance. Hell, I may have it, I don't even know. But I don't use it. I pay cash for it. I gave them a credit card and they took the credit card. There was not one bureaucrat involved. Now, in Obamacare, you have to have health insurance or go to jail or pay a fine. I'm not gonna get health insurance. I'm not going to inflate my bill by 35%. This cost me 30% less than had insurance been involved here. There was not one bureaucrat determining whether or not I was gonna get treatment.

Call him a liar if you want. See if you can find the truth to his records if you so choose. That's up to you. Your denial this doesn't happen is rendered void, right there. By Obamatax, you will effectively criminalize (I can see your heart leap for joy at that thought right there) and rob from him his wealth or his freedom.

Just like your goal to enslave this nation to the state.

Your "free choice" only applies to the freeloaders.

Utter lie. Freeloaders do not pick product. They take what they are given from someone else. Ever hear the phrase, "Beggers can't be choosers?" Probably don't believe it one bit because you have supported a policy designed to MAKE us a nation of beggers! Rising bilge poverty right here.

They're making a choice not to buy, which we're forced to subsidize.

Now inaction is a criminal act. I did not have to buy car insurance in all 50 states. But I could not drive on a public road or something other than farm machinery if I didn't. I could not be penalized unless I took an action.

I do not have to buy energy. I can go off the grid or live in mountain man filth if I so choose too. No criminal penalty for living by camping.

You don't think all these taxes are subsidizing the holes in coverage? What a crock of shit! If this was covered completely by private sector money there would BE NO NEED OF TAXES!! DUH!!!! Smell what you're shovelling.

Any other time you'd be screaming about the situation!

False assumption based on broad ill defined generalities, ignoring all other solutions that does not enslave people and make a totalitarian state.

Since we can't enforce our morality on each other, I guess you've got no cause to complain, if I just decided to take of every opportunity for the government to take care of me. Works both ways.

Thank you for invalidating your own moral viewpoint of inflicting your choice on others by dint of law and gun. If YOU choose, it is YOUR choice. That's freedom. If I chose to do otherwise, it is MY choice. That is freedom. If you choose for me, that is not my choice and it is coercion and tyranny.

Thank you once again for proving yourself to be nothing less than a totalitarian thug with a smarmy superiority complex not worth the lint out of a dead dog's ass.

 

[J.E.D]

This is all very interesting. "Ginsberg's dissent" should have been altered to avoid this speculation. It is telling.

And it answers the question I had from the beginning. The mandate was ruled by Roberts as unconstitutional as the law was written under the Commerce Clause, but then he reached way too far and took the arguments presented in court that the penalty was not a penalty, but a "tax."

How could he do this when it was not written in the law? He was reaching and even said, "the tax may not be fair or wise", but it is constitutional. It may have been constitutional, but that is not the way the law was written.

So, I believed he reached too far, giving it a ruling of constitutionality but warning folks, it wasn't fair or wise to do so.

He caved.

the justices aren't your tools.

Who do you think you are ?

If you want to play opinion nazi find somebody who cares what you have to say.

His opinion is as welcomed as anyones....

And justices do answer to us in a very roundabout way......through the senate.

They are there to protect us from the overreach of government....so yes they are our tools (if toos means an implement and not some stupid insult).

And Roberts has seemingly failed.

No, no they're not. They're there to determine the constitutionality of laws. You have failed at understanding the purpose of the Court.

 

[Care4all]

I am being forced by penalty of law to purchase something I may not want. What if I was independantly wealthy and preferred to just pay by cash instead of bothering with health insurance? I'd be fined 1% of my income and if I refused to pay, I'd have my assets and property seized. If I fought to keep my property, I'd go to jail.

THAT... is not freeloading. That is a free choice. Something commies like you hate and desire to take away at every turn.

Oh, and to STEAL a line from your ilk: You have no right to impose your morality on me.

I know of no one that is Independently wealthy, that does NOT have a Cadillac Health Insurance Plan....your scenario is highly unlikely imho....I can maybe see this putting the squeeze on someone working and making just under a 100k, where they've got 2 kids in college, a mortgage way above their pay level, Car payments too...and outside of the reach of federal assistance....but more than likely, I am wrong, because the guy working for 100k probably has his health Insurance mostly paid for by his employer as part of his total compensation package....

Whether you know of them or not is irrelevant. But do you think fining the poor who can't pay for health insurance 1900 for not purchasing it, and then threatening to put them in jail for non payment of taxes is a help?

What do you do when given the choice of food and heat or healthcare, which for some is what it will come down to. This will put the squeeze on ALL Americans. Why? Because as you just pointed out, those who DO have the money, WILL have the insurance, or the ability and desire to pay the fine. So where is the tax going to come from to pay for people who are poor?

Unless you look at the typical family owned business that 'makes' over 100k a year, but it's all in the business. You're going to fine them 1% of their income, which they can't afford to pay, and then seize their assets, putting them out of business and ruining them. How is this a positive???

