Roberts is political - if he wasn't, he'd have upheld The Constitution and never sworn in the usurper (the second time using a koran!)! Don't count on him to sink 0bamascare!
Is there some attorney out there who can explain in plain English the reasons for this decision?
Roberts IS a conservative. If he voted against the opther provisions of the Arizona Law, there must have been a reason for it.
On the other hand, this gives the GOP more ammunition in the General Election to use against Obama for his failure to enforce existing Federal Immigration Law statutes. A failure which actually WAS intitiated under Bush II.
“(the second time using a koran!)”
If true, that’s shocking, hence: do you know of any evidence that’s true?
All of them are political except for Clarence Thomas. Remember that Scalia expanded Marxism by interpreting the Commerce Clause as granting absolute power for the government to interfere in any activity.
Do you have any links to substantiate that Obama was sworn in using a Koran? I have heard it a bunch of times, but never pursued it. Using Snopes or Wikipedia is useless, because neither of them can be trusted in political matters especially when it comes to liberals. (I use both as a tool to buttress non-political questions of truth, but wouldn’t trust either of them further than I could throw them.
Just curious, because I really would like to know for sure.
Something goes with Roberts that in my mind bodes no good for the USA or the Founders intentions. His colors were cast when he went (perhaps he was directed) for a redo of the inaugural swearing in private chambers without a bible. There is also that famous photo of Roberts sucking up to Obama in Roberts’ chambers. It is hard to believe a slip, if unintentional, could not have been rectified in the public ceremony. I suspect there is something we do not know about Roberts. Of course being a Bush appointee doesn’t give him unchallenged credibility as to Latino behavior of any kind.