Synthaholic
Diamond Member
I like Liability & consider him a grown-up here on the board (more than I can say for a lot of others) BUT shows what happens when you listen to the Pundits when starting a thread
* * * *
But I didn't.
I read the decision, so unlike lots of the libs here, I was able to come to the my conclusion without outside "help." And totally unlike the libs here, I was able to come to the CORRECT conclusion.
There is not a single solitary shred of honesty or integrity in the pertinent part of the CJ Roberts' opinion.
He was RIGHT in denying that the Act could be sustained on the basis of the Commerce Clause.
He was RIGHT in denying that the Act could be sustained on the basis of the Necessary and Proper Clause.
He lied and twisted and contorted to pretend that it could be sustained on the basis of the Taxing Authority.
If what he said were true (and it isn't) then there is NO rational basis to deny to the fucking Congress the power, authority and ability to use the taxing authority to legislate on ANY matter whatsoever.
It stuns me that you libs either cannot see this or refuse to admit it.
In other words? Roberts was MORE concerned with not only the legacy left by the Supreme Court...but of more import in his mind?
His Own.![]()
Yes! He doesn't want the Roberts Court to go down in history as the SCOTUS that put naked, hyper-partisan politics ahead of what is Constitutional.