Ping!
What bullhockey. The Founders crafted the Constitution specifically to contain the excesses of democracy. I guess they never envisioned that a succession of Supreme Court justices would simply alter the meaning of words to get around those limits.
Sorry, but no.
No, we’re not being too hard on him. He took an oath to uphold the Constitution - not uphold the reputation of the Court.
No, we are not. The simple matter here is that the man did not hold to his oath, and in so betraying his oath also introduced an incomprehensible, internally inconsistent ruling (if a lack of economic action is not commerce, then how can a tax be applied to that same lack of action? "We're going to tax you for the $40k you didn't earn last year...") that expanded the power of the state by at least a single order of magnitude. (Now the government can tax you for not doing something, essentially. Imagine: 'I'm sorry sir, but if you don't buy cigarettes you'll have to pay a $4 non-consumption tax-penalty.')
Of course we are. It is just unrealistic to expect Supreme Court justices to follow the Constitution.
As crazy as that sounds he suffers or has suffered from seizures ~ and was prescribed anti-seizure medication.
It's not that he's crazy, but his brain is not operating in what we would think of as a normal manner.
Used to read through my friend's epileptic musings ~ hundreds of 3 ring binders filled with stream of consciousness stuff ~ then he finally had a terminal seizure.
He used every medication they had but he didn't use depakote ~ it wasn't on the market then. The man was pretty bright and had a law degree from a serious school. He was lucid to the end BUT he had this writing thing ~ and I'll be doggoned, it looks like Roberts is doing that too ~ but the silly Associate Justices, all very serious minded folks, seem not to have had it occur to them that Robert's performance was NOT RIGHT.
When there is a Democratic Death Panel reading your FR posts just prior to making a critical decision about, you will know the answer to that question.
“Are We Being Too Hard On John Roberts?”
No. He’s stabbed us all in the back.
I fail to understand how Roberts could decide that the “Personal Mandate” is a tax when the case was not argued by the Obama’s lawyers in that way. Is this what it’s come to? Judges re-arguing cases the way they prefered them to be argued? Seems to me any first year law student would get ripped for this.
No. We’re being too hard on George W. Bush.
I suggest a simple answer - Roberts is a LIBERAL.
One word answer. NO
No.
John Roberts (I won't dignify him with the title of Supreme Court Justice) is an anti-Constitution Pecker-Head! There...I said it!
This article nails it!! We are being to harsh on Johnny. After all, one must not beat up on the mentally handicapped.
American Pluralism is the end of America. Anerica gave itself over to satan in Roe V Wade .
It’s finished ,dear sister!
What utter pablum. What an utter insult to our intelligence.
This writer is arrogant in his attempt to push phoney c*rap down out throats.
Mark Levin carefully went through this entire ruling and stated that it is very destructive to our United States Constitution and to our Liberties.
I agree with Levin that there is no silver-lining.
Some many of these disgusting, weak minded so called Conservatives are coming our all over the place to defend Roberts. They are all NUTS!
Robert's decision will haunt our Republic for decades. Nothing about Roberts warrants offering him any respect or consideration.
Robert willfully and knowingly made a decision that he clearly knows will unleash great evils upon the citizens of our Republic.