Liability
Locked Account.
Yet another bush fuckup.
Like that time Kennedy found out that old Whizzer White wasn't all that liberal?
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.
Yet another bush fuckup.
Some Conservatives here appear to be suffering a bit of "Stockholm Syndrome"
I love the smell of wingnut frustration.
"I wasn't raped! I liked it! It was consentual!"
from his ruling:
Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nations elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.
Very refreshing. I'm sure I'll be back to hating him next year but that was a very perceptive statement.
from his ruling:
Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nations elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.
Very refreshing. I'm sure I'll be back to hating him next year but that was a very perceptive statement.
Justice Roberts did just what he promised to do when nominated. He followed the Constitution.
This fight is correctly fought in the Congress, as he stated today.
Conservatives do not wish to endorse legislating from the bench.
ObamaCare will be judged again....in November.
Yeah, and he also did what we're told Justices appointed by (R)s don't do: Re-write the law.from his ruling:
Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nations elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.
Very refreshing. I'm sure I'll be back to hating him next year but that was a very perceptive statement.
Justice Roberts did just what he promised to do when nominated. He followed the Constitution.
This fight is correctly fought in the Congress, as he stated today.
Conservatives do not wish to endorse legislating from the bench.
ObamaCare will be judged again....in November.
You're saying Scalia legislates from the bench.from his ruling:
Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nations elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.
Very refreshing. I'm sure I'll be back to hating him next year but that was a very perceptive statement.
Justice Roberts did just what he promised to do when nominated. He followed the Constitution.
This fight is correctly fought in the Congress, as he stated today.
Conservatives do not wish to endorse legislating from the bench.
ObamaCare will be judged again....in November.
You're saying Scalia legislates from the bench.from his ruling:
Very refreshing. I'm sure I'll be back to hating him next year but that was a very perceptive statement.
Justice Roberts did just what he promised to do when nominated. He followed the Constitution.
This fight is correctly fought in the Congress, as he stated today.
Conservatives do not wish to endorse legislating from the bench.
ObamaCare will be judged again....in November.
Yep, he does.
Poor you.You're saying Scalia legislates from the bench.Justice Roberts did just what he promised to do when nominated. He followed the Constitution.
This fight is correctly fought in the Congress, as he stated today.
Conservatives do not wish to endorse legislating from the bench.
ObamaCare will be judged again....in November.
Yep, he does.
No. He doesn't.
You are just another mindless parrot mouthing words you don't comprehend.
You're saying Scalia legislates from the bench.from his ruling:
Very refreshing. I'm sure I'll be back to hating him next year but that was a very perceptive statement.
Justice Roberts did just what he promised to do when nominated. He followed the Constitution.
This fight is correctly fought in the Congress, as he stated today.
Conservatives do not wish to endorse legislating from the bench.
ObamaCare will be judged again....in November.
Yep, he does.
Poor you.You're saying Scalia legislates from the bench.
Yep, he does.
No. He doesn't.
You are just another mindless parrot mouthing words you don't comprehend.
So conversely you must believe that Scalia thinks it is his job.You're saying Scalia legislates from the bench.Justice Roberts did just what he promised to do when nominated. He followed the Constitution.
This fight is correctly fought in the Congress, as he stated today.
Conservatives do not wish to endorse legislating from the bench.
ObamaCare will be judged again....in November.
Yep, he does.
This is what I am saying:
Chief Justice Roberts: It Is Not Our Job to Protect the People From the Consequences of Their Political Choices
So conversely you must believe that Scalia thinks it is his job.You're saying Scalia legislates from the bench.
Yep, he does.
This is what I am saying:
Chief Justice Roberts: “It Is Not Our Job to Protect the People From the Consequences of Their Political Choices”
This is why I have posted in the past that I believed the court would uphold the Act...
...if two branches had found the Act constitutional.....even if I believe it was a political decision.....
it was the job of the Supreme Court to find it so unless there is specific language in the Constitution
that forbids same.
We could say Bush apponted a moderte to the SC or we could say Bush appointed someone who actually is not beholden to the Far Right. I think he deserves applause....
This is why I have posted in the past that I believed the court would uphold the Act...
...if two branches had found the Act constitutional.....even if I believe it was a political decision.....
it was the job of the Supreme Court to find it so unless there is specific language in the Constitution
that forbids same.
It is NOT required that there be specific language forbidding an Act.
What IS required is specific language AUTHORIZING it.
It wasn't found in the Commerce Clause.
