Quantcast

Think Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts accepted a bribe from "Big Pharma" or the left to pass the unconstitutional Obamacare?

tncdel 2012/06/29 10:13:56
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • JoeBtfsplk 2012/06/29 10:19:49
    NO [explain why you think not].
    JoeBtfsplk
    +8
    Chief Justice Roberts Is A Genius?

    Before you look to do harm to Chief Justice Roberts or his family, it’s important that you think carefully about the meaning – the true nature — of his ruling on Obama-care. The Left will shout that they won, that Obama-care was upheld and all the rest. Let them.

    It will be a short-lived celebration.

    Here’s what really occurred — payback. Yes, payback for Obama’s numerous, ill-advised and childish insults directed toward SCOTUS.

    Chief Justice Roberts actually ruled the mandate, relative to the commerce clause, was unconstitutional. That’s how the Democrats got Obama-care going in the first place. This is critical. His ruling means Congress can’t compel American citizens to purchase anything. Ever. The notion is now officially and forever, unconstitutional. As it should be.

    Next, he stated that, because Congress doesn’t have the ability to mandate, it must, to fund Obama-care, rely on its power to tax. Therefore, the mechanism that funds Obama-care is a tax. This is also critical. Recall back during the initial Obama-care battles, the Democrats called it a penalty, Republicans called it a tax. Democrats consistently soft sold it as a penalty. It went to vote as a penalty. Obama declared endlessly, that it was not a tax, it was a pena...









    Chief Justice Roberts Is A Genius?

    Before you look to do harm to Chief Justice Roberts or his family, it’s important that you think carefully about the meaning – the true nature — of his ruling on Obama-care. The Left will shout that they won, that Obama-care was upheld and all the rest. Let them.

    It will be a short-lived celebration.

    Here’s what really occurred — payback. Yes, payback for Obama’s numerous, ill-advised and childish insults directed toward SCOTUS.

    Chief Justice Roberts actually ruled the mandate, relative to the commerce clause, was unconstitutional. That’s how the Democrats got Obama-care going in the first place. This is critical. His ruling means Congress can’t compel American citizens to purchase anything. Ever. The notion is now officially and forever, unconstitutional. As it should be.

    Next, he stated that, because Congress doesn’t have the ability to mandate, it must, to fund Obama-care, rely on its power to tax. Therefore, the mechanism that funds Obama-care is a tax. This is also critical. Recall back during the initial Obama-care battles, the Democrats called it a penalty, Republicans called it a tax. Democrats consistently soft sold it as a penalty. It went to vote as a penalty. Obama declared endlessly, that it was not a tax, it was a penalty. But when the Democrats argued in front of the Supreme Court, they said ‘hey, a penalty or a tax, either way’. So, Roberts gave them a tax. It is now the official law of the land — beyond word-play and silly shenanigans. Obama-care is funded by tax dollars. Democrats now must defend a tax increase to justify the Obama-care law.

    Finally, he struck down as unconstitutional, the Obama-care idea that the federal government can bully states into complying by yanking their existing medicaid funding. Liberals, through Obama-care, basically said to the states — ‘comply with Obama-care or we will stop existing funding.’ Roberts ruled that is a no-no. If a state takes the money, fine, the Feds can tell the state how to run a program, but if the state refuses money, the federal government can’t penalize the state by yanking other funding. Therefore, a state can decline to participate in Obama-care without penalty. This is obviously a serious problem. Are we going to have 10, 12, 25 states not participating in “national” health-care? Suddenly, it’s not national, is it?

    Ultimately, Roberts supported states rights by limiting the federal government’s coercive abilities. He ruled that the government can not force the people to purchase products or services under the commerce clause and he forced liberals to have to come clean and admit that Obama-care is funded by tax increases.

    Although he didn’t guarantee Romney a win, he certainly did more than his part and should be applauded.

    And he did this without creating a civil war or having bricks thrown threw his windshield. Oh, and he’ll be home in time for dinner.

    Brilliant.
    (more)

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • rocat 2012/06/30 19:48:15
    NO [explain why you think not].
    rocat
    no need-

    he was born into the caste of power and money-

    he has been groomed to do his job since childhood-
    put in place -
    by the prog bush-
  • Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆ 2012/06/30 17:39:46
    NO [explain why you think not].
    Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆
    No, I don't think the CJ took a bribe. Those guys live in a bubble, and the CJOTUS is at the pinnacle of the law. I fail to see what sort of bribe anyone could offer anyone in that position.

    It wasn't a bribe. It's just that he has no core values. He let "political correctness" inform his rulings.

    Nor do I really care. It's still mistaken. It is inconsistent with the Constitution and contributes to a mistaken impression that several other Chief Justices have already given: that the Constitution means exactly what the Supreme Court says it means, any time it says it.
  • Evan 2012/06/30 16:59:41
    NO [explain why you think not].
    Evan
    +1
    I think the powerful anti-seizure drugs that Judge Roberts has been on affected his ability to think clearly, BUT....someone asked how he could call Obamacare a tax? Well, in view of PAGE 203 Lines 14 and 15, of Obamacare, I am wondering the same thing. On that page, on those lines, it says "THE TAX IMPOSED UNDER THIS SECTION SHALL NOT BE TREATED AS TAX". (Wonder if like a Rose, a "tax" by any other name is still a "tax"?) One thing we know for sure is that 7 new taxes will be paid by those making under $250,000 a year, and 13 taxes will be increased....Interesting times we live in.
  • Bob DiN 2012/06/30 15:42:02
    YES [explain why you think so].
    Bob DiN
    You never know, they say everyone has their price. In politics that goes double.
  • Country Gentleman 2012/06/30 06:21:02
    NO [explain why you think not].
    Country Gentleman
    +1
    I cannot explain why he did what he did. My guess would either be duress or a belief this was constitutional.
  • Evan Country... 2012/06/30 17:00:32
    Evan
    +1
    Mind altering anti-seizure drugs.
  • Zombie Saddam 2012/06/29 18:37:43
    NO [explain why you think not].
    Zombie Saddam
    +1
    This is a man of impressive legal stature and intellectual weight. He's ruled with the Conservatives, he's ruled with the Liberals. As far as I'm concerned, all he's proven is that he's not a hack. He even accepted the Conservative argument on Obamacare and argued that mandates are unconstitutional and the only thing Obamacare can stand on is a Tax.
  • Kane Fernau 2012/06/29 18:27:38
    YES [explain why you think so].
    Kane Fernau
    +1
    Or threatened.
  • Pedalpusher 2012/06/29 17:21:19
    NO [explain why you think not].
    Pedalpusher
    +1
    I think it will help Romney's chances of beating Obama as it passed it in a limited way and tied them from forcing people to have to belong to it. That's going to make a lot of problems for Obama care and hopefully result in it's death!
  • frank 2012/06/29 17:04:40
    YES [explain why you think so].
    frank
    +1
    Justice Roberts has just sold the American tax payer down the drain. Remember that Obamacare does not cover people that were given an exemption my Obama to congressmen to get their vote or all of congress who passed a bill that makes them exempt. Since when is a fee and a tax?
  • ur XLNC-PWCM 2012/06/29 16:36:29
    YES [explain why you think so].
    ur XLNC-PWCM
    +1
    The SCOTUS people are supposed be neither Liberal or Conservative. They are appointed for life for this reason. All Presidents try to "stack the deck", but this is because the elected ALL believe that THEY are above the law. It WAS a toss-up........until gave Obama the "wording" he neede. Since there is no logical reason for Robert's to to ignore his Conservative leanings, he MUST have received INCENTIVE of the bribe kind. The whole lot of them need to be removed and jailed. This country needs a house-cleaning revolution and TERM-LIMITS!
  • words to live by 2012/06/29 15:59:46
    NO [explain why you think not].
    words to live by
    +2
    Chief Justice John Roberts has handed a remarkable victory to American conservatives by threading the judicial needle with perfect precision. The initial disappointment collectively felt by Americans who had hoped for a Supreme Court ruling that would overturn Obamacare soon will be replaced, upon further reflection, by the excitement that will come with a fuller appreciation of what the Chief Justice has wrought.

    First, almost completely unnoticed, the Chief Justice voted with his four conservative colleagues in drawing an unprecedented red line against Washington wielding the Constitution's Commerce Clause in the future to justify federal intrusion into the personal lives of Americans. This decision will restrict American Presidents and future Congresses for a generation and more.

