Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
The point of the story was to falsely attach Obama to any part of this case. Hopefully, those interested in the truth will compare the tale in your op to the original Writ and find the truth as I have done.The title of this OP should read “ANOTHER RIGHT WING LIE EXPOSED.”
Yep, folks, some of us actually click on the links to get clues as to the veracity of Right-wing attacks on our beloved Commander in Chief. This op fails miserably upon closer examination.
Not only did I review the original material, I ventured off into a world where legalese is the native language and found the original briefs. Obama had nothing to do with any stage of the Bond vs United States case. The local police refused to do their job. But it didn’t stop there. Because the mailbox was involved, the local cops suggested the desperate woman call the Postal Inspectors.
Did Obama orchestrate the whole thing? Heck no, and it is laughable to even consider such nonsense!3rd Circuit U.S. Circuit Court WRIT OF CERTIORARI said:Between November 2006 and June 2007, Bond went to Haynes's home on at least 24 occasions and spread the chemicals on her car door, mailbox, and door knob. These attempted assaults were almost entirely unsuccessful. 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. Haynes repeatedly called the local police to report the suspicious substances, but they took no action. When Haynes found powder on her mailbox, she called the police again, who told her to call the post office. Haynes did so, and postal inspectors placed surveillance cameras around her home. The cameras caught Bond opening Haynes's mailbox, stealing an envelope, and stuffing potassium dichromate inside the muffler of Haynes's car.
Initial charges were filed during the preliminary investigation and later revalidated by federal prosecutors as being worthy of consideration. Influencing that controversial decision to include section 229 was the past experience of dealing with the Anthrax mailings.
The Conservative Tribune is no more credible than the National Enquirer and anything quoted therein should be suspect. If “conservatives” allow this rag to pose as the ultimate right wing icon of conservative thought, they are lost. The boldness of this false propaganda is shocking. Even more surprising is the following quote by a standing Senator who gleefully endorses, or is possibly the author of this lie:
Senator Ted Cruz said:Today’s ‪#*SCOTUS‬ ruling in Bond v. United States is an important victory for federalism. For the tenth time since January 2012, the Court unanimously rejected the Obama Administration’s argument for increased federal power.
Good to see you missed the point completely of the story.....
Talk about GRABBING AT STRAWS when it comes to the Manchurian muslim's regime when it tries to prosecute someone!
Obamas 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 governments boundless interpretation of the chemical weapons...
BREAKING: Supreme Court Rules 9-to-0 Against Barack Obama
The point of the story was to falsely attach Obama to any part of this case. Hopefully, those interested in the truth will compare the tale in your op to the original Writ and find the truth as I have done.The title of this OP should read ANOTHER RIGHT WING LIE EXPOSED.
Yep, folks, some of us actually click on the links to get clues as to the veracity of Right-wing attacks on our beloved Commander in Chief. This op fails miserably upon closer examination.
Not only did I review the original material, I ventured off into a world where legalese is the native language and found the original briefs. Obama had nothing to do with any stage of the Bond vs United States case. The local police refused to do their job. But it didnt stop there. Because the mailbox was involved, the local cops suggested the desperate woman call the Postal Inspectors.
Did Obama orchestrate the whole thing? Heck no, and it is laughable to even consider such nonsense!
Initial charges were filed during the preliminary investigation and later revalidated by federal prosecutors as being worthy of consideration. Influencing that controversial decision to include section 229 was the past experience of dealing with the Anthrax mailings.
The Conservative Tribune is no more credible than the National Enquirer and anything quoted therein should be suspect. If conservatives allow this rag to pose as the ultimate right wing icon of conservative thought, they are lost. The boldness of this false propaganda is shocking. Even more surprising is the following quote by a standing Senator who gleefully endorses, or is possibly the author of this lie:
Good to see you missed the point completely of the story.....
Vigilante sees what he wants to see, which is what he hopes is reinforcement for his strange world view.
No, Jake the Flake, no diversion from her credentials..... We've seen this "Obuma Diversion" before......
The diversion was yours when we outed your OP.
Now you are saying "don't look behind the curtain."
You are here only for grins and chuckles.
No, Jake the Flake, no diversion from her credentials..... We've seen this "Obuma Diversion" before......
The diversion was yours when we outed your OP.
Now you are saying "don't look behind the curtain."
You are here only for grins and chuckles.
Jake, Vigilante cannot help himself. Not only has his op been exposed for the spurious garbage it is, the illusion that Obama is the puppet master behind the whole affair permeates the editorial itself. That just is not true. One clue is the unabashed assertion that Justice Roberts actually blamed the Obama administration for the charges launched against Bonds. That is the lie on which I want the readers to focus their attention. I have reviewed the official transcripts of the SCOTUS opinion and could find no mention of Obama or any reference to his administration.
It is incredulous that any sane person would think such a relatively trivial matter would even be brought to the attention of a sitting President. Obama has enough to occupy his mind. He probably learned of this case after the fact; just as you and I have.
Weak minds like Vigilante's easily fall prey to any inculcation posited by clever RW propagandists...especially one that demeans or attacks Obama. Fortunately, those of us who delve deeper nullify the intended effect of these scurrilous attacks against the President!
Obviously, you have no ideas at all! It is the “political left’s” superb comprehension skills that blew the cover off the conservative propaganda tool “ The Conservative Tribune.”The diversion was yours when we outed your OP.
Now you are saying "don't look behind the curtain."
You are here only for grins and chuckles.
Jake, Vigilante cannot help himself. Not only has his op been exposed for the spurious garbage it is, the illusion that Obama is the puppet master behind the whole affair permeates the editorial itself. That just is not true. One clue is the unabashed assertion that Justice Roberts actually blamed the Obama administration for the charges launched against Bonds. That is the lie on which I want the readers to focus their attention. I have reviewed the official transcripts of the SCOTUS opinion and could find no mention of Obama or any reference to his administration.
It is incredulous that any sane person would think such a relatively trivial matter would even be brought to the attention of a sitting President. Obama has enough to occupy his mind. He probably learned of this case after the fact; just as you and I have.
Weak minds like Vigilante's easily fall prey to any inculcation posited by clever RW propagandists...especially one that demeans or attacks Obama. Fortunately, those of us who delve deeper nullify the intended effect of these scurrilous attacks against the President!
I have no idea why reading comprehension skills are so bad on the political left.
. This op was not about that. The op was based on an editorial using Bond vs US government case as a smokescreen to demean Obama. That is what I have a problem with, not the USSC opinion. Indeed the USSC has spoken resoundingly showing that a broken justice system does work occasionally; depending on which side of the argument you are on and how good your lawyer is.We really need to address that vital issue as a nation. The name of the case is BOND Vs the United States.. Meaning the legal argument is over Justice Dept decisions to charge and prosecute this case..
This is exactly what I was talking about. You are implying the current administration ( Obama) chose this case. Show me a memorandum or presidential order that backs that premise. I doubt if you can even link this case to Eric Holder. It never got that high. The buck actually stops at the 3rd Circuit Court’s door.And as is the norm, the current adminstration chooses what cases they are gonna take to the mat all the way to the Supreme Ct. A LOSS -- is a loss for those political appointees and Admin oversight that made those calls.
Well, don’t be too hasty in your judgment. This case was initially reported to the local authorities who refused to investigate after 24 complaints from the victim. The state had their chance to prosecute this case and neglected to do it. It wasn’t as if the FEDS usurped state authority. There were no trumped up charges here at all.And its about time that EVERY admin starts losing on charges trumped up by the 9.11 frenzy about terrorist acts and making ridiculous comparisons to what we charged Saddam Hussein with doing....
It would be nice to see your source. The initial charges in this case were valid as the USSC had not yet made them invalid. Since the Postal Inspectors had video showing Bonds in the act of committing her multiple crimes she had to admit her deeds. There was no escaping the fact that she was seen stealing mail from the victim’s mailbox in addition to putting toxic substances on it. But it was the powered substance reported earlier that caught the attention of the Postal Inspectors. Here was an individual who was trained in chemistry, was seen stealing mail ( What for? To escalate her attack possibly by putting ANTHRAX spores in those envelopes and placing them back in the victim’s mailbox?) As a former police officer, I know how reports of “mysterious powered substances” causes one to become very cautious when addressing such reports. Special gear has to be donned and tests have to be conducted to rule out ANTHRAX. That is why the local authorities pushed the case off on the Postal Inspectors.Too many folks being held without normal process and totally overcharged.
How is the Patriot Act being misused? I never liked that Patriot Act, so give me some ammunition to use in arguments against it!Dont act like BHO has done anything substantial to reduce the misuse of the Patriot Act. He hasnt...
Mom says Patriot Act stripped son of due process :: WRAL.com
OXFORD, N.C. — Sixteen-year-old Ashton Lundeby's bedroom in his mother's Granville County home is nothing, if not patriotic. Images of American flags are everywhere – on the bed, on the floor, on the wall.
But according to the United States government, the tenth-grade home-schooler is being held on a criminal complaint that he made a bomb threat from his home on the night of Feb. 15.
The family was at a church function that night, his mother, Annette Lundeby, said.
"Undoubtedly, they were given false information, or they would not have had 12 agents in my house with a widow and two children and three cats," Lundeby said.
Around 10 p.m. on March 5, Lundeby said, armed FBI agents along with three local law enforcement officers stormed her home looking for her son. They handcuffed him and presented her with a search warrant.
Ashton now sits in a juvenile facility in South Bend, Ind. His mother has had little access to him since his arrest. She has gone to her state representatives as well as attorneys, seeking assistance, but, she said, there is nothing she can do.
Lundeby said the USA Patriot Act stripped her son of his due process rights.
"We have no rights under the Patriot Act to even defend them, because the Patriot Act basically supersedes the Constitution," she said. "It wasn't intended to drag your barely 16-year-old, 120-pound son out in the middle of the night on a charge that we can't even defend.
Court: Chem weapons treaty can't trap jilted wife
In an opinion dripping with sarcasm, the justices belittled the Justice Department's contention that what they called Carol Anne Bond's "two-bit local assault" — a clumsy use of a chemical compound — could have anything in common with war crimes and international terrorism.
While the decision slapped the Obama administration for excessive prosecutorial zeal, it stopped short of what conservatives sought: a ruling that Congress' implementation of the chemical weapons treaty was unconstitutional. That would have represented a far greater restraint on federal powers.
Instead, six justices said simply that international treaties cannot always supplant local police powers. They noted that Bond's attacks on a woman impregnated by her husband resulted in nothing more serious than a burned thumb treated with water — not the sort of injury such treaties are intended to address.
Supreme Court Rules 9-0 Against Obama Administration?s ?Boundless? Interpretation of Chemical Weapons Law - Hit & Run : Reason.com
Supreme Court Rules 9-0 Against Obama Administration’s ‘Boundless’ Interpretation of Chemical Weapons Law
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously today against the Obama administration in a major case testing the reach of federal power.
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."
If you are not familiar with the misuses of the Patriot Act, you're on shaky ground having such strong opinions on why these trumped up Federal Charges don't matter. HUNDREDS of Americans have been charged and denied due process under its provisions for rather trivial shit and FEDERAL charges brought when it should have remained a local matter. Not to mention the GROSS MISUSE of section 215 that enables the NSA to spy domestically on citizens with virtually no oversight.
Just one example ---
Mom says Patriot Act stripped son of due process :: WRAL.com
OXFORD, N.C. Sixteen-year-old Ashton Lundeby's bedroom in his mother's Granville County home is nothing, if not patriotic. Images of American flags are everywhere on the bed, on the floor, on the wall.
But according to the United States government, the tenth-grade home-schooler is being held on a criminal complaint that he made a bomb threat from his home on the night of Feb. 15.
The family was at a church function that night, his mother, Annette Lundeby, said.
"Undoubtedly, they were given false information, or they would not have had 12 agents in my house with a widow and two children and three cats," Lundeby said.
Around 10 p.m. on March 5, Lundeby said, armed FBI agents along with three local law enforcement officers stormed her home looking for her son. They handcuffed him and presented her with a search warrant.
Ashton now sits in a juvenile facility in South Bend, Ind. His mother has had little access to him since his arrest. She has gone to her state representatives as well as attorneys, seeking assistance, but, she said, there is nothing she can do.
