I'm pretty sure Roberts isn't pro obamacare he was just being consistent. When a judge determines a matter of law not to your liking it doesn't necessisarily mean they like that law. Despite the claims in here that he had to do some gyrations this was predictable based on legal precedent. His other ruling on the matter was as well, despite what the fringe blogosphere says.
Unfortunately you want a justice that doesn't do that, one that WILL do gyrations to meet your political agenda. There are a couple (or more) that will do that on both sides of the aisle. The court should not be predictable based on politics.
Folks that don't like the law have been harping about it being unconstitutional since day one. That's been wishful thinking not reality. The fact the court doesn't back you up shows you the reality not the contortions. To most the contortions have been obvious for some time.
Kill the law in congress if you don't like it. The end arounds are growing old, are expensive, don't work, and are doing nothing but feeding the sheep. This comming from someone who doesn't like much of the law either and wished we had a functional congress that could fix it or come up with something better.
It's not the supremes fault. It's both houses and both parties in congress. It's also the extreme take no prisoners partisan politics captures so beautifully in here much of the time.
Merica
Peace and love peace and love
Out.
teedubbya wrote:
