Sorry…not buying that BS…
I’m sorry, not buying that either. Warren court was so far left it never gotten back to center since.
2 Likes
5.5 to 3.5. I give Roberts a one half because you never know where he is. 
What bs? It takes a pattern of behavior to show someone to be an activist judge. The only bs is saying otherwise.
Because they can’t move the agenda forward if they pay attention to the words in the Constitution.
Changing a penalty to a tax was not a clarification. Neither was it constitutional when Roberts rewrote it. Having authority isn’t the same as being right.
How so?
AOC should be the next SCJ!
1 Like
It will be kind of hard for her to get Senate confirmation without a law degree.
1 Like
I dunno. A seat on the Supreme Court is purely political now. I wouldn’t put it past the Democrats to shove her through. 
2 Likes
give it time! the idiot left pushes for such things
The ruling could be categorized under “the kings new clothes.”
E V E R Y B O D Y knew the penalty was actually a tax. Roberts just had the honesty to say so out loud.
Except it was deliberately presented to SCOTUS as a penalty to avoid possible conflict over whether it originated in the house or the Senate. If the Senate, it was unconstitutional, and the final bill was from the Senate and was returned TO the house after being gutted. Roberts single handedly inflicted Obamacare on America.
1 Like
That is highly debatable. The question before the Court was whether the penalty was Constitutional or not. There was speculation at the time that the ACA would fall with a ruling of it being unconstitutional. But as we now know, the ACA has survived pretty much intact with the advent of Congress eliminating the penalty. Many conservatives rail at Roberts for rescuing Obamacare, but the fact is, subsequent events have demonstrated that it would have survived regardless of which way the majority decision went.
That is an interesting concept. How should people feel who voted for B Obama in 2012? Should they feel shortchanged that B Obama’s nominee was not voted on in the Senate?
For my clarification is that an explicit requirement in the USA constitution?
Do I have to explain the Merritt garland situation.
Obama -1 trump +1
Geez it’s real easy.
Allan
There has been more then one case where Roberts exposed his activist liberalism. In the recent Pennsylvania ballot case he sided with the liberal justices and whenever there is a 4-4 tie that POJ justice Roberts always votes with the liberal side and the only time he rules on the conservative side is when there is already a 5-3 majority. The man has established a pattern that can’t hide his flaming liberalism.
2 Likes
That was a state ruling outside of federal review. The Wisconsin ruling came because a federal judge had ruled on the election law.
Roberts is no liberal.