Lundeby said the USA Patriot Act stripped her son of his due process rights.
"We have no rights under the Patriot Act to even defend them, because the Patriot Act basically supersedes the Constitution," she said. "It wasn't intended to drag your barely 16-year-old, 120-pound son out in the middle of the night on a charge that we can't even defend.
Back to the issue. The Obama administration is responsible for escalating this 3rd Circuit decision to the Supreme Court. They COULD have backed down but didn't. YOU -- just want to dance around the fact that you heard it from an inconvienient source. OR that you believe this had NOTHING to do with decisions made at the Obama Administration. THEY chose to go to mat on this -- and THEY got pummeled by the court..
Let's see if USA TODAY got this right --------->
Court: Chem weapons treaty can't trap jilted wife
In an opinion dripping with sarcasm, the justices belittled the Justice Department's contention that what they called Carol Anne Bond's "two-bit local assault" a clumsy use of a chemical compound could have anything in common with war crimes and international terrorism.
While the decision slapped the Obama administration for excessive prosecutorial zeal, it stopped short of what conservatives sought: a ruling that Congress' implementation of the chemical weapons treaty was unconstitutional. That would have represented a far greater restraint on federal powers.
Instead, six justices said simply that international treaties cannot always supplant local police powers. They noted that Bond's attacks on a woman impregnated by her husband resulted in nothing more serious than a burned thumb treated with water not the sort of injury such treaties are intended to address.
Supreme Court Rules 9-0 Against Obama Administration?s ?Boundless? Interpretation of Chemical Weapons Law - Hit & Run : Reason.com
Supreme Court Rules 9-0 Against Obama Administrations Boundless Interpretation of Chemical Weapons Law
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously today against the Obama administration in a major case testing the reach of federal power.
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."
That's who is responsible every time the United State of America LOSES a case at the Supreme Court.
THE ADMINISTRATION....
Your claim that there "were no trumped up charges here" are laughable in respect to what ALL 9 Justices wrote in their decision. It shows you don't understand this case at all or the THREAT it represents to your Civil Liberties. The woman was charged under an INTERNATIONAL CHEMICAL WEAPONS TREATY for having a marital dispute with another women using KITCHEN supplies by the FEDERAL govt.. Ponder that -- and then READ the laughter from the Court when they attacked the Justice Dept for bringing this case to them.. It's not funny -- that this Admin feels incline to loosely define Weapons of Mass Destruction and Chemical warfare in such trivial cases..
flacaltenn said:If you are not familiar with the misuses of the Patriot Act, you're on shaky ground having such strong opinions on why these trumped up Federal Charges don't matter. HUNDREDS of Americans have been charged and denied due process under its provisions for rather trivial shit and FEDERAL charges brought when it should have remained a local matter. Not to mention the GROSS MISUSE of section 215 that enables the NSA to spy domestically on citizens with virtually no oversight.
Wellll.... No, the Obama administration was not responsible for escalating this decision to the Supreme Court. The Court of Appeals was responsible after a damn good defense lawyer presented his case. But as an aside, why would the Justice Department back down when the tenets of the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act of 1998, passed by Congress, was clearly on their side?flacaltenn said:The Obama administration is responsible for escalating this 3rd Circuit decision to the Supreme Court. They COULD have backed down but didn't.
USSC Justice Scalia said:It is the responsibility of the legislature, not the Court, to define a crime, and ordain its punishment. And it is emphatically the province and duty of the [courts] to say what the law—including the Constitution—is. Today, the Court shirks its job and performs Congress’s. As sweeping and unsettling as the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act of 1998 may be, it is clear beyond doubt that it covers what Bond did; and we have no authority to amend it.
Do you still believe this?flacaltenn said:YOU -- just want to dance around the fact that you heard it from an inconvienient source.
from what Scalia wrote in his Opinion, the Justice Dept was justified in bringing the charges. The Justice Department cannot be faulted for using a tool as defined within the body of the CWCIA of 1998.OR that you believe this had NOTHING to do with decisions made at the Obama Administration. THEY chose to go to mat on this -- and THEY got pummeled by the court..
