SCOTUS Upholds Obamacare . . . again.
- Thread starter Alate_One
- Start date
Actually Roberts shows what a complete buffoon he is in this statement, and given that he wants to be a legislator making law instead of a jurist interpreting law & statutes (as written) he should resign. As it stands now this court (aside of three judges) are nothing more than common politicians, another arm of the legislature nothing more. If they had any respect for the law, constitution, or their offices they would have kicked this poorly written law back to the congress to get it right but, it is obvious there is no separation of powers in this country anymore, just another nail in the coffin of our republic the way I see this. I guess if tyranny from the bench is your bag you would enjoy this pathetic political opinion of Roberts because it certainly fails to be anything more than a political opinion. Activist judges...you gotta love that.
Alate_One
Well-known member
It's funny, most people's definition of an activist judge is mostly determined by whether they agree with the verdict or not.
Think of this. The understanding of pretty much everyone was exactly what the supreme court upheld, until someone found a section of the law that was poorly written. Then this court case began.
Activism would have been going against what the common of the understanding of the law was and suddenly decide it meant something else, even if that was the "plain reading" of the text.
Activism is overturning clear intent of a legislative body. But we're stuck with judicial activism because of the paralysis in our political system. Blame the founding fathers.
(Rom 13:1-7) Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.
6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
HisServant
New member
It's only settled till the Republicans get the presidency and a majority in congress... then the law is toast.... we ALL know that... and we ALL know it will happen someday.
I'm to the point where I think it should be a 3/4 majority for congress to do anything to stop the pendulum effect.
Alate_One
Well-known member
Quetzal
New member
It will be really difficult to get rid of given how many people are actively apart of it.
Given that is how you think it is only natural for you to infer that others think the way you do but, I do not. If you want to read the opinion of a real jurist, someone who actually interprets the law the way it reads not trying read intent into it than read Scalia's opinion on this decision. The job of the jurist is interpret the the law as written not to expand on it because you "think" that is what was meant. The proper thing for the jurist to do in these cases is to kick the law back to the legislator to clarify the law not inject your own bias into the law. Instead of unbiased jurists, we have another arm of the legislature which is far more disturbing than the decision itself.
The entire law was poorly written Alate, there was no time to have any discussion to get it right from the beginning because the democrats just rammed it through without any discussion in the legislature or nationally...don't you remember " we have to pass it to know what is in it" ? This law never had a chance of surviving for the long term, in fact it will fail on it's own because the citizenry cannot afford it to begin with.
So, you believe that jurists should now go beyond what is written in a law to expand what it clearly says? That dear is activism...legislating from the bench.
Intent is derived from the written word and expanding upon what is written is activism...legislating, jurists are not supposed to make law.
I wonder if rocketman can tell the difference now
I can't see it...given that two republican appointees are activists for the legislature no, I see no difference at all.
you must be for same sex marriage
are you really?
4 out of 4 democrats voted for it
4 out of 5 republicans voted against it
everyone can see that
why can't you?
I see it quite well...that two republican appointees gave us this decision because they are activists not jurists. I am wondering why you cannot see it, must be those rose colored glasses you are wearing.
Roberts appointed by Bush & Kennedy appointed by Reagan...which two do you not see?
roberts vote against same sex marriage
did you miss that?
are you for same sex marriage?
at least answer that question
Yes, but he voted for this travesty, did you miss that?
Clearing up that you deny two republican appointees are activist turncoats? My pleasure...glad to see you understand now. :thumb:
I noticed that America's slide into Socialism has accelerated to warp speed!