Quantum Windbag
Gold Member
- May 9, 2010
- 58,308
- 5,099
- 245
Even most Democrats think the law will loose in court. What does that say about all the posters here who keep saying Republicans are out of touch on Obamacare?
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.
doesn't matter what the people believe. It matters what the SCOTUS believes.
I'm not convinced they will find it unconstitutional.
doesn't matter what the people believe. It matters what the SCOTUS believes.
I'm not convinced they will find it unconstitutional.
Even most Democrats think the law will loose in court. What does that say about all the posters here who keep saying Republicans are out of touch on Obamacare?
The conservative SCOTUS has swayed public opinion to their principles over that of legislation passed by Congress ... a very ironic outcome to their own "stated" philosophy against judicial activism.
Even most Democrats think the law will loose in court. What does that say about all the posters here who keep saying Republicans are out of touch on Obamacare?
Obama Care IS unconstitutional. But surely you recognize that the constitutionality of a law is not dependent on its popularity.
The conservative SCOTUS has swayed public opinion to their principles over that of legislation passed by Congress ... a very ironic outcome to their own "stated" philosophy against judicial activism.
Striking down a shit law isn't judicial activism....Making laws up out of whole cloth (Miranda, Roe) and refusal to enforce the Constitution (Kelo) is.The conservative SCOTUS has swayed public opinion to their principles over that of legislation passed by Congress ... a very ironic outcome to their own "stated" philosophy against judicial activism.
The conservative SCOTUS has swayed public opinion to their principles over that of legislation passed by Congress ... a very ironic outcome to their own "stated" philosophy against judicial activism.
The simple act of passing Legislation does not somehow make it Constitutional. If it did we would not need a Supreme Court.
The conservative SCOTUS has swayed public opinion to their principles over that of legislation passed by Congress ... a very ironic outcome to their own "stated" philosophy against judicial activism.
The simple act of passing Legislation does not somehow make it Constitutional. If it did we would not need a Supreme Court.
When it is convenient for the conservative philosophy otherwise there are three "equal" branches of gov't not to be superseded by "activist" judges ...
The conservative SCOTUS has swayed public opinion to their principles over that of legislation passed by Congress ... a very ironic outcome to their own "stated" philosophy against judicial activism.
The simple act of passing Legislation does not somehow make it Constitutional. If it did we would not need a Supreme Court.
When it is convenient for the conservative philosophy otherwise there are three "equal" branches of gov't not to be superseded by "activist" judges ...
The simple act of passing Legislation does not somehow make it Constitutional. If it did we would not need a Supreme Court.
When it is convenient for the conservative philosophy otherwise there are three "equal" branches of gov't not to be superseded by "activist" judges ...
One is required to provide EVIDENCE of claims the SCOTUS has made decisions not based on facts and the intent of the Constitution.
I know that the supposed right of privacy that suddenly existed for Roe Vs Wade was rather convenient.
When it is convenient for the conservative philosophy otherwise there are three "equal" branches of gov't not to be superseded by "activist" judges ...
One is required to provide EVIDENCE of claims the SCOTUS has made decisions not based on facts and the intent of the Constitution.
I know that the supposed right of privacy that suddenly existed for Roe Vs Wade was rather convenient.
I know that the supposed right of privacy that suddenly existed for Roe Vs Wade was rather convenient.
That was not an act of "Congress".
The very real right to privacy was stretched to a completely absurd extreme in the Roe case.When it is convenient for the conservative philosophy otherwise there are three "equal" branches of gov't not to be superseded by "activist" judges ...
One is required to provide EVIDENCE of claims the SCOTUS has made decisions not based on facts and the intent of the Constitution.
I know that the supposed right of privacy that suddenly existed for Roe Vs Wade was rather convenient.
I know that the supposed right of privacy that suddenly existed for Roe Vs Wade was rather convenient.
That was not an act of "Congress".
When it is convenient for the conservative philosophy otherwise there are three "equal" branches of gov't not to be superseded by "activist" judges ...
One is required to provide EVIDENCE of claims the SCOTUS has made decisions not based on facts and the intent of the Constitution.
I know that the supposed right of privacy that suddenly existed for Roe Vs Wade was rather convenient.
I know that the supposed right of privacy that suddenly existed for Roe Vs Wade was rather convenient.
That was not an act of "Congress".
One is required to provide EVIDENCE of claims the SCOTUS has made decisions not based on facts and the intent of the Constitution.
I know that the supposed right of privacy that suddenly existed for Roe Vs Wade was rather convenient.
I know that the supposed right of privacy that suddenly existed for Roe Vs Wade was rather convenient.
That was not an act of "Congress".
No it was a fabricated "right" from the left. Ohh and as I recall there were FEDERAL laws against Abortion, so at least one Congress at some point passed laws on the issue.