Not since King Solomon offered to split the baby has a judge engineered a slicker solution to a bitterly divisive dispute.It was slick alright!
And it stinks too.He should wipe it off with this:
Posted on 07/15/2012 8:14:57 AM PDT by OldNavyVet
You don’t need to love classical music to be amazed that Beethoven wrote his Ninth Symphony while deaf or be a fan of the New York Giants to marvel at Willie Mays’ catch of the 1954 World Series.
For legal buffs, the virtuoso performance of Chief Justice Roberts in deciding the biggest case of his career was just that sort of jaw dropper, no matter how they might feel about Obamacare.
Not since King Solomon offered to split the baby has a judge engineered a slicker solution to a bitterly divisive dispute .
(Excerpt) Read more at swampland.time.com ...
Excellent!
There was nothing brilliant in his decision. May he rot in hell. All he did is move us a step closer to serfdom.
There was nothing brilliant in his decision. May he rot in hell. All he did is move us a step closer to serfdom.
Well now, that is just pathetic.
Who would have guessed that Time Magazine would laud Traitor John for his butchering of the Constitution? Oh yeah, just about anyone with a brain.
What are you going to post next? How about:
British Weekly lauds the brilliance of Benedict Arnold.
FYI ... The British took Benedict Arnold back with, almost, open arms ... based primarily on his brillant leadership and performance against Britain at Quebec, Valcor Bay, and Lexington.
At my last visit to West Point's museum, the Lexington Battle exhibit gives full credit to Arnold for the decisive victory that won the war.
Similarly, and hopefully, history will give Roberts a great deal of credit for Obama (and his Senatorial buddies) defeat in November ... and the consequent repeal of Obamacare.
Why did Anold betray America?
Answer: Congress betrayed Arnold; he wasn't popular with the rotten politician crowd.
Roberts rules. “betray the constitution to keep your homo past in the closet”
Figures you are an admirer of Benedict Arnold. Really, I think you are on the wrong forum.
Let your freak flag fly somewhere else like the D.U.
So? Time thinks that illegals are “Americans”, too.
WTH are you talking about?
Wrong forum? Not at all.
Sugggested reading: "Rabble in Arms" by Kenneth Roberts, a brilliant historian and writer.
Is there anybody out there that can see if our Justice John Roberts is a Kenneth Roberts descendant?
1. Is the duty of the Court to interpret the constitutionality of the legislation, which is before it, as passed by the Legislative Branch?
Or:
2. Is the duty of the Court, by its process of interpretation, to be inclined to utilize a discretionary ability to protect the Court's reputation from criticism among a strong factional segment of the citizenry and their political representatives?
We may remember recent and unprecedented attacks on the Court's decisions, and potential upcoming decisions by the Administration and its surrogates; or, as the Huffington Post reported on August 16, 2008, following the Saddleback interview with then-presidential-candidate Obama, the following critical remarks of a Justice:
"I would not have nominated Clarence Thomas," said the presumptive Democratic nominee. "I don't think that he...' the crowd interrupted with applause. 'I don't think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation. Setting aside the fact that I profoundly disagree with his interpretations of a lot of the constitution.'"
Fortunately for citizens, America's genius Founders might strongly disagree with the opinions of that candidate who has spent 3 years challenging that Constitution's limits on his use of coercive power to "change" America.
1. Is the duty of the Court to interpret the constitutionality of the legislation, which is before it, as passed by the Legislative Branch?
Or:
2. Is the duty of the Court, by its process of interpretation, to be inclined to utilize a discretionary ability to protect the Court's reputation from criticism among a strong factional segment of the citizenry and their political representatives?
We may remember recent and unprecedented attacks on the Court's decisions, and potential upcoming decisions by the Administration and its surrogates; or, as the Huffington Post reported on August 16, 2008, following the Saddleback interview with then-presidential-candidate Obama, the following critical remarks of a Justice:
"I would not have nominated Clarence Thomas," said the presumptive Democratic nominee. "I don't think that he...' the crowd interrupted with applause. 'I don't think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation. Setting aside the fact that I profoundly disagree with his interpretations of a lot of the constitution.'"
Fortunately for citizens, America's genius Founders might strongly disagree with the opinions of that candidate who has spent 3 years challenging that Constitution's limits on his use of coercive power to "change" America.
Oh, I bet it was a super-duper, top-secret, mind game that Traitor John was playing when he wrote the original majority opinion.
He just waited a month to change his “brilliant” mind to sucker punch Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy.
He’s a coward and a traitor. He’s a selfish man not a brilliant one.
Yeah, trashing the US Constitution is just brilliant.
Not since King Solomon offered to split the baby has a judge engineered a slicker solution to a bitterly divisive dispute.It was slick alright!
And it stinks too.He should wipe it off with this:
I'm talking about the US Military Academy at West Point.
They have a museum dedicated to military matters, and they've therein recognized Benedict Arnold's heroism (as a Continental Army commander) in battle.
I'm talking about the US Military Academy at West Point.
They have a museum dedicated to military matters, and they've therein recognized Benedict Arnold's heroism (as a Continental Army commander) in battle.
However, Arnold was not at Lexington, nor was Lexington "the decisive victory that won the war."
Arnold fought valiantly and was wounded at Saratoga which, arguably, was the turning point of the war but certainly not "the decisive victory that won the war". After failing to gain the credit he believed he deserved, and probably did, for that battle he turned traitor.
No one would argue that the Congress, or Washington for that matter, treated Arnold fairly. That doesn't mitigate the fact that he was an egotistical, self-aggrandizing jerk who turned coat and actually led British troops against Continental units before fleeing to England where, by the way, he was largely shunned.
You're right. It was Saratoga where Arnold saved the day, captured a British Amry ... and thereby saved the Union.
I'm getting old, and forgetful.
But good memories abound in my mind. I've been a very lucky guy.
Well that is interesting, but the analogy is that Roberts is Arnold without any preceding valor. There is nothing in Roberts’ decision expect lip service to a couple of conservative principles which don’t matter since others were discarded. The “tax” will be challenged and find its way to the SC where Roberts will rule it Constitutional, this time with a bigger majority. Obamacare will probably not be repealed unless we fill the Senate with otherwise worthless RINOs like Scott Brown
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.
