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

[Peach]

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.

I write of the majority opinion, left out the word, so CONs could jump like flies to a sugar bowl. There are TWO opinions, thus, not as united as those who read snippets believe. And the 10th Amendment claim failed. I agree with the decision, DOJ needs to drop over prosecution of most of the post 9/11/01 radical legislation.

The case is a 10th Amendment test case, thus, conservatives lost. The Court rejected 10th Amendment arguments, here is some simple background:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...principles-and-avoids-treaty-clause-question/

 

[Peach]

And another:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_v._United_States_(2011)

 

[Avatar4321]

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???

Pretty much. If guess they didn't blackmail him this time

 

[Peach]

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.

Read the links, it was 5-4 AGAINST striking the Federal law; a limited decision of no importance. A test case, the government prevailed on the only point that is notable. Another link, easy to understand if you would just read; I give up "Vigilante" understanding the decision. The below is being cited as Robert's "comic relief":

“Both chemicals are toxic to humans and, in high enough doses, potentially lethal. It is undisputed, however, that Bond did not in*tend to kill Haynes. She instead hoped that Haynes would touch the chemicals and develop an uncomfortable rash.”

The Court, with Roberts as Mr. Serious, did not reject the law:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...e_roberts_shows_off_his_best_material.htmlrts

 

[rdean]

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]

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

You do not understand the case, I apologize for thinking you did. The applicability of the law was not the issue, the validity of the law was. 5-3 on the only issue that mattered. Roberts did go into detail about her injuries, Scalia, Thomas and Alito wanted to strike the law. Another laughable comment from CJ Roberts:

“The chemicals that Bond used are easy to see, and Haynes was able to avoid them all but once. On that occasion, Haynes suffered a minor chemical burn on her thumb, which she treated by rinsing with water.”

 

[PratchettFan]

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

I do not believe Roberts referred to Obama in the opinion. Which is good because the charge against the lady based upon that particular act was made by federal prosecutors in 2007 - before Obama became president.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

Has to do with far right wing prosecutors overstepping the law.

Good for the court.

 

[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

Yes, that's about where your IQ is at!

 

[Peach]

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

I do not believe Roberts referred to Obama in the opinion. Which is good because the charge against the lady based upon that particular act was made by federal prosecutors in 2007 - before Obama became president.

Why did you tell them?

 

[Little-Acorn]

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!

Scalia pointed out that in the treaty's phrasing, there is nothing in the Chemical Weapons Act that excludes a simple domestic crime like attempted poisoning of one's spouse, from the jurisdiction of the Chemical Weapons Act... and so the Chemical Weapons Act itself is unconstitutional, since it gives the Federal government police power over U.S. citizens, something that the Supreme Court has always said the Fed Govt has no authority to have. Only states and lower governments have that power.

Scalia was writing a Concurring Opinion when he said that, not an Opinion of the Court. So I guess it's not part of the "official" Supreme Court ruling. But it's a shot across the bow of people who want to try to use the Treaty Power to overrule Constitutioal restrictions on what Congress can enact.

 

[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

You do not understand the case, I apologize for thinking you did. The applicability of the law was not the issue, the validity of the law was. 5-3 on the only issue that mattered. Roberts did go into detail about her injuries, Scalia, Thomas and Alito wanted to strike the law. Another laughable comment from CJ Roberts:

“The chemicals that Bond used are easy to see, and Haynes was able to avoid them all but once. On that occasion, Haynes suffered a minor chemical burn on her thumb, which she treated by rinsing with water.”

ONE last time, was there a 9-0 vote....yes or no!

 

[whitehall]

Another example of the fact that Barry Hussein has hired a bunch of dunces. Everybody who works for him seems to be a crook or a freaking idiot who can't determine the difference between an act of war and a freaking domestic dispute.

 

[The T]

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???

Pretty much. If guess they didn't blackmail him this time

Yep.

 

[Peach]

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

Has to do with far right wing prosecutors overstepping the law.

Good for the court.

Vigilante & crew thought it was about Obama, not a test case to strike the Federal law. The narrow ruling led to a deep division in "concurring" opinions. And, of course, prosecution began under Bush II, the case has been before the USSC twice. Only reading the headlines, as Vigilante did, leads to misinterpretation.

 

[PratchettFan]

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

I do not believe Roberts referred to Obama in the opinion. Which is good because the charge against the lady based upon that particular act was made by federal prosecutors in 2007 - before Obama became president.

Why did you tell them?

Won't matter. If it doesn't support their pre-decision, they won't even see it.

 

[jon_berzerk]

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!

it is amazing actually

 

[Vigilante]

Still asking the question was it a 9-0 vote?

What no answer?

 

[Peach]

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

5-4 on the validity of the law. No, no major ruling, I did not realize the depth of your misunderstanding. The government prevailed on the only substantive issue in dispute.

 

[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.

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

it is amazing actually

I's DENIAL...they have to protect Obama at all costs...even their credibility.