The Amateur Message Boards of the World Famous VoyeurWeb

Is it to REWRITE laws or to rule on what the legislature has written?

Twice, the Supreme Court rewrote Obamacare.

First, it pretended the individual mandate was a tax. Of course, it wasn't and Obama said that before and after the idiotic ruling from Roberts.

Second, Roberts rewrote the subsidy part which was so clear an 8th grader could read it. Zero interpretation was needed, and Roberts should have struck down the subsidy part and made Congress redo it.

The Supreme Court has been made into a joke by Roberts.

Clearly, as I said on another thread, for Roberts the fix is in. No other conclusion can be drawn. Loser Lucky can deflect and deny but when it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, then a duck it must be.

I would love to be privy to the lecture Justice Antonin Scalia will or has given to Roberts. Roberts, knowing full well he willfully abused the Constitution will have to just sit there and take it as no rational defense can be made.

Roberts wrote most of the dissent in the first Obamacare case, so he knew he was wrong on the first one.

Yesterday's idiotic ruling proved that, for Roberts, he would say anything to preserve Obamacare -- including rewriting the crystal clear language saying that, to get a subsidy, the state must set up an exchange.

The Supreme Court is just making up crap.

Semiotics is in principle the discipline studying everything which can be used in order to lie - Umberto Eco.....

If Roberts ever retires early, he'll probably get a job for some giant health care company.

What is astounding is that he wrote most of the dissent for the first Obamacare ruling, so he knew very well the indiv mandate was NOT a tax. It was a penalty.

Roberts also could not have misunderstood the crystal clear subsidy lingo. But he pretended to think it needed "interpretation."

Pathetic that the Supreme Court now makes dishonest decisions even beyond people like Kagan and Ginsburg who officiated at gay weddings, and were clearly biased, but still didn't recuse themselves.

The purpose of The Constitution is to limit the power of the government not the power of the people.

Actually, that's the purpose of the Bill of Rights. Several of the original 13 colonies would not join the new nation without a guarantee of limits to the Federal government. They had just thrown off an all powerful Central government, they wanted no part of another.

Now look where we are.

A proposal to overturn Citizens United failed last year. Here's who lobbied to kill it.....

http://www.vox.com/2014/10/28/7085323/c ... ng-filings

Lobbyists have pretty much destroyed the country.

Everybody knows most Republicans are controlled by the US Chamber of Commerce.

Dems are controlled by unions and grievance groups.

"Lobbyists have pretty much destroyed the country."-johnforbes

Wait a minute....now you're calling President Obama a "Lobbyist'?

After all, I thought he supposedly single handedly "destroyed America's greatness."
But now you're admitting he didn't do it without Republican help? :o

Oh no, Obama isn't destroying American greatness by himself.

He has many allies in the groves of academe (leftist professors), and his sycophants in the press have the same agenda.

America was the best big country in human history, but all Obama sees is a panorama of grievance.