Care4all? Try Care4none at this point. There are poor families and individuals who cannot afford 100 bucks a month extra. And what if they lose their job and coverage lapses at the wrong time of the year? Ding, fined, seized or jailed. There is no care in Obamacare.

You make a lot of assumptions without thinking through the effects of the government force you wish to inflict on others because "it won't bother you any. You got yours." Just like KommieKonnie.

there is no threat to put anyone in jail BF? Why do you keep saying that?

As far as the poor and the middle class up to 88k for a family of 4 will get varying subsidies to help pay for it. according to the ACA, so i'm not quite certain what you are getting at?

Do I like being mandated to buy for profit, private insurance, even though i would have bought it anyway? NO

but I do know jail time IS NOT part of the ACA and do know anyone poor will be helped...so those are not 'issues' to me.

 

[Big Fitz]

I know of no one that is Independently wealthy, that does NOT have a Cadillac Health Insurance Plan....your scenario is highly unlikely imho....I can maybe see this putting the squeeze on someone working and making just under a 100k, where they've got 2 kids in college, a mortgage way above their pay level, Car payments too...and outside of the reach of federal assistance....but more than likely, I am wrong, because the guy working for 100k probably has his health Insurance mostly paid for by his employer as part of his total compensation package....

Whether you know of them or not is irrelevant. But do you think fining the poor who can't pay for health insurance 1900 for not purchasing it, and then threatening to put them in jail for non payment of taxes is a help?

What do you do when given the choice of food and heat or healthcare, which for some is what it will come down to. This will put the squeeze on ALL Americans. Why? Because as you just pointed out, those who DO have the money, WILL have the insurance, or the ability and desire to pay the fine. So where is the tax going to come from to pay for people who are poor?

Unless you look at the typical family owned business that 'makes' over 100k a year, but it's all in the business. You're going to fine them 1% of their income, which they can't afford to pay, and then seize their assets, putting them out of business and ruining them. How is this a positive???

Care4all? Try Care4none at this point. There are poor families and individuals who cannot afford 100 bucks a month extra. And what if they lose their job and coverage lapses at the wrong time of the year? Ding, fined, seized or jailed. There is no care in Obamacare.

You make a lot of assumptions without thinking through the effects of the government force you wish to inflict on others because "it won't bother you any. You got yours." Just like KommieKonnie.

there is no threat to put anyone in jail BF? Why do you keep saying that?

As far as the poor and the middle class up to 88k for a family of 4 will get varying subsidies to help pay for it. according to the ACA, so i'm not quite certain what you are getting at?

Do I like being mandated to buy for profit, private insurance, even though i would have bought it anyway? NO

but I do know jail time IS NOT part of the ACA and do know anyone poor will be helped...so those are not 'issues' to me.

I've found and posted multiple links to language in Obamatax that does fine and use existing IRS laws including jail and seizure for it's enforcement. How's Wesley Snipes doing? The Posse Comentatus? You put the IRS in charge of enforcement, people go to jail Period.

So you're okay with your rights being violated? I'm not.

 

[konradv]

You make a lot of assumptions without thinking through the effects of the government force you wish to inflict on others because "it won't bother you any. You got yours." Just like KommieKonnie.

Calling people commies?!?! The dodge of the desperate, IMO.

 

[Greenbeard]

Congress was always exempt.

Congress is not "exempt" from anything. Members of Congress previously/currently had access to group health insurance through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan. While the FEHBP will still exist in 2014, members of Congress will no longer have access to it. Under the law, "the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff with respect to their service as a Member of Congress or congressional staff" will be plans offered through one of the exchanges created under the law.

Whether you know of them or not is irrelevant. But do you think fining the poor who can't pay for health insurance 1900 for not purchasing it, and then threatening to put them in jail for non payment of taxes is a help?

The poor are not subject to the penalty.

I've found and posted multiple links to language in Obamatax that does fine and use existing IRS laws including jail and seizure for it's enforcement.

Here's the only link that matters: 26 USC § 5000A - REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE. Skip to the bottom. No criminal penalties, no liens or levies.

 

[katsung47]

Just three months ago, Roberts sided with Republican, why does he suddenly change his mind? Because the Feds want the Health care law. (detail see my later journal)
Quote, “Chief Justice Roberts: Can government require you to buy a cell phone?

Mar. 27, 2012 - Chief Justice Roberts asks the Solicitor General Verrilli if the government can require the purchase of cell phones for emergency services, just as the health-care law requires for health insurance.(The Washington Post)

Chief Justice Roberts: Can government require you to buy a cell phone? (0:42) - The Washington Post “

Now he takes off his mask and follow the wand of his master. It proves what I said six years ago. He is a puppet tool of the Feds (D.O.J.) Here is article written in 2005:

344. Roberts, a secret agent of D.O.J. (9/18/05)

The dark side of the USA in Public Forum Forum

 

[Big Fitz]

You make a lot of assumptions without thinking through the effects of the government force you wish to inflict on others because "it won't bother you any. You got yours." Just like KommieKonnie.

