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:
IMHO, the article reveals the brilliance in Roberts' decision.
The best baseball anaology to Roberts’ perverse decision is not Willie Mays’ catch but Bill Buckner’s infamous non-fielding of a slow roller to first.
But that's just me.
Yes, but King Solomon offered to split the baby in order to find out which claimant to be his mother valued the baby's life.
In contrast, Roberts pulled out his abortionist's scalpel and split the baby himself.
Time Magazine patting Roberts on the back is all I need for proof that my mindset is right that Roberts decision in anti-Constitution BS and good for the progressive movement.
LLS
These stupid writers don't even know the definition of federalism, so it is insane to put any credence n the rest of their drivel.
King Solomon offered to split the baby because he knew that the real mother would rather give up her child than kill him. He never intended to do it.
Roberts, on the other hand, went right ahead, took out his abortion scalpel, and split the baby in half.
Although Time Magazine is incapable of understanding the difference, that's pretty much the difference between true wisdom and left wing convenience.
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.
Roberts rules. “betray the constitution to keep your homo past in the closet”
So? Time thinks that illegals are “Americans”, too.
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.
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 keep hearing how ‘brilliant Robert’s is” in making his decision because suppsoedly, he slammed the door shut on the left in terms of using obamacare on the baqsis of the ‘commerce clause’ and that Roberts ‘forced’ the ocoma administration to ‘admit obummercare is a tax’ but the REALITY is that Roberts opened a gaping hole for the left to drive straight through unimpeeded in the future- Sure, The right can ‘repeal obummercare’ however, when the left regains the office and senate, they will simply just reinstate obummercare because Roberts gave them free reign to simply reinstate an UNCONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION TO OUR FREEDOMS!!!
There was NOTHING ‘Brilliant’ About this assault on our constitutional rights- NOTHING! Roberts was nominated to make judgements and uphold the rule of law, and he refused to do so and isntead LEGISLATED from the BENCH- compeltely ignorign the FACT that forcing someoen to pay a penalty for NOT buying something is a compelte VIOLATION to our constitutional rights!!!
Never before in our history has our government forced it’s citizens to purchase a product or service simpyl becasue we are alive- NEVER!- Justice (and I use that term in this case VERY loosly)Roberts legislated fro mthe bench allowing our government to FORCE citizens to purchase somethign OR pay a penalty-
Takign this to the extreme to prove the poin t- There is supposed to be NOTHING that we absolutely have to do- We don’t even have to pay taxes IF we choose not to- We could kill ourselves in order to deny the government their ‘collection powers’, or we could comkpletely go off the grid- leave our homes, live off the land, and never simply keep on the move and never pay taxes again- We DO have thsi CHOICE if we so choose-
Now, admitedly, this is the extreme- but the point is that IF we so CHOOSE to pay taxes, then WE have made that choice- NOT the government- Now however, We no longer have the choice- EVEN IF we choose to go off grid and live in the wild- We will be concidered ‘fugitives from justice’ because we refuse to purchase obummercare because ‘by law’ the government will now be obligated to pursue said ‘offgrid’ individual for ‘non-payment’ of obummercare
And we now have ‘justice’ roberts to ‘thank’ for giving our goverment the very powers that socialist governments have, and the very powers that england had- the very government that we ESCAPED FROM way back when when they became too pwoerful and invasive and intrusive into our private lives- Now, we’re right back where we started- Heck- we’re even seeing states determining whether or not a business can conduct their business i nthe state according to their religious beleifs- IF the business doesn’t subscribbe to the state’s ‘religion’ of homosexuality- then by golly, that business can notr practice i n the state now apparently-
Obummercare ALSO violates the seperation of church and state inthat it will now FORCE emplyers, and organizatiosn to provide abortions and birth control etc via government sanctioned healthcare- Before roberts opened that door- employers were free to choose their own healthcare- and could choose healthcare that refused to cover such abominations- now however, they will no longer have that choice, and will infact have to pay into government mandadted HC which supports such assaults o nthe innocent-
No- Roberts decision was NOT Brilliant- it was judicial malpractice because roberts REFUSED to fully and objectively uphold our constitution, and he gave our governmetn unfettered ability to trample on our constitutional rights
