And the ruling also sets forth that adhering to the Constitution is not longer required of US Supreme Court Justices.
Which sends your entire argument down the toilet.
The ends, however noble, do not justify the means.
Nice general statement..
Please expand on your thought a little further..
like how he did not adhere to the constitution..
But, please keep this in mind, Roberts did state, for the record, that it is not the Supreme Courts job to save the people from themselves..
He also critisized the voting public, and said that you get the government you elect..
In other words, if the people elect a socialist government, it is not the supreme courts job to correct that..
Their job is to rule on points of law..
Now, with that being said, please explain to me how this ruling translates to non adherance to the constitution..
be specific