IMPEACH CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS!

[icuminpeace]

This is just another case of I scratch your back, you scratch mine. Simple as that. The moment a SC Justice claims membership in a political party or advocates a political party's views, he/she should not be qualified to remain as a Justice. Partisanship will come first, duty to country second. Justices, as well as the military should be apolitical and should focus on the job designated to them regardless of their political points of view. I mean, why do we have liberal and conservative justices? Shouldn't we just have Justices who know the law of the land better than anyone else and are able to interpret the laws in order to issue judgment? But Americans love partisan politics and have allowed the current mess, and wait, it'll get worst. In this case, I'm sure there were some deals going on here and Justice Roberts simply played his cards.

[CuteOldGuy]

I agree, ICIPeace. That's why I've advocated for Lawrence Tribe to be on the Court. I disagree with him politically, but he is probably the smartest person in the world when it comes to the Constitution. Anymore, we try to choose Justices that can "stealth" their way on to the Court without revealing their true judicial philosophy or temperament. We are doomed to have mediocre justices, and therefore, mediocre decisions.

[JD Barleycorn]

The word is corruption big tit. It has no party affiliation. In this case it is when some justice uses something other than the US Constitution to figure out how they are going to rule. So now we strongly suspect that Roberts can be threatened into making a decision. I guess that is the real reason big tit is so happy. He knows that it is the dems who like to make threats so they should always win every court challenge. So we see where big tit is coming from. Kind of like the nimrods in Virginia who suddenly decided that there is voter fraud but could offer no evidence that the conservatives were doing it. big tit is willing to accept corruption as long as it favors him.

[CJ7]

the republicans have called it a tax increase since day one ... roberts agreed with them

impeach roberts my texas ass

LOL

[WTF]

I was wondering how long my righty friends would cry about this!

My guess was until November .... and then beyond after the Mitt has lost and they lament that they should have run Santorum.

Could you crybabies impeach him sometime in the next four years so Obama can appoint another Justice?

If you crybabies understood just what happened , you would realize that Roberts handed you many victories in the future with this ruling.

[Whirlaway]

Roberts needs to be held accountable for the decision fiasco. Absolutely impeach him. Make him defend his decision to the public in an open forum called Congress.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Roberts needs to be held accountable for the decision fiasco. Absolutely impeach him. Make him defend his decision to the public in an open forum called Congress.

God if only ya'll were stupid enough to try some such shit! It would cripple the GOP for decades.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by WTF

God if only ya'll were stupid enough to try some such shit! It would cripple the GOP for decades.

The Far Right Wing-Nuts in this forum are that stupid! They are not smart enough to recognize that it took 5 SC Justices to create the majority opinion. Instead they totally ignore the long term implications and seem to be focused upon impeaching one of their own! I agree with WTF, let's impeach Roberts and let Obama appoint his successor!

These guys missed their calling. They should have been seagulls. All they do is eat, shit and squawk!

[Whirlaway]

Tribe is the one analyst who told us, in advance, that Robert's would find Obamacare constitutional ! Robert's was a student of Tribe.

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I agree, ICIPeace. That's why I've advocated for Lawrence Tribe to be on the Court. I disagree with him politically, but he is probably the smartest person in the world when it comes to the Constitution. Anymore, we try to choose Justices that can "stealth" their way on to the Court without revealing their true judicial philosophy or temperament. We are doomed to have mediocre justices, and therefore, mediocre decisions.

[i'va biggen]

I have to admit I was wrong.I predicted the court would vote along party lines like they do on every other decision.They all should be replaced with judges who rule in favor of the law,not on party lines.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by bigtex

These guys missed their calling. They should have been seagulls. All they do is eat, shit and squawk!

Teagulls!

[joe bloe]

No one should be allowed on SCOTUS except originalists. The only legitimate SCOTUS rulings are those that are based what the founders meant when they wrote the Constitution (original intent). The problem we have is that today's court rules on case law more than the Constitution.

Once an unconstitutional ruling is made, then additional unconstitutional rulings are made, based on the precedent established by a prior bad ruling. The entire social welfare state is unconstitutional, and is based on illegitimate rulings made in the thirties when the court allowed FDR to bully them into abandoning the Constitution.

The interstate commerce clause has been misused for seventy years because of an unconstitutional ruling in 1942. Segregation in public schools was ruled as constitutional until 1954 because of case law established in 1896.

Bad SCOTUS rulings have negative consequences that can last for generations because the court does not go back to the original source in every ruling. What SCOTUS does, by ruling based on case law, is the equivalent of a historian that does historical research by only reading the work of other historians who also got their information the same way. Once a mistake is made, it gets duplicated and becomes entrenched.

[JD Barleycorn]

Of course I have to point out to WTF, Big Tits, and others that you can no longer complain about the Supreme Court decision of 2000. You have all been whining about that for years erroneously. They did not decided the election but they did decided whether Florida could legally change the rules after the fact. You have all been complaining about what the Supreme court did but now you laugh because the SCOTUS decided your way even though there have been allegations by CBS (not FOX news) that some corruption was involved. So you should all publicly admit AND NEVER SAY IT AGAIN that the SCOTUS was right in 2000.

[chefnerd]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I agree, ICIPeace. That's why I've advocated for Lawrence Tribe to be on the Court. I disagree with him politically, but he is probably the smartest person in the world when it comes to the Constitution. Anymore, we try to choose Justices that can "stealth" their way on to the Court without revealing their true judicial philosophy or temperament. We are doomed to have mediocre justices, and therefore, mediocre decisions.

Ironically, Tribe agrees with the decision and supports Roberts according to this article he wrote:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...eutrality.html

[WTF]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Of course I have to point out to WTF, Big Tits, and others that you can no longer complain about the Supreme Court decision of 2000. You have all been whining about that for years erroneously. They did not decided the election but they did decided whether Florida could legally change the rules after the fact. You have all been complaining about what the Supreme court did but now you laugh because the SCOTUS decided your way even though there have been allegations by CBS (not FOX news) that some corruption was involved. So you should all publicly admit AND NEVER SAY IT AGAIN that the SCOTUS was right in 2000.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA