Kudos to John Roberts

[Liability]

Yet another bush fuckup.

Like that time Kennedy found out that old Whizzer White wasn't all that liberal?

 

[Amelia]

I love the smell of wingnut frustration.

Some Conservatives here appear to be suffering a bit of "Stockholm Syndrome"

"I wasn't raped! I liked it! It was consentual!"

Was that supposed to make sense?

Conservatives with Stockholm Syndrome? Liberals are the ones who are sticking their heads up the ass of a slimy liar and saying it smells like flowers.

 

[PoliticalChic]

from his ruling:

Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.

Very refreshing. I'm sure I'll be back to hating him next year but that was a very perceptive statement.

Justice Roberts did just what he promised to do when nominated. He followed the Constitution.

This fight is correctly fought in the Congress, as he stated today.
Conservatives do not wish to endorse legislating from the bench.

ObamaCare will be judged again....in November.

 

[Liability]

from his ruling:

Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.

Very refreshing. I'm sure I'll be back to hating him next year but that was a very perceptive statement.

Justice Roberts did just what he promised to do when nominated. He followed the Constitution.

This fight is correctly fought in the Congress, as he stated today.
Conservatives do not wish to endorse legislating from the bench.

ObamaCare will be judged again....in November.

It would not have been legislating from the bench or judicial activism to strike down a law that IS in violation of the Constitution.

But since the SCOTUS whiffed, it DOES come down, now, to the voters and to the next Congress -- if we can boot the incumbent OUT of Office, of course.

So, it really DOES come down to the voters.

 

[Oddball]

from his ruling:

Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.

Very refreshing. I'm sure I'll be back to hating him next year but that was a very perceptive statement.

Justice Roberts did just what he promised to do when nominated. He followed the Constitution.

This fight is correctly fought in the Congress, as he stated today.
Conservatives do not wish to endorse legislating from the bench.

ObamaCare will be judged again....in November.

Yeah, and he also did what we're told Justices appointed by (R)s don't do: Re-write the law.

We have Souter as CJ.

 

[Ravi]

from his ruling:

Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.

Very refreshing. I'm sure I'll be back to hating him next year but that was a very perceptive statement.

Justice Roberts did just what he promised to do when nominated. He followed the Constitution.

This fight is correctly fought in the Congress, as he stated today.
Conservatives do not wish to endorse legislating from the bench.

ObamaCare will be judged again....in November.

You're saying Scalia legislates from the bench.

Yep, he does.

 

[Liability]

from his ruling:



Very refreshing. I'm sure I'll be back to hating him next year but that was a very perceptive statement.

Justice Roberts did just what he promised to do when nominated. He followed the Constitution.

This fight is correctly fought in the Congress, as he stated today.
Conservatives do not wish to endorse legislating from the bench.

ObamaCare will be judged again....in November.

You're saying Scalia legislates from the bench.

Yep, he does.

No. He doesn't.

You are just another mindless parrot mouthing words you don't comprehend.

 

[Ravi]

Justice Roberts did just what he promised to do when nominated. He followed the Constitution.

This fight is correctly fought in the Congress, as he stated today.
Conservatives do not wish to endorse legislating from the bench.

ObamaCare will be judged again....in November.

You're saying Scalia legislates from the bench.

Yep, he does.

No. He doesn't.

You are just another mindless parrot mouthing words you don't comprehend.

Poor you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

from his ruling:



Very refreshing. I'm sure I'll be back to hating him next year but that was a very perceptive statement.

Justice Roberts did just what he promised to do when nominated. He followed the Constitution.

This fight is correctly fought in the Congress, as he stated today.
Conservatives do not wish to endorse legislating from the bench.

ObamaCare will be judged again....in November.

You're saying Scalia legislates from the bench.

Yep, he does.

This is what I am saying:

Chief Justice Roberts: “It Is Not Our Job to Protect the People From the Consequences of Their Political Choices”

 

[Liability]

You're saying Scalia legislates from the bench.

Yep, he does.

No. He doesn't.

You are just another mindless parrot mouthing words you don't comprehend.

Poor you.

Not at all. YOU are the one who offered the ignorant baseless stupid claim.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This is why I have posted in the past that I believed the court would uphold the Act...

