BREAKING: Supreme Court Rules 9-to-0 Against Barack Obama

[Vigilante]

Talk about GRABBING AT STRAWS when it comes to the Manchurian muslim's regime when it tries to prosecute someone!

Obama’s absolutely dismal record at the Supreme Court continues as the Court just issued a major ruling against the feds and their unconstitutional exercise of power. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously, 9-0, against Obama just this morning in the case of Bond v. United States. The government tried to use a federal statute against chemical weapons to prosecute a woman who put toxic chemicals on the door handle of a car owned by a woman her husband was having an affair with. The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, criticized the government’s “boundless” interpretation of the chemical weapons...

BREAKING: Supreme Court Rules 9-to-0 Against Barack Obama

 

[Peach]

Conservative Tribune, not a law journal, that is a given!

PS: The USSC refused to rule on Bond's claim the law violated the Tenth Amendment, thus, RWNs LOST.

 

[Vigilante]

Conservative Tribune, not a law journal, that is a given!

PS: The USSC refused to rule on Bond's claim the law violated the Tenth Amendment, thus, RWNs LOST.

Did I, or the article say anything about Bond's claim? I didn't think so either, so you are still blowing smoke up your ass! It was directed to this, if you had the intelligence to read it!

The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, criticized the government’s “boundless” interpretation of the chemical weapons law, which was intended to prosecute acts of war, especially terrorism.
Via Reason:

The Obama administration’s “boundless” interpretation of the chemical weapons law, declared the opinion of Chief Justice John Roberts, “would transform the statute from one whose core concerns are acts of war, assassination, and terrorism into a massive federal anti-poisoning regime that reaches the simplest of assaults.”

Joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan, Roberts found that the federal law simply had no application to “an amateur attempt by a jilted wife to injure her husband’s lover, which ended up causing only a minor thumb burn readily treated by rinsing with water.” The power to prosecute such acts rests entirely in the hands of the states, the Court concluded. “There is no reason to think the sovereign nations that ratified the [Chemical Weapons] Convention were interested in anything like Bond’s common law assault.”
​

Another wooden head!

 

[Freewill]

Really, this is the kind of case the SCOTUS is taking these days? When Americans are being killed by drones they won't hear that case but this case they have time for? Really? In any case the lawlessness of the Obama administration was restrained slightly in this case. The woman I am sure will be charged with another crime I just wonder why they used the chemical weapon law in the first place.

 

[Peach]

Conservative Tribune, not a law journal, that is a given!

PS: The USSC refused to rule on Bond's claim the law violated the Tenth Amendment, thus, RWNs LOST.

Did I, or the article say anything about Bond's claim? I didn't think so either, so you are still blowing smoke up your ass! It was directed to this, if you had the intelligence to read it!

The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, criticized the government’s “boundless” interpretation of the chemical weapons law, which was intended to prosecute acts of war, especially terrorism.
Via Reason:

The Obama administration’s “boundless” interpretation of the chemical weapons law, declared the opinion of Chief Justice John Roberts, “would transform the statute from one whose core concerns are acts of war, assassination, and terrorism into a massive federal anti-poisoning regime that reaches the simplest of assaults.”

Joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan, Roberts found that the federal law simply had no application to “an amateur attempt by a jilted wife to injure her husband’s lover, which ended up causing only a minor thumb burn readily treated by rinsing with water.” The power to prosecute such acts rests entirely in the hands of the states, the Court concluded. “There is no reason to think the sovereign nations that ratified the [Chemical Weapons] Convention were interested in anything like Bond’s common law assault.”
​

Another wooden head!

The three most "liberal" justices, along with the sometimes moderate Kennedy, and the occasionally moderate Roberts in the majority against "Obama". More proof Obama is too CONservative.

 

[Peach]

Conservative Tribune, not a law journal, that is a given!

PS: The USSC refused to rule on Bond's claim the law violated the Tenth Amendment, thus, RWNs LOST.

Did I, or the article say anything about Bond's claim? I didn't think so either, so you are still blowing smoke up your ass! It was directed to this, if you had the intelligence to read it!

