“OK, then, you tell me why Roberts gave a decision that he obviously HATED giving.”
Oh, gee, I don’t know. Maybe he hates the law, but actually thinks Congress has a right to pass it under their taxation powers.
“And while you’re at it, why don’t you tell me why he gave an ex part invitation to Obama on the very day that SCOTUS was considering Donofrio’s eligibility lawsuit.”
Perhaps Obama asked for the invitation and he was being polite and respectful to the office of the Presidency.
I’m not going to dignify the rest of your stuff with simpler explanations for the facts, though I remain fully capable of doing so, because I’m being paid by the Gnomes of Zurich to be part of the Marxist/Islamist conspiracy. Or possibly because I don’t feel like wasting my time debating people like you. Take your pick as to which explanation is more reasonable.
You don’t think a guy with an IQ of 160 can tell the difference between a tax and a fine?
Ex parte is ex parte. And to announce an ex parte meeting INITIATED AND PUBLICLY ANNOUNCED IN A PRESS RELEASE BY THE JUDGE ON THE VERY DAY THAT A CASE INVOLVING THAT DEFENDANT WAS BEING DECIDED.... wow, if you can justify that, then it really is a waste of time to argue with you. You couldn’t recognize a porkchop at a kosher wedding.
BTW, the “respectable” people (ones not using crazy reasoning like mine) were almost ALL saying Roberts would vote against Obamacare, unless Kennedy already upheld Obamacare and Roberts just wanted to make the court not appear divided. I was one of very few people who have been saying for some time that I feared Roberts was compromised and would uphold Obamacare because Soros told him to.
I looked at your posting history and see that you were totally silent at FR in the last 2 months so you didn’t stick your neck out on this at all.
I did. And my suspicion was correct. If Roberts believes Congress can mandate any thing they want as long as any money involved can be called a tax, then why did he say that Congress can’t stifle corporations’ political speech? Couldn’t that be called a tax? I mean, corporations COULD spend money on campaigns, it’s just that the government would punish - er, TAX them at a different rate if they chose to do so... If Roberts was so interested in people suffering the consequences for electing idiots who trample them, then I would think his past decisions would have shown that - and then the REASONABLE (non-nuts) people like you would have had this decision pegged a long time ago.
Why didn’t that happen, Stat Man? Why did only the “kook” get this one right?