    Until Thursday's decision, for more than 70 years, virtually every leading Supreme Court decision on the reach of the Commerce Clause has sided with federal intrusion. Although there have been isolated exceptions -- e.g., United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) (limiting federal regulation regarding carrying guns near schools) and United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000) (limiting power of the federal government to expand rights of women to sue attackers) -- the leading cases on the ...



























    Chief Justice John Roberts has handed a remarkable victory to American conservatives by threading the judicial needle with perfect precision. The initial disappointment collectively felt by Americans who had hoped for a Supreme Court ruling that would overturn Obamacare soon will be replaced, upon further reflection, by the excitement that will come with a fuller appreciation of what the Chief Justice has wrought.

    First, almost completely unnoticed, the Chief Justice voted with his four conservative colleagues in drawing an unprecedented red line against Washington wielding the Constitution's Commerce Clause in the future to justify federal intrusion into the personal lives of Americans. This decision will restrict American Presidents and future Congresses for a generation and more.

    Until Thursday's decision, for more than 70 years, virtually every leading Supreme Court decision on the reach of the Commerce Clause has sided with federal intrusion. Although there have been isolated exceptions -- e.g., United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) (limiting federal regulation regarding carrying guns near schools) and United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000) (limiting power of the federal government to expand rights of women to sue attackers) -- the leading cases on the Commerce Clause, often relying on precedents like Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) (holding that Congress could prevent a person from growing wheat for his own personal consumption on his own private land), have held that the federal government can force Americans to do or not do, to buy or not buy, virtually anything if couched as an act to facilitate or regulate interstate commerce. Wickard "always has been regarded as the ne plus ultra of expansive Commerce Clause jurisprudence." (Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, JJ., dissenting, at 3.)

    It was this very line of Wickard-consistent Supreme Court opinions that served as the basis for a long line of lower federal courts, both district courts and federal appeals courts, choosing to uphold ObamaCare as that bill was tested through the judiciary. However, with Chief Justice Roberts almost surreptitiously joining with Justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy in ruling that ObamaCare is barred by the federal Commerce Clause, a new era has begun in Commerce Clause jurisprudence.

    Every liberal citation to Wickard will be countered by a conservative citing to Chief Justice Roberts's opinion: "If no enumerated power authorizes Congress to pass a certain law, that law may not be enacted, even if it would not violate any of the express prohibitions in the Bill of Rights or elsewhere in the Constitution. . . . The Court today holds that our Constitution protects us from federal regulation under the Commerce Clause so long as we abstain from the regulated activity. The Federal Government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance. . . . The Federal Government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance." (National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, Slip op. at 3, 41-42, 44)

    There is now a formal United States Supreme Court opinion on the books, overdue by nearly a century, holding that the federal government may not wield the Commerce Clause to impose on American citizens the obligation to buy health insurance or anything else we do not want. An American cannot be compelled by federal mandate to eat or even to buy a proverbial stalk of broccoli. As a kosher consumer, the federal government cannot wield that clause to impose on me an obligation to purchase non-kosher food supplements. The rules guiding lower-court wrestling matches over federal power to invade Americans' private lives now have been reset remarkably by Chief Justice Roberts. Few today notice what he has done. Long after many of us are gone, this 5-4 opinion finally setting limits on the reach of the Commerce Clause will continue to affect American lives and protect private citizens from Washington's intrusions.

    It is understandable that most Americans, who are not law school graduates, do not think in these terms, nor do most pundits outside the legal community who interpret news. However, attorneys and certainly law professors get it. We know what happened on Thursday. It was subtle and below the radar, like a tsunami beginning in the middle of an ocean, still days away from the shore. Only the trained insiders know what that rumbling will cause in the future. This was a tsunami, finally giving us our first Supreme Court precedential holding in nearly a century that reins in the federal government's unbridled abuse of the Constitution's Commerce Clause. And the liberals, excited as they understandably are by the temporary survival of ObamaCare, do not even realize what has happened to a pillar of their enterprise. And that is fine.

    Secondly, Chief Justice Roberts has punted the whole ninety yards, so to speak, with the expertise of a professional football kicker whose team has the ball on its own 8-yard-line, then punts ninety yards, pinning the other team on their own two-yard-line. Had Chief Justice Roberts sided completely with his four conservative colleagues, Obamacare now would be off the political table for the November elections. Obama would be campaigning and mobilizing his troops' passions, arguing an urgent need to reconfigure the Court. Romney, by contrast, would be trying to mobilize passion for a lackluster campaign that is impelled legitimately by one crying urgency: jobs and the economy. However, Romney is not gifted at bringing people to their feet, not for applauding and possibly not for voting. He is competent, perhaps excellent, maybe even extraordinary -- but his blandness does not generate passion.

