Posted on 06/28/2012 3:46:37 PM PDT by neverdem
“I’d be happier if those laws were repealed by this ruling but they’re not.”
Many of them probably could be on appeal...
Roberts’ decision is like the surgeon about whom it can be said that, “The operation was a success, but the patient died.”
That’s the problem—even when Republican Presidents try to appoint conservative justices to the Supreme Court, often either they turn out to be liberals (Blackmun, Powell, Souter) or they turn squishy (Roberts), whereas the liberals picked by Democrat Presidents always remain consistently liberal.
It is not Robert’s job to teach us a lesson. His job is to interpret the law as it stands and decide if it is constitutional.
The individual mandate was not constitutional and there was no severability clause, so the whole bill should have been thrown out. It is not Robert’s job to change mandate to mean tax just to try and pass the bill.
Bingo, this ruling has opened the door to revist the constutionality of much of the Great Society and FDR...
Roberts rewrote the freakin’ law. If that’s not the most flagrant example of legislating from the bench in the history of the court, then I don’t know what is.
So far as Romney being our great hope...
Romney is just more of the same. I guarantee we will get a stall, rope-a-dope, 4 corners obfuscation out of ANY Gop-E president. IOW, no different than if it were a Democrat.
America needs to get rid of its one party system.
When I started reading about Solyndra manufacturing solar panels that were more expensive than the Chinese competition I wondered: How can that make any sense? It made sense if by 2011 (when Solyndra and others began to unravel) the government could order the public to buy solar panels. If Democrats had held onto Congress in 2010 it might have happened.
Interesting background. I didn’t know that.
I’ve been utterly disgusting all day, after being sickened the other day with his rulings.
I sincerely believe this country has now crossed the line to where there’s no return.
What have you been smoking?
I’m like you.....digging around looking for that pony.
The Chief Justice's Gambit (Not as bad as we think??)
That's what Sean Trende seems to think. He's almost as good as Mike Barone as a political analyst, IMHO. We'll see how this stuff pans out. If it leads to reversing Wickard v. Filburn, and a host of other decisions, then it will have done a great deal of good, as long as Romney and the next Congress get rid of Obamacare.
“He’s voting the same way GWB would if he was a SCOTUS judge.”
So we can say with a straight face, It’s Bush’s Fault! In fact, we can go further and say that the fact that we have FUBO today is Bush’s Fault. Bush was the shits of a president and he had a lot of help from the so-called Republican Establishment in the Congress. People are still pissed off at the Republicans over the way Bush governed, and how he pissed away precious human (and monetary) treasure on a part of the world most people regard as a violent Islamic cesspool!
If Roberts was being sincere in his Constitutional analysis, all he had to do was (a) declare the law AS WRITTEN was un-Constitutional and that (b) in order to fix the law, Congress would have to pass a new version explicitly stating that the mandate was a tax. This would have forced Obama to persuade Congress that such a massive tax increase was in the best interests of Americans. Knowing that such a bill would never pass Congress, Roberts bastardized the law and declared that the mandate was something that it’s authors swore it was not. Roberts and the looney 4 have usurped Congress. He needs to be impeached.
If you look....you will also see that Roberts did work for AA & quotas for a private law firm that was advncing the Michigan cases. He’s a liberal.
Roberts gets this one incredibly wrong. One of the principal roles of the Constitution is to protect the rights of the people from laws legislated by lawmakers elected by a small majority of the people.
Under Roberts distorted thinking, legislators could deprive us of our right to free speech and the Court would have no role in protecting us from the political decision.
Your entire line of thinking is nothing but spin, since there is not even one fact to support it.
Notice how SCOTUS puts the magnifying glass to any law addressing criminals and thieves looking for a way to make it unconstitutional, but when it comes to protecting the innocent and the productive, hey, let’s seee if we can make this thing work somehow!
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.