[Alberta's Child]

It would not be unheard-of for Roberts to vote in support of ObamaCare to effectively make the point that the U.S. Supreme Court has no business getting involved in cases where idiocy was the name of the game from Day One when Congress began debating the legislation.

If I were a U.S. Supreme Court justice, I would have recused myself from the case simply on the basis of that bizarre statement by that dingbat Nancy Pelosi that "we have to pass the bill to find out what's in it."

My take as a Supreme Court justice would have been:

"Why the hell should I spend five seconds of my life reading a legal brief about a case involving a Federal law that the f#%&ing Speaker of the House didn't even read before sending it to the floor for a vote??"

[reasonisfaith]

To make the point that idiocy was the name of the game.

But that’s not what the reasoning Roberts has given. The mandate “may reasonably be characterized as a tax,” although in actuality it wasn’t a tax before Roberts “characterized” it.

[Fast Moving Angel]

My take as a Supreme Court justice would have been: "Why the hell should I spend five seconds of my life reading a legal brief about a case involving a Federal law that the f#%&ing Speaker of the House didn't even read before sending it to the floor for a vote??"

Absolutely! Couldn't agree with you more. #1, if the lawmakers don't know what's in a pending law, that law shouldn't be passed, and #2, it should never have been foisted on SCOTUS in this manner because if you expect a judge (justice) to properly rule on a matter before the court, then they should be expected to read the moving papers.

Oh, wait ...