[bakeneko]

Problems Here.

The SCOTUS can intervene only when there is a dispute between states, or when a LAW passed by Congress is clearly Unconstitutional. Federal Agencies EPA etc, act under the purview of the Congress that funds them; SCOTUS can’t tell them to cease and desist, only Congress can do that.

This is why I didn’t see why everyone was so surprised by Robert’s ruling on Obamacare. The SCOTUS does not exist to protect us from BAD laws, it only exists to enforce the Constitution in cases that are brought before it; in whatever manner.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

“The SCOTUS does not exist to protect us from BAD laws, it only exists to enforce the Constitution in cases that are brought before it; in whatever manner.”

If you have not figured out that SCOTUS has been making up the constitution as it goes along for the last 80 years (e.g. Wickard 1942, KELO 2005 etc.), why are you here?

[1rudeboy]

It’s not judicial activism if it’s in your favor!

[rollo tomasi]

"This is why I didn’t see why everyone was so surprised by Robert’s ruling on Obamacare."

Many saw Roberts as a Justice who *interprets* the Constitution through the letter and Spirit of the original meaning along with traditional essence of natural laws in which the Charter was based on.

Taxing or fining (Directly/excise, etc...) based on doing nothing is a perverted concept and is not enumerated anywhere in the Constitution.

Also you contradicted yourself. What is the *fundamental* difference between a "Bad Law" and an unconstitutional law?

[i_robot73]

Clearly unconstitutional? you mean in the way that, by Fed. pixie dust, the authority to write regulations, with the force of Law, were allowed to spring up w/out the input, nor authorization of We the People, by Amendment? That clearly??

[celmak]

The SCOTUS does not exist to protect us from BAD laws, it only exists to enforce the Constitution in cases that are brought before it; in whatever manner.

So that's why we got Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton.