Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: skinowski who wrote (493343)	6/28/2012 11:53:40 PM
From: Copeland	4 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793897

And Roberts is right -- under the Constitution, it's not his place to design or change laws. His responsibility is limited only to judging their constitutionality. Except that in this instance, he did not rule that Obamacare was constitutional on the basis of the commerce clause as the Solicitor General argued, but rather he came completely out of left field and stated that, per his reading, it was a collection of taxes, and therefore constitutional. The guy essentially came up with his own reasoning as to why Obamacare should stand rather than make a ruling based upon the arguments of the Federal Government. That's unbelievable. Imagine if a husband files for divorce from his wife on the grounds that she had committed adultery. He fails miserably to prove it in court, but then judge decides to dissolve the marriage in his favor anyway because the wife's actions during the hearing suggests that the real reason as to why the marriage failed isn't adultery, but rather mental cruelty.