[jeffc]

Not that I'd want the SC to have to explain itself to the Congress, nor the Congress have to explain itself to the SC. Newt goes too far on that.

I do think that the SC, over the years, have interpreted themselves broader powers than what the framers intended. They should stick to interpreting the laws as intended by Congress.

[jeffc]

But I stil think the "news" media deliberately preface conservative sayings and doings as "controversial" to spin it for the gullible public.

You watch, if the SC strikes down the mandate, it will be called a controversial ruling. If they uphold it, the media will sing their praises.

[madison10]

Not that I'd want the SC to have to explain itself to the Congress, nor the Congress have to explain itself to the SC. Newt goes too far on that.

I do think that the SC, over the years, have interpreted themselves broader powers than what the framers intended. They should stick to interpreting the laws as intended by Congress.

I agree. Thanks for saying it so well.

[Christie at the beach]

- > Not that I'd want the SC to have to explain itself to the Congress, nor the Congress have to explain itself to the SC. Newt goes too far on that.

Then they will be impeached if you do not want them in front of the others. No wonder we are in this mess-the justices are never held accountable for legislating from the bench. It is happening all over. So, impeach them. Obama is sending signals how he wants his court appointees to go-because this health care is a one track way to a socialist America (they are in a panic)