    Jobs and the economy are critical issues, but tricky ones to explain. The federal government effectively shades statistics by hiding the full destructive impact of Obama's economic programs. People who cannot find work at the compensation level they need and for which they are qualified -- an enormous population subset we call the "under-compensated" -- nevertheless are counted as "employed" when they settle for jobs below their previous attained levels. Meanwhile, when others give up hope and stop looking for work altogether, resigning themselves to failure and long-term unemployment, they are deemed by statisticians to have removed themselves from the work force, so are not counted among the unemployed. We the more sophisticated observers of the political process understand these statistical anomalies. We understand that statistics declaring American unemployment at 8.2% really are closer to 12% and even 14% when we factor-in the plight of the underemployed and those who have given up hope.

    Unlike the unemployment issue, where statistics are obfuscated, Obamacare is a signature campaign issue. It is clear, comprehensible, simple -- and despised. It galvanized, even helped create, the Tea Party. Passionate opposition against the law led to a convulsive November 2010 election that resulted in fabulous Republican gains and the worst "shellacking" experienced by any political party in the modern era. Two years have passed since 2010, and ObamaCare was about to be removed as a campaign issue in November.

    Instead, even as he cast a powerful vote to rein in the Commerce Clause as our Founding Fathers intended for it to be applied against federal intrusiveness, Chief Justice Roberts returned Obamacare front-and-center back into the November elections debate. Defining it for what it really is -- a new, enormous federal tax on at least four million Americans (Slip op. at 37) -- the Chief Justice has lobbed a fat hanging curveball for conservatives to clobber. The ObamaCare tax does not apply to those who presently are untaxed, and it will not apply to the more wealthy, who will be excused because they carry health insurance anyway. Rather, the President who promised no new taxes against the middle class conclusively has been "outed" by the Chief Justice as having imposed the biggest tax on middle-class Americans in a generation.

    Third, the Chief Justice has shifted the spotlight back onto Congress, primarily focusing its glare on the Democrat-run U.S. Senate, only four months before the elections. Republicans rapidly will beat down ObamaCare in the House like a piñata at a children's party. It is an easy target. It is excessive and intrusive. It is financially devastating, will cause employers to drop health coverage for their employees, and will force millions to lose their preferred doctors and instead to settle on government-supplied alternatives. Seniors will find that $500 million in coverage has been sliced out of their Medicare. Employers will continue resisting expanding their work forces and reviving the flagging labor market while the issue remains in flux, assuring stagnating unemployment numbers through November.

    Fourth, the Chief Justice, while permitting the federal government to offer states more money to expand their Medicaid rolls beyond their fiscal capabilities, joined with his four conservative colleagues in banning Washington from penalizing states that turn down the federal inducements to march towards bankruptcy. As a result, the working poor will find that the federal government, while taxing them to buy new health coverage, has been left without a mechanism to compel others to pay for the ObamaCare state insurance exchanges. So the feds will have to pay for it in non-cooperating states that are more fiscally prudent. Only more taxes can pay for those costs.

    So Congress has a massive new mess awaiting it, all as voters prepare to vote for a new Congress and for 33 Unite States Senate seats, 23 now held by Democrats and their two "independent" allies. House Republicans solidly will vote symbolically to overturn the legislative monstrosity, and they will find endangered House Democrats breaking ranks with their leadership to vote with them. Senate Democrats facing reelection will be caught in a vise. Harry Reid will be trying desperately to prevent a vote on ObamaCare repeal from reaching the Senate floor, even as national news coverage focuses on the two national parties' conventions. Obama's staff may be renting Greek or Roman columns, but the Republicans will be toppling the pillars of the failed Obama Presidency

    This is going to be OK, even fun. Just wait and see. The Chief Justice done us good.



    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.co...
    (more)
  • the_old_coach 2012/06/29 15:49:06
    NO [explain why you think not].
    the_old_coach
    +3
    Get over it with this juvenile bashing of the Supreme Court.

    They are a majority CONSERVATIVE Court. There was no intent to be political on CJ Roberts' part.

    The Court does not legislate from the bench: They interpret the Constitutionality of cases brought before them.

