Generally, the courts like Leftism, so hey! That works.
Of course, that's until the Left LOSES in Court. Then they have a bunch of pre-packaged other excuses.
...When Democrats lose, however, they tend to place the blame a little higher. The Supreme Court is rigged. The election was stolen by Diebold voting machines. After John Kerry lost in 2004, Democrats snickered about an electoral map showing the “real America” being composed of the West Coast and Northeast. The rest of the map — the red states Bush carried — was dubbed “Jesusland.” The inference being that the real problem was with the American people. All of which is why, facing the prospect of losing the Obamacare case, the left’s first instinct hasn’t been to blame a bad law. Or bad lawyering. Or even just bad luck. No, to the liberal mind there are no bad outcomes; only broken systems. --J Last quoted at AOSHQ
Of course, SCOTUS takes fire, no matter the truth:
In their effort to preemptively attack the credibility of the Supreme Court in general and Chief Justice Roberts in particular, liberals have started spreading a stupid and easily refutable lie.
It started with that James Fallows character who claimed the Supreme Court was about to perpetrate a coup. He claimed that Justices Roberts and Alito in particular, “actively second-guess and re-do existing law.” Jeffrey Toobin, CNN's chief law analyst who completely shit the bed predicting that no lower court would even pretend that the Obamacare lawsuits had merit, also oozed this lie, claiming that the Roberts Court has been "eager" to overturn legislatures. This lie was ultimately repeated by Politico's dim and shallow Roger Simon and now it is ubiquitous and unchallenged among liberals.
Yes, in about 48 hours liberals managed to cook up this claim and now they're all scurrying around repeating it like a bunch of lemmings. There's just one problem: it is completely untrue.
It is NOT co-incidence that Pilate quipped "What is truth?", folks.
"The usual path for the Left is this: first, we attempt to legislate X, Y, or Z result. If we can't legislate it, then we sue for (or against) it."
Change "Left" for "partisans" and you've got it!
"Yes, in about 48 hours liberals managed to cook up this claim and now they're all scurrying around repeating it like a bunch of lemmings. There's just one problem: it is completely untrue."
Yep, and so do conservatives, including yourself. Your point?
Why is it absolutely vital to vote GOP ?
Why to make sure you get rock solid SCOTUS appointees like John Roberts, of course.
And Presidents like Mitt Romney who never gave the people of Massachusetts anything like Obamacare.
Romney and Obama are both evil and I aint voting for evil anymore.
...as also SCOTUS, in all its bullshit arrogance and buck-passing decision making, in the end, agrees with Pilate:
"...quod [OTrauma] scripsi, scripsi...".
SCOTUS...another completely broken slant of government.
Tax, my ass.
Just do your job and make a REAL decision, you jackass...
Obamacare delenda est!
St. Revolution, Roberts was true to his word when he was confirmed by the Senate. It is not the place of the Supreme Court to interfere with established Congressional practice unless it is egregious, even if he personally feels to the contrary. Indeed, he did not "actively second-guess and re-do existing law". Roberts took the conservative jurisprudence approach.
Apparently, any ruling that runs counter to your warped views is a "threat" to our country. Ha!
This is what democracy looks like!
Surprise, surprise, surprise...Dad29 goes nuts in the morning with post after post, yet no reaction to the ruling.
It is not the place of the Supreme Court to interfere with established Congressional practice unless it is egregious,
Nor is it the place of SCOTUS to play the Mad Hatter with the definitions of words.
Roberts claims that he "reasonably construes" a penalty to be a tax.
I reasonably construe Roberts to be a few cans short of a 6-pack.
Same difference, you see?
Year before last when the IRS audited your tax return and found you'd shorted them $1,000 and you had to pay the thousand, plus interest, PLUS penalty, do you think the penalty went to a special GAO account called Penalties from tax cheats? Or did it get dumped in with the rest of the IRS revenues? Or is it "fungible"?
Ann 6/28/2012 10:11 PM:
How can you be so wrong always 150% of the time?!
I've never read anyone who states so little by writing so much.
Every time I read your wrong banal uncreative drivel I ALWAYS start to nod off...
It is ALWAYS a waste of my time penning to set you straight...time I do not wish to waste any more.
"...indeed, he [Roberts] did not "actively second-guess and re-do existing law"...".
Are you high sucking your liberal enema?!
Roberts has taken it upon himself to PERSONALLY endemically redefine what is a tax, i.e., augment the present definition of a tax and/or add a new DEFINED tax WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL INPUT, and then Roberts uses his false personal redefinition as a false basis for a false ruling.
Roberts' false ruling ENDEMICALLY and INTRINSICALLY "re-does" existing law...TAX law.
I didn't know Roberts was double-dipping as an IRS employee.
Using your rhetoric and logic, Ann, Roberts has no right to do such.
Your own words, AnnLibSycophant (or simply AnnSicko).
By the by, when one doesn't pay one's taxes, there are imposed penalties and interest.
So, is Roberts stating that a "penalty" is REALLY a "tax" cloaked into a different word and that the "penalty"/tax qualifies for penalties and interest and, if one doesn't fulfill the purchase obligation NOR pay the "penalty", that non-payment of a "penalty" will impose penalties and interest?! In other words, paying a penalty on a "penalty"?
Where does this ludicrous Escher painting end?!
...and, if a tax, how is it not an UNAPPORTIONED tax and, thus, UNCONSTITUTIONAL?
Roberts not only wants it both ways, he wants it ALL ways...i.e, HIS way, i.e., once again redefining law...once again, proving Ann wrong.
This government is completely COMPLETELY broken...and out of its collective mind.
Annoying little cockroaches like Ann are just the liberal brainwashed entitled minions used to serve an UNSUSTAINABLE agenda.
Roberts upheld a law on narrow grounds by defining it on legitimate, nor personal, legal grounds. Based on past precedent, not political agendas. He will let WE THE PEOPLE decide on whether to repeal the health care law. Then, he ensured that the commerce clause could not be further bastardized by Congress. Some will call Roberts crazy, others crazy as a fox. I just call Timmy here plain nuts.
"It is ALWAYS a waste of my time penning to set you straight."
To wit...A conceited person never gets anywhere because he thinks he is already there.
Post a Comment