...if two branches had found the Act constitutional.....even if I believe it was a political decision.....

it was the job of the Supreme Court to find it so unless there is specific language in the Constitution
that forbids same.

 

[Ravi]

Justice Roberts did just what he promised to do when nominated. He followed the Constitution.

This fight is correctly fought in the Congress, as he stated today.
Conservatives do not wish to endorse legislating from the bench.

ObamaCare will be judged again....in November.

You're saying Scalia legislates from the bench.

Yep, he does.

This is what I am saying:

Chief Justice Roberts: “It Is Not Our Job to Protect the People From the Consequences of Their Political Choices”

So conversely you must believe that Scalia thinks it is his job.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You're saying Scalia legislates from the bench.

Yep, he does.

This is what I am saying:

Chief Justice Roberts: “It Is Not Our Job to Protect the People From the Consequences of Their Political Choices”

So conversely you must believe that Scalia thinks it is his job.

There is nothing converse in my post.

Unless you have some cases in mind where a Scalia decision is counter to language of the Constitution, your post is less than silly....and certainly illogical.

 

[Liability]

This is why I have posted in the past that I believed the court would uphold the Act...

...if two branches had found the Act constitutional.....even if I believe it was a political decision.....

it was the job of the Supreme Court to find it so unless there is specific language in the Constitution
that forbids same.

It is NOT required that there be specific language forbidding an Act.

What IS required is specific language AUTHORIZING it.

It wasn't found in the Commerce Clause.

It wasn't found in the Necessary and Proper Clause.

It was CLAIMED to be found in the taxing authority of Congress when even Congress declined to call it a "tax," as did the Executive Branch. Still the CJ twisted and contorted the words USED in the actual ACT by Congress itself to convert "penalty" into "tax."

That distortion of the meaning of words didn't sneak past the 4 dissenting Justices who called it for what it was. Wrong and without precedent.

And, if it is a "tax" somehow, then it should have to be apportioned, but the CJ got around that too, by a similarly slippery manipulation of language.

It was a dishonest majority opinion in those ways.

ObamaCare SHOULD have been voided. Instead, because the CJ declined to do what he should have done, we are all now saddled with it at least though the start of the next Administration and a new Congress, if we can seize control of the Senate.

This upcoming election is now the most important one in U.S. history.

 

[mudwhistle]

We could say Bush apponted a moderte to the SC or we could say Bush appointed someone who actually is not beholden to the Far Right. I think he deserves applause....

Perhaps Bush nominated someone who believes in correctly interpreting the law rather than judicial activism.

Guess Whoopie Goldberg was full of shit.

 

[hortysir]

This is why I have posted in the past that I believed the court would uphold the Act...

...if two branches had found the Act constitutional.....even if I believe it was a political decision.....

it was the job of the Supreme Court to find it so unless there is specific language in the Constitution
that forbids same.

It is NOT required that there be specific language forbidding an Act.

What IS required is specific language AUTHORIZING it.

It wasn't found in the Commerce Clause.

It wasn't found in the Necessary and Proper Clause.

It was CLAIMED to be found in the taxing authority of Congress when even Congress declined to call it a "tax," as did the Executive Branch. Still the CJ twisted and contorted the words USED in the actual ACT by Congress itself to convert "penalty" into "tax."

That distortion of the meaning of words didn't sneak past the 4 dissenting Justices who called it for what it was. Wrong and without precedent.

And, if it is a "tax" somehow, then it should have to be apportioned, but the CJ got around that too, by a similarly slippery manipulation of language.

It was a dishonest majority opinion in those ways.

ObamaCare SHOULD have been voided. Instead, because the CJ declined to do what he should have done, we are all now saddled with it at least though the start of the next Administration and a new Congress, if we can seize control of the Senate.

This upcoming election is now the most important one in U.S. history.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This is why I have posted in the past that I believed the court would uphold the Act...

...if two branches had found the Act constitutional.....even if I believe it was a political decision.....

it was the job of the Supreme Court to find it so unless there is specific language in the Constitution
that forbids same.

It is NOT required that there be specific language forbidding an Act.