    The idea that the Court can't be trusted when the decision goes against you is patently absurd.
  • Waldorf 2012/06/29 15:48:54 (edited)
    NO [explain why you think not].
    Waldorf
    +3
    No bribes, but certainly he would have felt on the defensive in many regards. I like and respect the man and try very hard to appreciate what he says. I have finally become quite familiar with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) and don't find anything that, on the surface, sounds so dramatically controversial. It is a lot easier to take up the cry of outrage when not really sure of what the law really attempts to accomplish.

    I am projecting that some of the provisions scheduled to take effect in later years will be revisited by Congress before the effective date arrives. The bullying of insurers and care providers is a great concern, so I would look for some concessions to be made, hopefully without undermining the logic of the whole program.
  • BoomLover 2012/06/29 15:39:20
    NO [explain why you think not].
    BoomLover
    +3
    This is far more involved than this simple question. At the heart of the matter stands two questions. 1) Is it a tax? Supreme Court says "Yes". 2) Who can, under the constitution, legally pass a bill to form a Tax? The Congress. So, who pushed this bill, and who ignored Congress to get it passed? The Prez and the Senate. Therefor, plain and simple, under Article 1, Section 7, they preformed an unlawful act. Congress, do your job and make this Null, Void, and Unenforceable.
  • gr8punkin 2012/06/29 15:38:30
    NO [explain why you think not].
    gr8punkin
    +3
    It is classified as a tax now, wouldn't that mean that it's in the hands of Congress who levies taxes? Doesn't that mean that we will this issue put back in front of Congress?

    I may be wrong here, but it seems to me that Justice Roberts just gave a ringing endorsement for Romney, while giving Congress the opportunity to strike down the mandate.
  • Dogzebra~PWCM~JLA 2012/06/29 15:18:28
    NO [explain why you think not].
    Dogzebra~PWCM~JLA
    +2
    I don't know. Seems like someone had a gun to his head though.
  • Evan Dogzebr... 2012/06/30 17:02:48
    Evan
    +1
    uh, well, in the form of powerful anti-seizure drugs that altered his thought processes, maybe.
  • micha77 2012/06/29 14:14:02
    NO [explain why you think not].
    micha77
    +2
    Roberts just got it wrong. However, he just handed the White House to Mitt Romney on a silver platter. This decision eliminates the liberals biggest talking points of the campaign. Now the left can't rip on the Supreme Court and use Obamacare as a rallying call for November. Conservatives will be energized by the decision, and come out in droves to vote Obama out of office. All polls show at least 55% of Americans oppose Obamacare. That could be the margin of victory for Romney (...and Rubio.....!.....) in November.
  • Arizona1950 2012/06/29 13:48:49
    NO [explain why you think not].
    Arizona1950
    +3
    He just wanted to make sure McDonald's, Muslims, and other entities that were allowed to circumvent or waive their involvement get equality ... they pay it as a tax!!!
  • Kat ♪.BTO-t-BCRA-F~PWCM~ 2012/06/29 12:36:17
    NO [explain why you think not].
    Kat ♪.BTO-t-BCRA-F~PWCM~
    +4
    I think he left it open to failure.
  • Evan Kat ♪.B... 2012/06/30 17:05:26
    Evan
    +1
    LOL, anything the government gets involved in is doomed to failure. Look at Education, for example. Look at the Environment. Look at the Economy. Look at Farming. Look at protection at airports..that is an ABSOLUTE failure morally. (Whenever TSA employees spill the ashes of someone's loved one on the floor then laugh about it, that is a moral failure.) Government needs to lighten up on it's involvement in every area of our lives.
  • Kat ♪.B... Evan 2012/06/30 20:43:57
    Kat ♪.BTO-t-BCRA-F~PWCM~
    I can't think of 1 thing that has benefitted from government involvement. All they do is take, take, take and do nothing constructive.
  • Franklin 2012/06/29 12:30:15
    NO [explain why you think not].
    Franklin
    +4
    my only issue with the Chief is that he wrote the law (fixed it) for the liberals by changing the argument to a tax instead of just voting it down as it was presented by Obama lawyers.
  • Arizona... Franklin 2012/06/29 14:17:17
    Arizona1950
    +3


