[gusopol3]

My daughter was in a small college seminar group with Roberts a few years ago. He said that his general philosophy is to leave decisions to the people in the decisions made by their elected representatives, since, in his opinion, it is much easier to change the Congress than it is to change the members of the Court. I guess this ruling was consistent with that. However, it is totally divorced from the reality of my entire life due to its ignoring of the heavy propagandizing involvement of our MSM. They are even now allowing the administration to get away with morphing the basis from taxing power back to a mandate, despite the explicit rejection of that. Opponents can’t let that happen. “Taxation by Misrepresentation” needs to be reinforced early and often , like “It’s the economy , stupid” was in 1992.

[dirtboy]

My daughter was in a small college seminar group with Roberts a few years ago. He said that his general philosophy is to leave decisions to the people in the decisions made by their elected representatives, since, in his opinion, it is much easier to change the Congress than it is to change the members of the Court.

So why even have a Supreme Court, then, if it fails to enforce limited powers? Roberts just turned himself into a turnstile that never locks.

[Jacquerie]

Yeah, he'll leave decisions to the people as long as they don't express it through their state legislatures.

“Arbitrary and capricious” is how the appeals court described the Arizona law and Scotus agreed. This despite that law went through the committee process, had floor debates, etc.

OTOH, Obama was written in the dark of night by Marxists moles, without hearings, no floor debate, and not a single rank and file Congressman or Senator even knew what it contained.

So which law was arbitrary and capricious? A pox on Scotus and 'F all rats.

[Sudetenland]

Roberts' assertion might be credible except as seen in the light of his prior decision. In what way did the Court's decision in the Arizona case "leave decisions to the people in the decisions made by their elected representatives?"

Nah. That claim being made by his conservative apologists won't hold water. Both of these decisions were examples of raw judicial activism and both give us a glimpse into who Roberts actually is--a liberal, activist jurist.

[rurgan]

This Roberts is a communist , marxist, lying POS. He struck down Arizona’s state rights and a law that Arizon’s elected representatives passed but within a week twisted to rewrite a law that would enslave us and turn us into a socialist country.