The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, criticized the government’s “boundless” interpretation of the chemical weapons law, which was intended to prosecute acts of war, especially terrorism.
Via Reason:

The Obama administration’s “boundless” interpretation of the chemical weapons law, declared the opinion of Chief Justice John Roberts, “would transform the statute from one whose core concerns are acts of war, assassination, and terrorism into a massive federal anti-poisoning regime that reaches the simplest of assaults.”

Joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan, Roberts found that the federal law simply had no application to “an amateur attempt by a jilted wife to injure her husband’s lover, which ended up causing only a minor thumb burn readily treated by rinsing with water.” The power to prosecute such acts rests entirely in the hands of the states, the Court concluded. “There is no reason to think the sovereign nations that ratified the [Chemical Weapons] Convention were interested in anything like Bond’s common law assault.”
​

Another wooden head!

Speaking of wooden heads:

Did I, or the article say anything about Bond's claim?

She is the opposing party, thus, the Court ruled in her favor; the law in question is part of Bush's post 9/11 spree of anti civil rights legislation, but keep on applauding CON.

 

[Vigilante]

Conservative Tribune, not a law journal, that is a given!

PS: The USSC refused to rule on Bond's claim the law violated the Tenth Amendment, thus, RWNs LOST.

Did I, or the article say anything about Bond's claim? I didn't think so either, so you are still blowing smoke up your ass! It was directed to this, if you had the intelligence to read it!

The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, criticized the government’s “boundless” interpretation of the chemical weapons law, which was intended to prosecute acts of war, especially terrorism.
Via Reason:

The Obama administration’s “boundless” interpretation of the chemical weapons law, declared the opinion of Chief Justice John Roberts, “would transform the statute from one whose core concerns are acts of war, assassination, and terrorism into a massive federal anti-poisoning regime that reaches the simplest of assaults.”

Joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan, Roberts found that the federal law simply had no application to “an amateur attempt by a jilted wife to injure her husband’s lover, which ended up causing only a minor thumb burn readily treated by rinsing with water.” The power to prosecute such acts rests entirely in the hands of the states, the Court concluded. “There is no reason to think the sovereign nations that ratified the [Chemical Weapons] Convention were interested in anything like Bond’s common law assault.”
​

Another wooden head!

The three most "liberal" justices, along with the sometimes moderate Kennedy, and the occasionally moderate Roberts ruled against "Obama". More proof Obama is too CONservative.

Actually, these laws, now enforced by the Justice Department were passed under Bush, after 9/11. Glad the Court is taking action to stop the infringement on civil liberties; the House will not, that is known.

Please moron, you still can't read as the title says the ruling was (that's NINE to 0 ZERO vote) unanimous!

The story only indicates the justices present at the verdict!

 

[Vigilante]

Conservative Tribune, not a law journal, that is a given!

PS: The USSC refused to rule on Bond's claim the law violated the Tenth Amendment, thus, RWNs LOST.

Did I, or the article say anything about Bond's claim? I didn't think so either, so you are still blowing smoke up your ass! It was directed to this, if you had the intelligence to read it!

The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, criticized the government’s “boundless” interpretation of the chemical weapons law, which was intended to prosecute acts of war, especially terrorism.
Via Reason:

The Obama administration’s “boundless” interpretation of the chemical weapons law, declared the opinion of Chief Justice John Roberts, “would transform the statute from one whose core concerns are acts of war, assassination, and terrorism into a massive federal anti-poisoning regime that reaches the simplest of assaults.”

Joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan, Roberts found that the federal law simply had no application to “an amateur attempt by a jilted wife to injure her husband’s lover, which ended up causing only a minor thumb burn readily treated by rinsing with water.” The power to prosecute such acts rests entirely in the hands of the states, the Court concluded. “There is no reason to think the sovereign nations that ratified the [Chemical Weapons] Convention were interested in anything like Bond’s common law assault.”
​

Another wooden head!

Speaking of wooden heads:

Did I, or the article say anything about Bond's claim?

She is the opposing party, thus, the Court ruled in her favor; the law in question is part of Bush's post 9/11 spree of anti civil rights legislation, but keep on applauding CON.

