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 : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ahhaha who wrote (138581)	7/18/2012 10:53:47 PM
From: Paul V.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224750

ahahah, Roberts had no business writing law. What he did was ludicrous. He pontificated. The Constitution doesn't give the chief justice the power to write law. Roberts violated separation of powers. What really capped it though was the appeal to "promote the general welfare". No court has ever so ruled partially because that isn't in the enumerated powers of the Constitution. Jefferson stated emphatically that elements in the preamble weren't to be used as a rationalization by future courts in order to push forward personal agendas. Roberts thinks he deflected political bias from the Court with his ridiculous deciding written opinion, but in actuality what he did will bring about the opposite. Or, was he just interpreted the ACA in relation to the US Constitution and Amendments, Statutes and Rules in a different way which the Republicans did not like. What if the issue for interpretation, imposed a pro-life religion policy against my religious belief, or if I had a Islamic belief,etc,, should the court have the right to overruled my right to exercise my religious beliefs? Where do we stop violating our Constitution and Amendments? Just think when OBama is re-elected, then he would have the opportunity to appoint many of the older Supreme Court members.

To: ahhaha who wrote (138581)	7/18/2012 10:55:36 PM
From: Paul V.	Respond to of 224750

ahahah, Roberts had no business writing law. What he did was ludicrous. He pontificated. The Constitution doesn't give the chief justice the power to write law. Roberts violated separation of powers. What really capped it though was the appeal to "promote the general welfare". No court has ever so ruled partially because that isn't in the enumerated powers of the Constitution. Jefferson stated emphatically that elements in the preamble weren't to be used as a rationalization by future courts in order to push forward personal agendas. Roberts thinks he deflected political bias from the Court with his ridiculous deciding written opinion, but in actuality what he did will bring about the opposite. Or, was he just interpreted the ACA in relation to the US Constitution and Amendments, Statutes and Rules in a different way which the Republicans did not like. What if the issue for interpretation, imposed a pro-life religion policy against my religious belief, or if I had a Islamic belief,etc,, should the court have the right to overruled my right to exercise my religious beliefs? Where do we stop violating our Constitution and Amendments? Just think when OBama is re-elected, then he would have the opportunity to appoint many of the older Supreme Court members.