It wasn't found in the Necessary and Proper Clause.
It was CLAIMED to be found in the taxing authority of Congress when even Congress declined to call it a "tax," as did the Executive Branch. Still the CJ twisted and contorted the words USED in the actual ACT by Congress itself to convert "penalty" into "tax."
That distortion of the meaning of words didn't sneak past the 4 dissenting Justices who called it for what it was. Wrong and without precedent.
And, if it is a "tax" somehow, then it should have to be apportioned, but the CJ got around that too, by a similarly slippery manipulation of language.
It was a dishonest majority opinion in those ways.
ObamaCare SHOULD have been voided. Instead, because the CJ declined to do what he should have done, we are all now saddled with it at least though the start of the next Administration and a new Congress, if we can seize control of the Senate.
This upcoming election is now the most important one in U.S. history.
This is why I have posted in the past that I believed the court would uphold the Act...
...if two branches had found the Act constitutional.....even if I believe it was a political decision.....
it was the job of the Supreme Court to find it so unless there is specific language in the Constitution
that forbids same.
It is NOT required that there be specific language forbidding an Act.
What IS required is specific language AUTHORIZING it.
It wasn't found in the Commerce Clause.
It wasn't found in the Necessary and Proper Clause.
It was CLAIMED to be found in the taxing authority of Congress when even Congress declined to call it a "tax," as did the Executive Branch. Still the CJ twisted and contorted the words USED in the actual ACT by Congress itself to convert "penalty" into "tax."
That distortion of the meaning of words didn't sneak past the 4 dissenting Justices who called it for what it was. Wrong and without precedent.
And, if it is a "tax" somehow, then it should have to be apportioned, but the CJ got around that too, by a similarly slippery manipulation of language.
It was a dishonest majority opinion in those ways.
ObamaCare SHOULD have been voided. Instead, because the CJ declined to do what he should have done, we are all now saddled with it at least though the start of the next Administration and a new Congress, if we can seize control of the Senate.
This upcoming election is now the most important one in U.S. history.
This is why I have posted in the past that I believed the court would uphold the Act...
...if two branches had found the Act constitutional.....even if I believe it was a political decision.....
it was the job of the Supreme Court to find it so unless there is specific language in the Constitution
that forbids same.
It is NOT required that there be specific language forbidding an Act.
What IS required is specific language AUTHORIZING it.
It wasn't found in the Commerce Clause.
It wasn't found in the Necessary and Proper Clause.
It was CLAIMED to be found in the taxing authority of Congress when even Congress declined to call it a "tax," as did the Executive Branch. Still the CJ twisted and contorted the words USED in the actual ACT by Congress itself to convert "penalty" into "tax."
That distortion of the meaning of words didn't sneak past the 4 dissenting Justices who called it for what it was. Wrong and without precedent.
And, if it is a "tax" somehow, then it should have to be apportioned, but the CJ got around that too, by a similarly slippery manipulation of language.
It was a dishonest majority opinion in those ways.
ObamaCare SHOULD have been voided. Instead, because the CJ declined to do what he should have done, we are all now saddled with it at least though the start of the next Administration and a new Congress, if we can seize control of the Senate.
This upcoming election is now the most important one in U.S. history.
This is why I have posted in the past that I believed the court would uphold the Act...
...if two branches had found the Act constitutional.....even if I believe it was a political decision.....
it was the job of the Supreme Court to find it so unless there is specific language in the Constitution
that forbids same.
It is NOT required that there be specific language forbidding an Act.
What IS required is specific language AUTHORIZING it.
It wasn't found in the Commerce Clause.
It wasn't found in the Necessary and Proper Clause.
It was CLAIMED to be found in the taxing authority of Congress when even Congress declined to call it a "tax," as did the Executive Branch. Still the CJ twisted and contorted the words USED in the actual ACT by Congress itself to convert "penalty" into "tax."
That distortion of the meaning of words didn't sneak past the 4 dissenting Justices who called it for what it was. Wrong and without precedent.
And, if it is a "tax" somehow, then it should have to be apportioned, but the CJ got around that too, by a similarly slippery manipulation of language.
It was a dishonest majority opinion in those ways.
ObamaCare SHOULD have been voided. Instead, because the CJ declined to do what he should have done, we are all now saddled with it at least though the start of the next Administration and a new Congress, if we can seize control of the Senate.
This upcoming election is now the most important one in U.S. history.
Elections have consequences.
It shouldn't be up to the SCOTUS to fix congressional screwups.