So now you claim that the Manchurian muslim is a Conservative because he OVERREACHED on legislation signed by Bush about Chemical weapons.... you're deranged!

 

[Peach]

Did I, or the article say anything about Bond's claim? I didn't think so either, so you are still blowing smoke up your ass! It was directed to this, if you had the intelligence to read it!

The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, criticized the government’s “boundless” interpretation of the chemical weapons law, which was intended to prosecute acts of war, especially terrorism.
Via Reason:

The Obama administration’s “boundless” interpretation of the chemical weapons law, declared the opinion of Chief Justice John Roberts, “would transform the statute from one whose core concerns are acts of war, assassination, and terrorism into a massive federal anti-poisoning regime that reaches the simplest of assaults.”

Joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan, Roberts found that the federal law simply had no application to “an amateur attempt by a jilted wife to injure her husband’s lover, which ended up causing only a minor thumb burn readily treated by rinsing with water.” The power to prosecute such acts rests entirely in the hands of the states, the Court concluded. “There is no reason to think the sovereign nations that ratified the [Chemical Weapons] Convention were interested in anything like Bond’s common law assault.”
​

Another wooden head!

The three most "liberal" justices, along with the sometimes moderate Kennedy, and the occasionally moderate Roberts ruled against "Obama". More proof Obama is too CONservative.

Actually, these laws, now enforced by the Justice Department were passed under Bush, after 9/11. Glad the Court is taking action to stop the infringement on civil liberties; the House will not, that is known.

Please moron, you still can't read as the title says the ruling was (that's NINE to 0 ZERO vote) unanimous!

The story only indicates the justices present at the verdict!

Theirs is the controlling opinion.

 

[R.D.]

Conservative Tribune, not a law journal, that is a given!

PS: The USSC refused to rule on Bond's claim the law violated the Tenth Amendment, thus, RWNs LOST.

Did I, or the article say anything about Bond's claim? I didn't think so either, so you are still blowing smoke up your ass! It was directed to this, if you had the intelligence to read it!

The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, criticized the government’s “boundless” interpretation of the chemical weapons law, which was intended to prosecute acts of war, especially terrorism.
Via Reason:

The Obama administration’s “boundless” interpretation of the chemical weapons law, declared the opinion of Chief Justice John Roberts, “would transform the statute from one whose core concerns are acts of war, assassination, and terrorism into a massive federal anti-poisoning regime that reaches the simplest of assaults.”

Joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan, Roberts found that the federal law simply had no application to “an amateur attempt by a jilted wife to injure her husband’s lover, which ended up causing only a minor thumb burn readily treated by rinsing with water.” The power to prosecute such acts rests entirely in the hands of the states, the Court concluded. “There is no reason to think the sovereign nations that ratified the [Chemical Weapons] Convention were interested in anything like Bond’s common law assault.”
​

Another wooden head!

The three most "liberal" justices, along with the sometimes moderate Kennedy, and the occasionally moderate Roberts ruled against "Obama". More proof Obama is too CONservative.

Actually, these laws, now enforced by the Justice Department were passed under Bush, after 9/11. Glad the Court is taking action to stop the infringement on civil liberties; the House will not, that is known.

The Obama administration stomps on this womans civil liberties, the whole court agrees and you blame Bush ....isn't that precious!

 

[Peach]

Did I, or the article say anything about Bond's claim? I didn't think so either, so you are still blowing smoke up your ass! It was directed to this, if you had the intelligence to read it!

The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, criticized the government’s “boundless” interpretation of the chemical weapons law, which was intended to prosecute acts of war, especially terrorism.
Via Reason:

The Obama administration’s “boundless” interpretation of the chemical weapons law, declared the opinion of Chief Justice John Roberts, “would transform the statute from one whose core concerns are acts of war, assassination, and terrorism into a massive federal anti-poisoning regime that reaches the simplest of assaults.”

Joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan, Roberts found that the federal law simply had no application to “an amateur attempt by a jilted wife to injure her husband’s lover, which ended up causing only a minor thumb burn readily treated by rinsing with water.” The power to prosecute such acts rests entirely in the hands of the states, the Court concluded. “There is no reason to think the sovereign nations that ratified the [Chemical Weapons] Convention were interested in anything like Bond’s common law assault.”
​

Another wooden head!

