In response to:

Chief Justice Roberts, You Fox You

plessard Wrote: Jul 05, 2012 10:04 AM
I'm still not sure if this ruling is either good or bad but I do believe that I read somewhere that there was no severability written into this bill so how can some of it be constitutional and some not. Mr Tyrell and others are saying that they dis-allowed the 'Commerce Clause', invalidated the part of Obamacare that gave the federal government the power to coerce state governments to spend money on Medicaid. Can someone explain this to me? If part is bad, 'ALL IS BAD'!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Charles SWVA Wrote: Jul 05, 2012 1:03 PM
How can any kind of logical decision come out of something that is 2,000 pages long with 10,000 conditions at 5 per page. The only logical conclusion by the court would have been based on War and Peace.
Tea Party in Wisconsin formerlyTea Party Wrote: Jul 05, 2012 12:01 PM
You know, I'm with you, I am angry as everyone else at Roberts but this ruling is so bogus, it reeks worse than sewage. The differing opinions between conservatives is so confusing.
algae Wrote: Jul 05, 2012 9:23 PM
It's not confusing. It's treason. Have a nice day. :)
WASHINGTON -- I have a headache. I imagine you do too, if you have been trying to interpret the legalese employed by those legal sages who have pronounced on Thursday's Supreme Court decision on Obamacare. I would rather read the lyrics of a thousand rap composers than the anfractuous language of one legal sage.

Thanks, however, to Professor E. Donald Elliott of the Yale Law School, I had a translator at my side, and I shall now hand down my judgment of the Court's decision on Obamacare, which all sensible Americans have abstained from reading in its entirety, including B. H. Obama...