Posted on 06/15/2012 5:34:36 PM PDT by Sub-Driver
Did she nod off during the interview?
“Weekend at Ruthie’s”
What better proof do you need? Anybody could do this job! They do have opinions, and delegate the task of writing to literate eager beavers straight out of law schools!
Like a 5-4 decision is going to be a big shock to anybody.
As well as the wise lesbian.
Yup...if it was going to be upheld, she's be singing Kum by Yah and praising the great wisdom of the court..
There is absolutely no way that 0dumb0's two commie pig Supreme Court appointees, Sotamayer and Kagan, will vote against 0dumb0shit's signature bill of his reign of terror. It will be LUCKY indeed if this is shot 6-3, but I think it will more likely be struck down 5-4. I am praying that Anthony Kennedy will grow some balls and do the right thing according to the U.S. Constitution.
My reasononing is: The two new appointees will need to make their impression on Scotus now, show their independence from Obama, and therefore go with the other six that vote to kill it, leaving the nutcase all by herself. All she wants to prove is that South Africa’s constitution is superior.
I heard or read that they will adjorn on the 25th. So that is the last day to release the decision. I think Laura Ingraham said that.
“I reiterate my prior prediction- Eight votes to kill Obamacare, Ginsburg the lone dissent.”
I pray you are correct.
“Make no mistake, this recent stunt was a test run.”
Yes, that and the “recess” appointments, and the HHS mandate.
Dear Leader has really been pushing the envelope.
Re-electing this man would be very dangerous I think.
BTW, LOVE your tag line.
Don’t you love the way they name things by their opposites?
How can you take a SCOTUS jurist seriously when she’s abandoned the Constitution she’s sworn to uphold? This is why we need to defeat Obama. We need to replace her and appoint a Jewish Clarence Thomas to the bench.
You’re right, otherwise what would be the point of her statement.
LOL!
Oh, implying that there's a prayer's chance in Hell that she may have ruled to strike it down?
Right.
I concur. “Sharp disagreement” refers to a minority opinion, either her’s or the wise(azz) Latina. If she were referring to a Thomas or Scalia minority opinion, she wouldn’t have characterized it as gentlemanly as “disagreement”.
And you may be spot on re: broccoli chopping and individual mandate, versus the whole. Ironically that is the singular worst possible outcome for Bobo. Can’t run against the Supremes, can’t connive a new way to fund it either.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
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.