What IS required is specific language AUTHORIZING it.

It wasn't found in the Commerce Clause.

It wasn't found in the Necessary and Proper Clause.

It was CLAIMED to be found in the taxing authority of Congress when even Congress declined to call it a "tax," as did the Executive Branch. Still the CJ twisted and contorted the words USED in the actual ACT by Congress itself to convert "penalty" into "tax."

That distortion of the meaning of words didn't sneak past the 4 dissenting Justices who called it for what it was. Wrong and without precedent.

And, if it is a "tax" somehow, then it should have to be apportioned, but the CJ got around that too, by a similarly slippery manipulation of language.

It was a dishonest majority opinion in those ways.

ObamaCare SHOULD have been voided. Instead, because the CJ declined to do what he should have done, we are all now saddled with it at least though the start of the next Administration and a new Congress, if we can seize control of the Senate.

This upcoming election is now the most important one in U.S. history.

The court decision was correct; it was the election of '08 that was the mistake.

I'm pleased with a Supreme Court decision directly related to the language of the Constitution.

 

[mudwhistle]

This is why I have posted in the past that I believed the court would uphold the Act...

...if two branches had found the Act constitutional.....even if I believe it was a political decision.....

it was the job of the Supreme Court to find it so unless there is specific language in the Constitution
that forbids same.

It is NOT required that there be specific language forbidding an Act.

What IS required is specific language AUTHORIZING it.

It wasn't found in the Commerce Clause.

It wasn't found in the Necessary and Proper Clause.

It was CLAIMED to be found in the taxing authority of Congress when even Congress declined to call it a "tax," as did the Executive Branch. Still the CJ twisted and contorted the words USED in the actual ACT by Congress itself to convert "penalty" into "tax."

That distortion of the meaning of words didn't sneak past the 4 dissenting Justices who called it for what it was. Wrong and without precedent.

And, if it is a "tax" somehow, then it should have to be apportioned, but the CJ got around that too, by a similarly slippery manipulation of language.

It was a dishonest majority opinion in those ways.

ObamaCare SHOULD have been voided. Instead, because the CJ declined to do what he should have done, we are all now saddled with it at least though the start of the next Administration and a new Congress, if we can seize control of the Senate.

This upcoming election is now the most important one in U.S. history.

Elections have consequences.

It shouldn't be up to the SCOTUS to fix congressional screwups.

 

[Liability]

This is why I have posted in the past that I believed the court would uphold the Act...

...if two branches had found the Act constitutional.....even if I believe it was a political decision.....

it was the job of the Supreme Court to find it so unless there is specific language in the Constitution
that forbids same.

It is NOT required that there be specific language forbidding an Act.

What IS required is specific language AUTHORIZING it.

It wasn't found in the Commerce Clause.

It wasn't found in the Necessary and Proper Clause.

It was CLAIMED to be found in the taxing authority of Congress when even Congress declined to call it a "tax," as did the Executive Branch. Still the CJ twisted and contorted the words USED in the actual ACT by Congress itself to convert "penalty" into "tax."

That distortion of the meaning of words didn't sneak past the 4 dissenting Justices who called it for what it was. Wrong and without precedent.

And, if it is a "tax" somehow, then it should have to be apportioned, but the CJ got around that too, by a similarly slippery manipulation of language.

It was a dishonest majority opinion in those ways.

ObamaCare SHOULD have been voided. Instead, because the CJ declined to do what he should have done, we are all now saddled with it at least though the start of the next Administration and a new Congress, if we can seize control of the Senate.

This upcoming election is now the most important one in U.S. history.

Elections have consequences.

It shouldn't be up to the SCOTUS to fix congressional screwups.

Of course it shouldn't HAVE to be.

But when presented with the facts of THIS fucking law, the call by the SCOTUS ought to have been crystal clear and decisively the OTHER way.

 

[hortysir]

The only good I see coming from this decision is how it will motivate the voting public.

If you like Pelosi's "pass it so we can read it" bullshit, then you damned sure better show up at the polling booth.

The 60% of Americans that disagree with the legislation WILL show up to vote.
You just thought Obama's voting turnout was monumental in 2008.

Stay tuned, boys and girls