In response to:

The John Roberts Doctrine: Stopping at Red Lights Is Optional

Drifter33 Wrote: Jul 04, 2012 10:06 AM
...by recklessly re-writing the law and then ruling on his own edits. That's a very strange definition of "restraint"...but then again, your previous hero couldn't tell us what the meaning of "is" was. To you guys, words mean whatever you want them to mean, at any given moment. Roberts is a reckless judicial activist. Period, the end. (Nice try, liberal.)

Are you required to stop your car at a red light?

In his opinion declaring Obamacare's individual mandate constitutional, Chief Justice John Roberts constructed an absurd doctrine of legal interpretation that, if consistently applied, would hold you are not.

The Roberts Doctrine of Lawlessness can be summarized as follows: You need not stop at a red light as long as you can afford to pay the penalty for running it. Red lights merely give motorists a "choice" of whether to stop or keep moving and pay the fine the government imposes for not stopping.

Let's see how...