He (Scalia) also rejected Roberts’ reasoning that the incident didn’t involve what one normally calls “chemical weapons,” noting that the statute actually defines that term, and Bond’s chemicals are within the statute’s broad definition.
USSC Justice Scalia said:It is the responsibility of the legislature, not the Court, to define a crime, and ordain its punishment. And it is emphatically the province and duty of the [courts] to say what the law—including the Constitution—is. Today, the Court shirks its job and performs Congress’s. As sweeping and unsettling as the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act of 1998 may be, it is clear beyond doubt that it covers what Bond did; and we have no authority to amend it.
So we are forced to decide-there is no way around it-whether the Act's application to what Bond [*15] did was constitutional.
I would hold that it was not, and for that reason would reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Whether that test is satisfied, the Court unhelpfully (and also illogically) explains, depends not only on the "particular chemicals that the defendant used" but also on "the circumstances in which she used them." Ibid. The "detergent under the kitchen sink" and "the stain remover in the laundry room" are apparently out, ante, at 16-but what if they are deployed to poison a neighborhood water fountain? Poisoning a goldfish tank is also apparently out, ante, at 17, but what if the fish belongs to a Congressman or Governor and the act is meant as a menacing message, a small-time equivalent of leaving a severed horse head in the bed? See ibid. (using the "concerns" driving the Convention-"acts of war, assassination, and terrorism"-as guideposts of statutory meaning). Moreover, the Court's illogical embellishment seems to apply only to the "use" of a chemical, ante, at 15, but "use" is only 1 of 11 kinds of activity that the statute prohibits. What, one wonders, makes something a "chemical weapon" when it is merely "stockpile[d]" or "possess[ed]?" To these questions and countless others, one guess is as bad as another.
The Defendant made a 10th Amendment claim, the Admistration could not "drop it" without setting precedent.If you are not familiar with the misuses of the Patriot Act, you're on shaky ground having such strong opinions on why these trumped up Federal Charges don't matter. HUNDREDS of Americans have been charged and denied due process under its provisions for rather trivial shit and FEDERAL charges brought when it should have remained a local matter. Not to mention the GROSS MISUSE of section 215 that enables the NSA to spy domestically on citizens with virtually no oversight.
Just one example ---
Mom says Patriot Act stripped son of due process :: WRAL.com
OXFORD, N.C. Sixteen-year-old Ashton Lundeby's bedroom in his mother's Granville County home is nothing, if not patriotic. Images of American flags are everywhere on the bed, on the floor, on the wall.
But according to the United States government, the tenth-grade home-schooler is being held on a criminal complaint that he made a bomb threat from his home on the night of Feb. 15.
The family was at a church function that night, his mother, Annette Lundeby, said.
"Undoubtedly, they were given false information, or they would not have had 12 agents in my house with a widow and two children and three cats," Lundeby said.
Around 10 p.m. on March 5, Lundeby said, armed FBI agents along with three local law enforcement officers stormed her home looking for her son. They handcuffed him and presented her with a search warrant.
Ashton now sits in a juvenile facility in South Bend, Ind. His mother has had little access to him since his arrest. She has gone to her state representatives as well as attorneys, seeking assistance, but, she said, there is nothing she can do.
Lundeby said the USA Patriot Act stripped her son of his due process rights.
"We have no rights under the Patriot Act to even defend them, because the Patriot Act basically supersedes the Constitution," she said. "It wasn't intended to drag your barely 16-year-old, 120-pound son out in the middle of the night on a charge that we can't even defend.
Back to the issue. The Obama administration is responsible for escalating this 3rd Circuit decision to the Supreme Court. They COULD have backed down but didn't. YOU -- just want to dance around the fact that you heard it from an inconvienient source. OR that you believe this had NOTHING to do with decisions made at the Obama Administration. THEY chose to go to mat on this -- and THEY got pummeled by the court..
Let's see if USA TODAY got this right --------->
Supreme Court Rules 9-0 Against Obama Administration?s ?Boundless? Interpretation of Chemical Weapons Law - Hit & Run : Reason.com
Supreme Court Rules 9-0 Against Obama Administrations Boundless Interpretation of Chemical Weapons Law
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously today against the Obama administration in a major case testing the reach of federal power.
