[EDINVA]

It’s the technicalities that SCOTUS always deals with. Very fine points of law.

What I don’t “get” as a layman is: in the Roberts Obamacare decision he set out that it’s not the job of SCOTUS to counter elections. In other words, we voted for Obama, we voted (collectively) for a Dem House and Senate. So it’s not the Court’s/Courts’/SCOTUS’s job to overturn what the elected officials made law.

BUT in state after state, the one-man/one-woman referenda passed fairly overwhelmingly. When challenged in the court, however, the votes of the peoples of the several states were overturned by one judge, then three judges, perhaps an en banc court, and seemingly on Monday, the SCOTUS. How does that compute?

[Genoa]

Roberts is daft. No one was asking him to counter an election, but to overturn an unconstitutional law. The federal courts find the constitution convenient only when it helps them engineer policy to fit their social views. They’re worthless.

[OneWingedShark]

What I don’t “get” as a layman is: in the Roberts Obamacare decision he set out that it’s not the job of SCOTUS to counter elections. In other words, we voted for Obama, we voted (collectively) for a Dem House and Senate. So it’s not the Court’s/Courts’/SCOTUS’s job to overturn what the elected officials made law BUT in state after state, the one-man/one-woman referenda passed fairly overwhelmingly. When challenged in the court, however, the votes of the peoples of the several states were overturned by one judge, then three judges, perhaps an en banc court, and seemingly on Monday, the SCOTUS. How does that compute?

It's simple — if it pursues their [statist] goals it's settled law, if it hinders it then it needs to be carefully examined.