In response to:

John Roberts' Arrogance

Kris12 Wrote: Jul 02, 2012 10:13 PM
It doesn't matter what the arguments in Court were. The job of Justices is to weigh the law as it is WRITTEN and SIGNED against the Constitution of the United States. Instead, they deemed the law to say something that was not written, and having so deemed it, found it good. If I write 2+2=2491.35, and then argue before the Supreme Court that what I really wrote was 2+2=4, it would be as insane for them to declare I had written it correctly as it was to find the mandate was a tax. What mattered was what was in the law, not the governments arguments about what was in the law.
LimbleCat Wrote: Jul 02, 2012 11:43 PM
Putting it in all caps doesn't change a thing. Laws are subject to interpretation. Even you ought to know that because - in case you haven't noticed - it happens all the time.

And calling out retardation doesn't make it so. You didn't like this ruling. Fine. Do something about it. Vote, run for office, become a lawyer, whatever. Go for it.

I just happen to find it amusing how so many people on here that think they know more about all of this than the supreme court. Like I said, I don't much like the mandate either, but I'm not claiming to be a constitutional scholar.
Drifter33 Wrote: Jul 02, 2012 11:24 PM
2+2 always = 4. ALWAYS.

I find you overly impressed with the role of lawyers and judges. It isn't all that hard. The idea is to boil down all the over-blown language into its basic elements; to "cut through the haze", as it were. To use INTELLECT to make the complex simple.

John Roberts had ONE job to do on this matter: measure the law AS IT WAS WRITTEN against the US Constitution. He did not do that.

What Roberts did was to read the legislation, decide that the authors were incorrect--edit their work to suit his ends, and THEN rule upon his own editing.

THAT is activism, pure and simple. All we asked of him was a simple "up" or "down" vote; what he gave us was an AWFUL precedent that will endure forever.
Panda Wrote: Jul 02, 2012 10:53 PM
"It's not just a matter of what's written down."

Uh, YES IT IS, LIMBLE!! IF WHAT IS WRITTEN IS UNACCEPTABLE, THE ONES OFFERING THE LEGISLATION ARE FREE TO RE-OFFER IT, BUT IT'S NOT THE JUDGE'S JOB TO RE-WRITE IT!!

My goodness, the retardation on this blog is unbelievable today!!
Panda Wrote: Jul 02, 2012 10:44 PM
Anne, Kris has you dead to rights on this one.

Look, you've always been a good conservative. Why are you continuing to defend the indefensible? It's beneath you, Anne. You're better than this.
LimbleCat Wrote: Jul 02, 2012 10:42 PM
You are terribly simplistic to equate 2+2 = 4 with a complex law that you probably know nothing about. I don't like the mandate much either, but we DO have a system that enables the SC to rule.

It's not just a matter of what's written down. Do you think laws are so simple that they need no interpretation? That's exactly why we have courts. They decide if what you did was against the law or in this case, if this law passed constitutional muster.

We are forever arguing that the law says this or the law says that. It goes to the nature of how laws are written, they are open to a lot of interpretation. For you to pretend (or worse, actually think) otherwise is somewhat amusing and disheartening at the same time.
Drifter33 Wrote: Jul 02, 2012 10:28 PM
Kris 12: Well said.

Anne_1: If you won't hear it from me, allow me to cede the stage to Mike Carvin, who is quoted in Byron York's column, elsewhere on this website:

" "For whatever reason, and you'll have to ask Justice Roberts, he rewrote the statute," said Mike Carvin, who argued against Obamacare in the case. "I'm glad he rewrote the statute rather than the Constitution, but none of it can pass rational scrutiny." "
Drifter33 Wrote: Jul 02, 2012 10:27 PM
Kris 12: Well said.

Anne_1: If you won't hear it from me, allow me to cede the stage to Mike Carvin, who is quoted in Byron York's column, elsewhere on this website:

" "For whatever reason, and you'll have to ask Justice Roberts, he rewrote the statute," said Mike Carvin, who argued against Obamacare in the case. "I'm glad he rewrote the statute rather than the Constitution, but none of it can pass rational scrutiny." "

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...