Posted on 07/05/2012 6:46:08 AM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
WASHINGTON -- I have a headache. I imagine you do too, if you have been trying to interpret the legalese employed by those legal sages who have pronounced on Thursday's Supreme Court decision on Obamacare. I would rather read the lyrics of a thousand rap composers than the anfractuous language of one legal sage.
Thanks, however, to Professor E. Donald Elliott of the Yale Law School I had a translator at my side, and I shall now hand down my judgment of the Court's decision on Obamacare, which all sensible Americans have abstained from reading in its entirety including B. H. Obama and the vast majority of denizens of Capitol Hill, including N. Pelosi. Some of these worthies even admitted as much. It fell to nine heroic souls garbed in black actually to read the law and to Chief Justice Roberts to write the decision for the exhausted majority.
As a result of his prestidigitation with prior precedents and with the famously vague English language, critics cannot dismiss Chief Justice Roberts as hyper-partisan. His fellow conservatives are highly agitated by his decision. His usual opponents, the Liberals, celebrate him. The Chief Justice dodged the bullet. I think you can call him crafty, as Chief Justice John Marshall was crafty all those years ago when he wrote the decision for Marbury v. Madison. Roberts' decision, the decision of the majority of the court, accomplished three things.
Firstly, it reiterated two earlier holdings of the Court that ended the expansion of the commerce clause. The expansion of the federal government's reach under the commerce clause is no longer a grave threat to limited government. This offends certain Liberals such as our friends at the New York Times. Well, you win some and lose some, indignados.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
Justice Roberts is more respected on FR than those stupid Romney supporters if that's any consolation.
Robert's Cannonball to become the second coming of John Marshall has left the tracks....
And that's the truth.
I really like the way it was put...
Putting the single-opinion-brakes on the commerce clause *was* a silver lining, much like the silver lining on the hull of the Hindenburg.
‘Those stupid Romney supporters.’
Thanx. I have now decided to depart from all threads where morons show up.
I know you’ll miss me.
>>> Justice Roberts was right when he said that it’s not the Court’s job to protect Americans from the consequences of their political choices. <<<
Hogwash, I am trying to be polite here. SC Justices’ job is to uphold the Constitutionality of any law passed by the legislatives. If it is not constitutional, it shouldn’t be made a law.
IF YOUR SINGLE VOTE uphold an unconstitutional law to enslave the whole nation under gubbmint boots, do we the people not deserve a better explanation? Why did you change your reasoning?
In fact, I think CJ Roberts SHOULD explain himself soon. He owed us.
“So .....His intentions were good when he stabbed us in the back!!!!”
Bullseye.
R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr., now officially a moron.
“Fixed it.”
Dude you’re on fire today!
so its all a “cunning plan”!
Brilliant!
What John Roberts did was to take some duct tape, construction paper and some third grade creativity to make the Obamcare "Bill the Cat" look like a dog (from a very great distance) thus declaring the abomination a constituional "dog".
"Ashamed" is one of the many things John Roberts should be.
Tyrrell always gets it wrong.
We send Republicans to the United States Senate and then behave like Democrats.
We send Republicans to the White House and they behave like Democrats.
Why are we surprised when those we send to the Supreme Court behave like Democrats?
Good post.
Fox???? BS -——Weasel is more like it.
...but you know what I'm talking about.
Another normally intelligent conservative acts stupidly. Mark Levin is THE authority on this. Listen to his every podcast since last Thursday to understand why this is a complete disaster.
It astounds me how many conservatives keep trying to polish that turd.
close
It HAD to be heard by SCOTUS, otherwise the the lower court rulings would have stood.
You nailed it.
Part of the problem is that the vast majority making such pronouncements have absolutely no ability to interpret what happened.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.