    Now let's get rid of the IRS [giggle]
  • Kat ♪.B... Arizona... 2012/06/29 14:50:48
    Kat ♪.BTO-t-BCRA-F~PWCM~
    +2
    I would love to get rid of the bloodsuckers. They waste more in trashed paper in a year than most people make. Waste, fraud and abuse are rampant and they're above reproach since no-body in their right mind is going to piss them off.
  • Arizona... Kat ♪.B... 2012/06/29 14:54:10
    Arizona1950
    +1
    I plan on doing everything I can to vote much of the DEM/GOP Progressive Socialist Party out ... I don't want the status quo.
  • BoomLover Arizona... 2012/06/29 15:30:18
    BoomLover
    +1
    Great video!
  • Arizona... BoomLover 2012/06/30 02:40:18
    Arizona1950
    +1
    Share it where you can ... just right click, copy the embed and save it for future use. :-)
  • cutter's falls 2012/06/29 12:18:50
  • Centurion~PWCM~JLA 2012/06/29 11:44:32
    NO [explain why you think not].
    Centurion~PWCM~JLA
    +3
    Either the left threatened Roberts or he has stuck his head irretrievably up his arse. Still, he should have done the right thing, threats or not.

    I'm disappointed and angry with Roberts.

    That does not begin to describe my contempt for those four left-leaning court members. I hope that those three bitches, Bader-Ginsberg, Kagan and Sotomayor fly their brooms into each other in a 3-way mid-air collision. I hope that Breyer slips on a banana peel.


    witch crash

    The respect that I used to have for the court is now all but non-existent.

    Contempt of Court?

    Folks, This IS a Contemptible Court!

    Hopefully this will re-energize the Tea Party so very strongly that the democrat party will be just a footnote of treason in future history books.
  • Kat ♪.B... Centuri... 2012/06/29 12:38:25
    Kat ♪.BTO-t-BCRA-F~PWCM~
    +3
    Certainly helped Romneys financial support since they did it. I think it will revitalize the efforts to oust Obi. He may have done it just for that reason.
  • Arizona... Kat ♪.B... 2012/06/29 14:20:32 (edited)
    Arizona1950
    Sorry Kat but this is fuel for the Libs ... Let's look and see on how to spot an Obam-nut ... if you can't blame Bush ... just blame Romney. Oh too funny!

    xxxxxxxxx

  • Kat ♪.B... Arizona... 2012/06/29 14:25:41
    Kat ♪.BTO-t-BCRA-F~PWCM~
    I don't think it helped them a bit.
  • Arizona... Kat ♪.B... 2012/06/29 14:30:51
    Arizona1950
    +1
    It hasn't helped the DEM/GOP Progressive Socialist Party at all ... there I will agree.
  • Centuri... Kat ♪.B... 2012/06/29 20:01:47
    Centurion~PWCM~JLA
    +1
    I do hope that you are right.
  • Evan Centuri... 2012/06/30 17:08:20 (edited)
    Evan
    Ah, Centurian, I couldn't have said it better myself: To quote you: " I hope Bader-Ginsberg, Kagan and Sotomayor fly their brooms into each other in a 3-way mid-air collision. I hope that Breyer slips on a banana peel." Really good....Judge Roberts though? Until he's off the anti-seizure meds, one would hope he would leave the bench voluntarily.
  • Centuri... Evan 2012/06/30 21:48:35
    Centurion~PWCM~JLA
    I never knew till now that Mr. Roberts was on anti-seizure meds. Perhaps I was too hard on him. My wife is on anti-seizure meds as well.

    Thank you for telling me that.

    Kagan should have recused herself from the obamacare issue. Seems that would be a conflict of interest for her.
  • mrdog 2012/06/29 11:31:35
    NO [explain why you think not].
    mrdog
    +3
    Roberts made it perfectly clear what obamacare is as plassed law by Democrat congress..
    which cause Dem. to lose the house in 10....now Mitt will win the W.H. second big deal for voters.... so...it is the econ/obamacare stupid...bark
  • T Bevan 2012/06/29 11:06:59
    YES [explain why you think so].
    T Bevan
    +3
    The left either threatened or bribed Roberts....

    The ruleing was not a normal responce we would have expected from Roberts...

    I do not think "Big Pharma" was involved , due to their loss of revenue...

    When the goveernment gets its hands into "Pharmas" pockets , they (Pharma) will have to turn their pockets inside out...

    empty pockets

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/07/25 13:57:36

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals