In response to:

John Roberts' Arrogance

Kris12 Wrote: Jul 02, 2012 9:44 PM
It does not matter what the President calls it, the Supreme Court ruled that the provision can ONLY be upheld if it is a tax. It then upheld the ruling. This is a de facto declaration of a tax by the Court. To borrow a phrase from Nancy Pelosi, it was *deemed* a tax. Ironically, Nancy Pelosi, House sponsor of the bill, had authority to declare it a tax but did not. She is on public record as stating that this provision is NOT a tax. It is her stated opinion that this provision drew its authority through the commerce clause.

WASHINGTON -- The Simpsons on unpredictable judges:

Marge: "Do you want your son to become chief justice of the Supreme Court, or a sleazy male stripper?"

Homer: "Can't he be both, like the late Earl Warren?"

Marge: "Earl Warren wasn't a stripper!"

Homer: "Now who's being nave."

Warren's actual vices tended more toward the ideological. Dwight Eisenhower came to regret the liberal activism of his choice for the Supreme Court, calling it the "biggest damned-fool mistake I ever made." Other presidents must also have been frustrated by their selections on the far side of life...