The three most "liberal" justices, along with the sometimes moderate Kennedy, and the occasionally moderate Roberts ruled against "Obama". More proof Obama is too CONservative.

Actually, these laws, now enforced by the Justice Department were passed under Bush, after 9/11. Glad the Court is taking action to stop the infringement on civil liberties; the House will not, that is known.

Please moron, you still can't read as the title says the ruling was (that's NINE to 0 ZERO vote) unanimous!

The story only indicates the justices present at the verdict!

I corrected my first post, and you still think the case was _____ v. Obama!

 

[occupied]

Never forget, everything must always be about Obama and everything must be spun as loss no matter what.

 

[Vigilante]

The three most "liberal" justices, along with the sometimes moderate Kennedy, and the occasionally moderate Roberts ruled against "Obama". More proof Obama is too CONservative.

Actually, these laws, now enforced by the Justice Department were passed under Bush, after 9/11. Glad the Court is taking action to stop the infringement on civil liberties; the House will not, that is known.

Please moron, you still can't read as the title says the ruling was (that's NINE to 0 ZERO vote) unanimous!

The story only indicates the justices present at the verdict!

Theirs is the controlling opinion.

Let me put this in BOLD so you MIGHT understand what has been written...

IT WAS A 9 (NINE) to NOTHING (0) decision ....THERE WERE NO CONTROLLING OPINIONS....for you, the really stupid, they ALL VOTED alike!

 

[Vigilante]

The three most "liberal" justices, along with the sometimes moderate Kennedy, and the occasionally moderate Roberts ruled against "Obama". More proof Obama is too CONservative.

Actually, these laws, now enforced by the Justice Department were passed under Bush, after 9/11. Glad the Court is taking action to stop the infringement on civil liberties; the House will not, that is known.

Please moron, you still can't read as the title says the ruling was (that's NINE to 0 ZERO vote) unanimous!

The story only indicates the justices present at the verdict!

I corrected my first post, and you still think the case was _____ v. Obama!

You don't have the good sense to go run away and hide after you've been bitch slapped, perhaps I should do it the Glenn Ford way, next time....

 

[The T]

Never forget, everything must always be about Obama and everything must be spun as loss no matter what.

Like YOU and deferring to BUSH? Step off.

 

[The T]

The three most "liberal" justices, along with the sometimes moderate Kennedy, and the occasionally moderate Roberts ruled against "Obama". More proof Obama is too CONservative.

Actually, these laws, now enforced by the Justice Department were passed under Bush, after 9/11. Glad the Court is taking action to stop the infringement on civil liberties; the House will not, that is known.

Please moron, you still can't read as the title says the ruling was (that's NINE to 0 ZERO vote) unanimous!

The story only indicates the justices present at the verdict!

Theirs is the controlling opinion.

I'd say 9-0 IS controlling.

Whatever you're smoking? CEASE.

 

[Avatar4321]

Conservative Tribune, not a law journal, that is a given!

PS: The USSC refused to rule on Bond's claim the law violated the Tenth Amendment, thus, RWNs LOST.

The supreme court rarely uses the tenth amendment to make decisions. The fact that they didn't base a decision on it doesn't mean the argument isn't correct

 

[ScienceRocks]

I wish the court would focus on his co2 emission dictate.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Let me get this straight.

John Roberts writes an opinion saying that the Obamacare mandate is flatly unconstitutional as written... then mentions that if it were a tax instead of a penalty, it would barely be legal... then rewrites it from the bench and declares it IS a tax instead of a penalty, and so it's constitutional....

....and now this same John Roberts is criticizing Obama for "boundless interpretations" of Federal law???

 

[Peach]

Conservative Tribune, not a law journal, that is a given!

PS: The USSC refused to rule on Bond's claim the law violated the Tenth Amendment, thus, RWNs LOST.

The supreme court rarely uses the tenth amendment to make decisions. The fact that they didn't base a decision on it doesn't mean the argument isn't correct

It may be for some, but it remains a nullity in this case.