Calling people commies?!?! The dodge of the desperate, IMO.

Correctly identifying you and hanging the sign on you so all others can be warned of your idiocy is a public service, not a desperate dodge.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VuN4P7897k]Bill Engvall - Here's Your Sign Christmas (Video) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Care4all]

Whether you know of them or not is irrelevant. But do you think fining the poor who can't pay for health insurance 1900 for not purchasing it, and then threatening to put them in jail for non payment of taxes is a help?

What do you do when given the choice of food and heat or healthcare, which for some is what it will come down to. This will put the squeeze on ALL Americans. Why? Because as you just pointed out, those who DO have the money, WILL have the insurance, or the ability and desire to pay the fine. So where is the tax going to come from to pay for people who are poor?

Unless you look at the typical family owned business that 'makes' over 100k a year, but it's all in the business. You're going to fine them 1% of their income, which they can't afford to pay, and then seize their assets, putting them out of business and ruining them. How is this a positive???

Care4all? Try Care4none at this point. There are poor families and individuals who cannot afford 100 bucks a month extra. And what if they lose their job and coverage lapses at the wrong time of the year? Ding, fined, seized or jailed. There is no care in Obamacare.

You make a lot of assumptions without thinking through the effects of the government force you wish to inflict on others because "it won't bother you any. You got yours." Just like KommieKonnie.

there is no threat to put anyone in jail BF? Why do you keep saying that?

As far as the poor and the middle class up to 88k for a family of 4 will get varying subsidies to help pay for it. according to the ACA, so i'm not quite certain what you are getting at?

Do I like being mandated to buy for profit, private insurance, even though i would have bought it anyway? NO

but I do know jail time IS NOT part of the ACA and do know anyone poor will be helped...so those are not 'issues' to me.

I've found and posted multiple links to language in Obamatax that does fine and use existing IRS laws including jail and seizure for it's enforcement. How's Wesley Snipes doing? The Posse Comentatus? You put the IRS in charge of enforcement, people go to jail Period.

So you're okay with your rights being violated? I'm not.

Take a few deep breaths and stop acting like you are out trying to win an award for playing a hyperactive chiwawa puppy!

There is no jail time as part of this bill...they can at max, garnish your wages, if and only if you can afford to buy it and choose not to.

If you are poor, you can NOT be penalized.

i've never been mad crazy for this mandate, as mentioned several times...

I understand the reasoning behind it, and also understand the concerns of individuals against it.

 

[Big Fitz]

there is no threat to put anyone in jail BF? Why do you keep saying that?

As far as the poor and the middle class up to 88k for a family of 4 will get varying subsidies to help pay for it. according to the ACA, so i'm not quite certain what you are getting at?

Do I like being mandated to buy for profit, private insurance, even though i would have bought it anyway? NO

but I do know jail time IS NOT part of the ACA and do know anyone poor will be helped...so those are not 'issues' to me.

I've found and posted multiple links to language in Obamatax that does fine and use existing IRS laws including jail and seizure for it's enforcement. How's Wesley Snipes doing? The Posse Comentatus? You put the IRS in charge of enforcement, people go to jail Period.

So you're okay with your rights being violated? I'm not.

Take a few deep breaths and stop acting like you are out trying to win an award for playing a hyperactive chiwawa puppy!

There is no jail time as part of this bill...they can at max, garnish your wages, if and only if you can afford to buy it and choose not to.

If you are poor, you can NOT be penalized.

i've never been mad crazy for this mandate, as mentioned several times...

I understand the reasoning behind it, and also understand the concerns of individuals against it.

That level of thinking is equivalent to asking a kid where meat comes from and they stop at "The store".

 

[konradv]

You make a lot of assumptions without thinking through the effects of the government force you wish to inflict on others because "it won't bother you any. You got yours." Just like KommieKonnie.

Calling people commies?!?! The dodge of the desperate, IMO.

Correctly identifying you and hanging the sign on you so all others can be warned of your idiocy is a public service, not a desperate dodge.

Whatever, dude. You're a really sad case.

 

[Big Fitz]

Calling people commies?!?! The dodge of the desperate, IMO.

Correctly identifying you and hanging the sign on you so all others can be warned of your idiocy is a public service, not a desperate dodge.

Whatever, dude. You're a really sad case.

yeah, thanks Wiley E.

 

[Listening]

the justices aren't your tools.

Who do you think you are ?

If you want to play opinion nazi find somebody who cares what you have to say.

His opinion is as welcomed as anyones....

And justices do answer to us in a very roundabout way......through the senate.

They are there to protect us from the overreach of government....so yes they are our tools (if toos means an implement and not some stupid insult).

And Roberts has seemingly failed.

No, no they're not. They're there to determine the constitutionality of laws. You have failed at understanding the purpose of the Court.

And why would we put them there.....to determine the constitutionality of laws....which protects us from the overreach of government.

And you obviously failed the third grade.

Go read your federalist papers and get back to me.