Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Maybe now, Americans will be more wary when people are being touted as Conservatives. Don't get fooled again.
Are you claiming that you don't turn on any right-wing radio when driving between work appointments?You cannot help but turn on Rush and Sean when driving around in your white van between plumbing calls, can you?Interesting that you would mention that
TUESDAY, July 31 (HealthDay News) -- U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts walked out of a Maine hospital Tuesday morning with a clean bill of health, one day after suffering a seizure and falling on a dock near his summer home.
But doctors interviewed by HealthDay were divided on whether the seizure -- the second one the 52-year-old jurist has suffered in 14 years -- is a sign that Roberts has epilepsy, a neurological condition that could require him to take anti-seizure medication to control the disorder.
Experts Split on Whether Chief Justice Roberts Has Epilepsy
Try some NPR, or ESPNRadio, or even some music instead.
Where in the hell did that come from? The left listens more too rush than the right does. I get most of my information about rush when I come here from the left.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf
you obviously did not read the ruling. It is filled with conservative reasoning.
At the same time, the Chief Justice established some important, conservative doctrinal beachheads. He reaffirmed or established (depending on your perspective) some potentially important limits on Congresss powers under the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the General Welfare Clause. Congress cannot use the Commerce Clause to regulate commerce in a manner that compels people into commerce; it can only regulate existing commerce. Further, such regulation, even if necessary, can never be proper, no matter its importance to the proper functioning of a broader regulatory scheme. And the General Welfare Clause does not permit Congress to use the states dependence on an existing conditional spending program as a means to forcing them to accept significant, qualitative changes to that program. Rather, states must be given the choice to accept or deny the funds associated only with the programs modificationsat least when the program is similar in size to Medicaid.
A Marbury for our time : SCOTUSblog
Are you claiming that you don't turn on any right-wing radio when driving between work appointments?You cannot help but turn on Rush and Sean when driving around in your white van between plumbing calls, can you?
Try some NPR, or ESPNRadio, or even some music instead.
Where in the hell did that come from? The left listens more too rush than the right does. I get most of my information about rush when I come here from the left.
Interesting........................Roberts is a rogue who went against GOP ideals.
Against GOP ideals?
A GOP Justice? man you be the dumbest white fuck alive
-- excerpt from: Articles: The Constitutionality of the ObamaCare TaxThe problem with equivalence is that it can cut both ways. What if Congress "attacked" abortion, by levying a high income tax and providing a substantial tax credit for those who did not have an abortion in the last 7 years. Would the leftists on the Court find that this is a tax, well within the power of Congress to levy, or would they find that this is a "penalty," which infringes on the right to choose. Depending on the judge, it could be a constitutional tax or an unconstitutional penalty.
Were that true in actual reality, Kagan would've recused herself....But she's a political hack and didn't do so.Justices are supposed to be impartial, not a political arm of the GOP. Sorry. Better luck next time.
Better luck next time.
I would definitely say Roberts is a good conservative. He is not an activist justice and did his fucking job without influence of his political leaning - as he is supposed to do.
He acted objectively.
No. He did not. He acted like a liberal and reached a bogus set of conclusions like a liberal activist. Indeed, his opinion reeks of activism.
Congress called the penalty a penalty not a tax. They did so having REJECTED a prior version which called it a tax. The choice was THEIRS to make and they did so for a variety of reasons. But still, the choice was made. CJ Roberts rewrote the legislation in order to preserve it. That was not his valid right to do.
And he doubletalked like a liberal motherfucker to then AVOID some of the CONSEQUENCES of calling it a "tax."
If it were a tax, and it did not originate in the House, then it violated the Constitution and should have been voided on that basis alone. Not even ADDRESSED by the SCOTUS.
If it were a tax, it should have been apportioned. Addressed, but not honestly or even intelligently by the CJ, who instead advised us that it wasn't THAT kind of a tax. Please.
Also, if it were a tax which nobody has yet paid (which of course nobody has yet paid or could have yet paid), then according to the anti-injunction law, the case was not ripe for judicial review. But that problem got glossed over by the CJ in similarly bogus way, again suggesting that it's not the KIND of tax which the anti-injunction law was designed to rach.
It was a hideous and dishonest decision. It WAS judicial activism and it creates a host of future problems. The CJ ought to be ashamed of himself.
I would definitely say Roberts is a good conservative. He is not an activist justice and did his fucking job without influence of his political leaning - as he is supposed to do.
He acted objectively.
No. He did not. He acted like a liberal and reached a bogus set of conclusions like a liberal activist. Indeed, his opinion reeks of activism.
Congress called the penalty a penalty not a tax. They did so having REJECTED a prior version which called it a tax. The choice was THEIRS to make and they did so for a variety of reasons. But still, the choice was made. CJ Roberts rewrote the legislation in order to preserve it. That was not his valid right to do.
And he doubletalked like a liberal motherfucker to then AVOID some of the CONSEQUENCES of calling it a "tax."
If it were a tax, and it did not originate in the House, then it violated the Constitution and should have been voided on that basis alone. Not even ADDRESSED by the SCOTUS.
If it were a tax, it should have been apportioned. Addressed, but not honestly or even intelligently by the CJ, who instead advised us that it wasn't THAT kind of a tax. Please.
Also, if it were a tax which nobody has yet paid (which of course nobody has yet paid or could have yet paid), then according to the anti-injunction law, the case was not ripe for judicial review. But that problem got glossed over by the CJ in similarly bogus way, again suggesting that it's not the KIND of tax which the anti-injunction law was designed to rach.