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."
That's who is responsible every time the United State of America LOSES a case at the Supreme Court.
THE ADMINISTRATION....
Your claim that there "were no trumped up charges here" are laughable in respect to what ALL 9 Justices wrote in their decision. It shows you don't understand this case at all or the THREAT it represents to your Civil Liberties. The woman was charged under an INTERNATIONAL CHEMICAL WEAPONS TREATY for having a marital dispute with another women using KITCHEN supplies by the FEDERAL govt.. Ponder that -- and then READ the laughter from the Court when they attacked the Justice Dept for bringing this case to them.. It's not funny -- that this Admin feels incline to loosely define Weapons of Mass Destruction and Chemical warfare in such trivial cases..
That's who is responsible every time the United State of America LOSES a case at the Supreme Court.
THE ADMINISTRATION....
it is funny how they try and deny that this was a loss for the current administration
obama could have dropped defending it as they have done in other cases
but he didnt
The Defendant made a 10th Amendment claim, the Admistration could not "drop it" without setting precedent.If you are not familiar with the misuses of the Patriot Act, you're on shaky ground having such strong opinions on why these trumped up Federal Charges don't matter. HUNDREDS of Americans have been charged and denied due process under its provisions for rather trivial shit and FEDERAL charges brought when it should have remained a local matter. Not to mention the GROSS MISUSE of section 215 that enables the NSA to spy domestically on citizens with virtually no oversight.
Just one example ---
Back to the issue. The Obama administration is responsible for escalating this 3rd Circuit decision to the Supreme Court. They COULD have backed down but didn't. YOU -- just want to dance around the fact that you heard it from an inconvienient source. OR that you believe this had NOTHING to do with decisions made at the Obama Administration. THEY chose to go to mat on this -- and THEY got pummeled by the court..
Let's see if USA TODAY got this right --------->
That's who is responsible every time the United State of America LOSES a case at the Supreme Court.
THE ADMINISTRATION....
Your claim that there "were no trumped up charges here" are laughable in respect to what ALL 9 Justices wrote in their decision. It shows you don't understand this case at all or the THREAT it represents to your Civil Liberties. The woman was charged under an INTERNATIONAL CHEMICAL WEAPONS TREATY for having a marital dispute with another women using KITCHEN supplies by the FEDERAL govt.. Ponder that -- and then READ the laughter from the Court when they attacked the Justice Dept for bringing this case to them.. It's not funny -- that this Admin feels incline to loosely define Weapons of Mass Destruction and Chemical warfare in such trivial cases..
That's who is responsible every time the United State of America LOSES a case at the Supreme Court.
THE ADMINISTRATION....
it is funny how they try and deny that this was a loss for the current administration
obama could have dropped defending it as they have done in other cases
but he didnt
flacaltenn said:We were so close to getting resolution to this match, and I had my finger on the rep button, but then you stopped a couple sentences short of getting to the truth.. As you posted from Scalia..
So we are forced to decide-there is no way around it-whether the Act's application to what Bond [*15] did was constitutional.
I would hold that it was not, and for that reason would reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit "
flacaltenn said:That's his job --- to ULTIMATELY rule on the Constitutionality of the law. But his purpose was to RIDICULE Congress for writing a law that makes EVERY AMERICAN A CRIMINAL, and ridicule the 3rd Circuit for not seeing the obvious poorly written legislation as an EXTENSIVE ABUSE of the Constitution, and the ADMINISTRATION for willingly trying to exploit that UNfounded power..
Breitbart said:Scalia rejected the overall approach Roberts used, writing, The Courts account of the clear-statement rule reads like a really good lawyers brief for the wrong side, relying on cases that are so close to being on point that someone eager to reach the favored outcome might swallow them.
He also rejected Roberts reasoning that the incident didnt involve what one normally calls chemical weapons, noting that the statute actually defines that term, and Bonds chemicals are within the statutes broad definition.
Scalia later added that Roberts approach of looking at context to determine if a chemical is a chemical weapon in a particular situation makes a bad situation worse. Thanks to the Courts revisions, the Act, which before was merely broad, is now broad and unintelligible.
