Senator Grassley calls out Justice Roberts

[JakeStarkey]

Grassley surely hopes voters are buying it.

 

[TooTall]

Too little, too late. He should have shown that fire when he had the opportunity to oppose his Nomination. Grassley's typical of Republican 'leadership.' They're never there for you when you need em most.

I mean, who cares that he opposes him now? Roberts already gave us Obamacare and is in there for life. It's too late. I think Grassley's just playin folks now.

And this is as idiotic and as ignorant as what Grassley is whining about – if not more so.

The Supreme Court didn’t ‘give us’ the ACA, the notion is moronic nonsense; the ACA was enacted by Congress, whose members are elected by the people, representing the people.

The ACA is Constitutional in accordance with Congress’ taxing authority, where the Supreme Court reaffirmed that fact.

It’s this sort of ignorance and partisan stupidity common to most on the right that renders conservatism ridiculous.

The ones that should be pissed off are some of the Congress critters that were told repeatedly that the ACA was not a tax so they could safely vote for it and then the Administration successfully argued to the Supreme Court that it was a tax.

 

[paulitician]

Too little, too late. He should have shown that fire when he had the opportunity to oppose his Nomination. Grassley's typical of Republican 'leadership.' They're never there for you when you need em most.

I mean, who cares that he opposes him now? Roberts already gave us Obamacare and is in there for life. It's too late. I think Grassley's just playin folks now.

And this is as idiotic and as ignorant as what Grassley is whining about – if not more so.

The Supreme Court didn’t ‘give us’ the ACA, the notion is moronic nonsense; the ACA was enacted by Congress, whose members are elected by the people, representing the people.

The ACA is Constitutional in accordance with Congress’ taxing authority, where the Supreme Court reaffirmed that fact.

It’s this sort of ignorance and partisan stupidity common to most on the right that renders conservatism ridiculous.

The ones that should be pissed off are some of the Congress critters that were told repeatedly that the ACA was not a tax so they could safely vote for it and then the Administration successfully argued to the Supreme Court that it was a tax.

Republicans should have pried their noses from George Bush's butthole and opposed Roberts. They're responsible for Obamacare and all other future terrible Roberts decisions. They put him in there for life. It's on them.

 

[Syriusly]

get im! get im! get im!

Grassley calls out John Roberts on Senate floor

Now if Grassley would just do his job as per the United States Constitution......

What job is he not doing?

Section 2 of the United States Constitution

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law:

 

[regent]

It has happened before: a nomination to the Supreme Court is appointed and passed for political purposes, but then the new judge takes office, and with his job for life, votes for what he or she believes is good for the America people, and not the party.
The Republicans could impeach Roberts.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

get im! get im! get im!

Grassley calls out John Roberts on Senate floor

Now if Grassley would just do his job as per the United States Constitution......

What job is he not doing?

Section 2 of the United States Constitution

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law:

"by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate"

That is what is required in order for the president to have the power to appoint. There is no mandated obligation for the Senate to provide it in any specific instance.

 

[paulitician]

Ha, like Roberts cares. Grassley helped put him in there for life. He'll be there long after Grassley's gone from Congress. Grassley's his little bitch.

 

[sealybobo]

get im! get im! get im!

Grassley calls out John Roberts on Senate floor

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said Comey’s decision to tell Congress about new emails related their investigation of Hillary Clinton without providing more context is “not fair to Congress, the American people, or Secretary Clinton.”

 

[sealybobo]

Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan, head of the House Freedom Caucus ― a far-right faction of House Republicans that have been the most vocal in labeling Clinton persona non grata ― doubted Comey’s judgment on Monday.

“I think this was probably not the right thing for Comey to do — the protocol here — to come out this close to an election,” Jordan told Fox News in an interview.

 

[OKTexas]

"The chief justice has it exactly backwards," Grassley also said. "The confirmation process doesn't make the justices appear political. The confirmation process has gotten political precisely because the court itself has drifted from the constitutional text and rendered decisions based instead on policy preferences."

Nonsense.