It was a hideous and dishonest decision. It WAS judicial activism and it creates a host of future problems. The CJ ought to be ashamed of himself.
Jesus, any fool can start on page 4 of the pdf file and start to read how your bogus argument about apportionment not being addresses honestly and intelligently was addressed.
your mad rantings and ravings aside, your about as adept at legal reasoning as a toad is adept at climate science
I wish I could take credit for the following argument, but I stumbled upon it today looking at a variety of piece discussing ObamaCare and the hideous SCOTUS ruling on ObamaCare.
The basic thrust of the majority determination was that Congress can't impose an individual mandate, but it CAN impose a TAX under the taxing authority. What follows is called an equivalence argument.
If the legal reasoning of the ObamaCare majority opinion is valid true, then here's the rub: What if Congress assumes a solid conservative majority, there, my liberal friends?
Will you all be just diddly ding dong happy with this newly found "power?"
-- excerpt from: Articles: The Constitutionality of the ObamaCare TaxThe problem with equivalence is that it can cut both ways. What if Congress "attacked" abortion, by levying a high income tax and providing a substantial tax credit for those who did not have an abortion in the last 7 years. Would the leftists on the Court find that this is a tax, well within the power of Congress to levy, or would they find that this is a "penalty," which infringes on the right to choose. Depending on the judge, it could be a constitutional tax or an unconstitutional penalty.
Under the VERY same reasoning employed by your new fair and balanced and sensible hero, Chief Justice Roberts, it would appear logically impossible to deny that such a law would be Constitutional.
Are you STILL happy happy with the "thinking" of Chief Justice Roberts?
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf
you obviously did not read the ruling. It is filled with conservative reasoning.
Indeed.
At the same time, the Chief Justice established some important, conservative doctrinal beachheads. He reaffirmed or established (depending on your perspective) some potentially important limits on Congresss powers under the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the General Welfare Clause. Congress cannot use the Commerce Clause to regulate commerce in a manner that compels people into commerce; it can only regulate existing commerce. Further, such regulation, even if necessary, can never be proper, no matter its importance to the proper functioning of a broader regulatory scheme. And the General Welfare Clause does not permit Congress to use the states dependence on an existing conditional spending program as a means to forcing them to accept significant, qualitative changes to that program. Rather, states must be given the choice to accept or deny the funds associated only with the programs modificationsat least when the program is similar in size to Medicaid.
A Marbury for our time : SCOTUSblog
Clearly rightist opposition to the ACA is partisan, having nothing to do with the Constitution or its case law.
Bamboozled again. This is exactly why so many have lost all faith in our Government. We were told John Roberts was a "Staunch Conservative." We were also told George Bush was a "Conservative." All just lies. Many are now rightfully convinced it's all a big scam. The two Parties are really just one Party. They're in the same exclusive private Club. You can't trust any of them. They just play games with the People. Roberts will sleep well tonight though. What does he care? He has his job for life. The People have lost again. What a travesty.
So you want ‘conservative’ justices appointed to the Supreme Court who will ignore the Constitution, its case law, and he rule of law and base their opinions on partisan ideology.
.
Do you know what meds he is on?
Most anti seizure medicine does not effect your cognitive abilities.
And do you know for a fact he is on anti seizure medicine?
And he had a seizure in 2007, and one 14 years prior. So until you understand what the side effects of certain drugs are, have proof he takes medication, and really have any medical knowledge please do not tell me to shut up.
it's a recorded event and you are smarter to discuss it futher. Tap out loser, you couldn't even began to describe those events but don't let me stop ya.
Dittohead gets his lame talking points from an addict, and has the nerve to call someone else a loser!
it's that pavlov dog response, rinse and repeat method. When you can't back up facts, blame the other guy....like our campaigner in chief at the moment.You cannot help but turn on Rush and Sean when driving around in your white van between plumbing calls, can you?Interesting that you would mention that
TUESDAY, July 31 (HealthDay News) -- U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts walked out of a Maine hospital Tuesday morning with a clean bill of health, one day after suffering a seizure and falling on a dock near his summer home.
But doctors interviewed by HealthDay were divided on whether the seizure -- the second one the 52-year-old jurist has suffered in 14 years -- is a sign that Roberts has epilepsy, a neurological condition that could require him to take anti-seizure medication to control the disorder.
Experts Split on Whether Chief Justice Roberts Has Epilepsy
Try some NPR, or ESPNRadio, or even some music instead.
Where in the hell did that come from? The left listens more too rush than the right does. I get most of my information about rush when I come here from the left.
No faith in our processes anymore. Sadly, that sums up how Millions & Millions of Americans now feel. It all just seems like a big sham. The NWO Globalist Elites do run the show. That should be pretty obvious to all at this point. The whole Republican vs. Democrat/Liberal vs. Conservative thing is just a distraction sham. John Roberts just proved that.
Bamboozled again. This is exactly why so many have lost all faith in our Government. We were told John Roberts was a "Staunch Conservative." We were also told George Bush was a "Conservative." All just lies. Many are now rightfully convinced it's all a big scam. The two Parties are really just one Party. They're in the same exclusive private Club. You can't trust any of them. They just play games with the People. Roberts will sleep well tonight though. What does he care? He has his job for life. The People have lost again. What a travesty.
