Supreme Court and Marriage equality/Obamacare ?

[cltrat]

 
You believe the dixiecrat bullshiit?

sure he does he believes anything a liberal website tells him

 

[700UW]

 

[delldude]

 
Good point describing the progressive administration of oBama now.

 

[delldude]

There is no law to dictate what a merchant sells judt who they must sell to.

 
Forget about Scotuscare?

 

[700UW]

And lets see a Republican Chief Justice Ruled the ACHA is Constitutional.
 
You can disagree with it, but the fact is its the law of the land and SCOTUS upheld it.

 

 

[delldude]

And lets see a Republican Chief Justice Ruled the ACHA is Constitutional.
 
You can disagree with it, but the fact is its the law of the land and SCOTUS upheld it.
 

 
That chief justice violated the constitution.

 

[Ifly2]

You should oughta' go and tell him that, quick.

Seein' as how you know more anout the constitution than he and all.

Maybe he'll change it back, once ya' git done schoolin' 'im.

 

[delldude]

You should oughta' go and tell him that, quick.

Seein' as how you know more anout the constitution than he and all.

Maybe he'll change it back, once ya' git done schoolin' 'im.

 
When was the Supreme Court empowered to alter the text of legislation?

 

[southwind]

Couldn't have worded the acts of this administration any better!

 

[700UW]

That chief justice violated the constitution.

Where did you get your J.D. in Constitutional Law?

And please provide how he violated COTUS.

 

[Ifly2]

SCOTUS did not "alter the text" of anything

They made a ruling, or a judgement, on the law.

Every SC decision is, by definition, hotly contested and the product of intense disgreement. Very few are unanimous.

I don't at first glance agree with every ruling they make. Citizens United comes to mind. It seems wrong. However, not being a constitutional scholar, or even a lawyer, I refrain from making blatantly uninformed statements representing my feelings as fact.

I also refrain from mindlessly parroting the opinions of an agenda driven "news" network or bloggers and commentators.

 

[SparrowHawk]

Dude has a point. For long years judges have fallen into two categories, Constructionists, who view their role as interpreting the law as written.Sort of "Don't tell me what it means, tell me what it says" school of thought. This often results in very narrow decisions. One of the reasons King v. Burwell got as far a is did. It focused on a narrow portion of a very broad law.
 
Activist judges are more into using the law for what they view as the greater good.The two most current big decisions are decided by activist judges. Justice Roberts to me at least appeared to be counting votes when he voted to uphold a key element of the ACA. Throughout the years there have been many examples of activist rulings such as the Miranda ruling in 1966 and the list goes on and on.
 
Bacl them Earl Warren when appointed Chief was supposed to be this very conservative jurist who ended up presiding over what many view as the most liberal, activist courts in US History.

 

[700UW]

Counting votes?

Why?

He is appointed for life, votes have nothing to do with the legal decision.

 

[delldude]

Where did you get your J.D. in Constitutional Law?

And please provide how he violated COTUS.

 
You don't know?
 
LOL

 

[Ifly2]

Translate as "I don't know what I am talking about and have got nothing but still must mindlessly parrot whatever my programmers tell me".