Grassley is as ignorant as he is wrong.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – ruling in accordance with settled, accepted Constitutional jurisprudence is not to ‘drift away’ from ‘constitutional text’; indeed, it’s the role and responsibility of the Supreme Court follow that settled accepted case law, to recognize precedent in a consistent manner, which the court has for the most part accomplished.

That Grassley doesn’t like how the Court has ruled because it conflicts with errant, wrongheaded conservative dogma, or the partisan republican agenda, is irrelevant, and is in no way legitimate grounds upon which to attack Roberts or the Court.

So where did the court get the authority to rewrite legislation, not once, but twice? Oh and create an unconstitutional direct tax in the process.

 

[bendog]

That's pretty rich calling Roberts Political for finding congress can tax people for healthcare.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"The chief justice has it exactly backwards," Grassley also said. "The confirmation process doesn't make the justices appear political. The confirmation process has gotten political precisely because the court itself has drifted from the constitutional text and rendered decisions based instead on policy preferences."

Nonsense.

Grassley is as ignorant as he is wrong.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – ruling in accordance with settled, accepted Constitutional jurisprudence is not to ‘drift away’ from ‘constitutional text’; indeed, it’s the role and responsibility of the Supreme Court follow that settled accepted case law, to recognize precedent in a consistent manner, which the court has for the most part accomplished.

That Grassley doesn’t like how the Court has ruled because it conflicts with errant, wrongheaded conservative dogma, or the partisan republican agenda, is irrelevant, and is in no way legitimate grounds upon which to attack Roberts or the Court.

So where did the court get the authority to rewrite legislation, not once, but twice? Oh and create an unconstitutional direct tax in the process.

Your brain is bubbling over, again. Grassley and Jordan are pissed and telling everybody they are pissed.

 

[AceRothstein]

submission wrestling is the best form of wrestling

That's the gayest post I've seen on this board.

 

[basquebromance]

that's the least original post i've seen here.

another day, another homophobe.

 

[OKTexas]

"The chief justice has it exactly backwards," Grassley also said. "The confirmation process doesn't make the justices appear political. The confirmation process has gotten political precisely because the court itself has drifted from the constitutional text and rendered decisions based instead on policy preferences."

Nonsense.

Grassley is as ignorant as he is wrong.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – ruling in accordance with settled, accepted Constitutional jurisprudence is not to ‘drift away’ from ‘constitutional text’; indeed, it’s the role and responsibility of the Supreme Court follow that settled accepted case law, to recognize precedent in a consistent manner, which the court has for the most part accomplished.

That Grassley doesn’t like how the Court has ruled because it conflicts with errant, wrongheaded conservative dogma, or the partisan republican agenda, is irrelevant, and is in no way legitimate grounds upon which to attack Roberts or the Court.

So where did the court get the authority to rewrite legislation, not once, but twice? Oh and create an unconstitutional direct tax in the process.

Your brain is bubbling over, again. Grassley and Jordan are pissed and telling everybody they are pissed.

Answer the question asked or STFU.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"The chief justice has it exactly backwards," Grassley also said. "The confirmation process doesn't make the justices appear political. The confirmation process has gotten political precisely because the court itself has drifted from the constitutional text and rendered decisions based instead on policy preferences."

Nonsense.

Grassley is as ignorant as he is wrong.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – ruling in accordance with settled, accepted Constitutional jurisprudence is not to ‘drift away’ from ‘constitutional text’; indeed, it’s the role and responsibility of the Supreme Court follow that settled accepted case law, to recognize precedent in a consistent manner, which the court has for the most part accomplished.

That Grassley doesn’t like how the Court has ruled because it conflicts with errant, wrongheaded conservative dogma, or the partisan republican agenda, is irrelevant, and is in no way legitimate grounds upon which to attack Roberts or the Court.

So where did the court get the authority to rewrite legislation, not once, but twice? Oh and create an unconstitutional direct tax in the process.

Your brain is bubbling over, again. Grassley and Jordan are pissed and telling everybody they are pissed.

Answer the question asked or STFU.

Your question is immaterial, bubble brain. You have finally pissed off the good guys in the GOP. You are in a hot mess. Hot mess!