[xzins]

What we have been told by the chief justice of the Supreme Court and four liberals on the court: Obamacare is just a massive tax increase. That's all it is. Obama lied to us about that. The Democrats lied. "It wasn't a tax. There was no way it was a tax."

Roberts legislated from the bench. There is little doubt about it. It is the most flagrant bit of activism I've every witnessed in my many decades on this planet.

Roberts knows, just as I know, that this obamacare would NOT have passed had it been a tax. And it's Roberts who claims he doesn't wish to overrule legislative action. He know his claim about obamacare being a tax is pure forcing onto us of something that congress would have rejected.

He is a sleight-of-hand artist, a con man, a liar, and probably, a man who's been paid off handsomely.

[Gene Eric]

SCOTUS has done worse.

Relying on 5 douche bags to protect our Liberties is idiotic. Complacency and despair are the greatest threats we face.

[katiedidit1]

As Newt said “we have to get rid of activist judges”

[PaleoBob]

He is a sleight-of-hand artist, a con man, a liar, and probably, a man who’s been paid off handsomely.

---

Will people here at FR finally concede that the Bush Crime Family, of which John Roberts is a proud member, has NEVER put the well-being of the American people first but simply LIVES to advance the causes of Big Government and their pet project, helping the noble savage Pedro get over the border and signed up for welfare—??? Or will people just call me a Bush hater and a troll.

John Roberts is Bush’s man. He is Bush’s legacy. That vile family has sh*t on us yet again.

[combat_boots]

“He is a sleight-of-hand artist, a con man, a liar, and probably, a man who’s been paid off handsomely.”

He has such wonderful children, you know?

[Forest Keeper]

Roberts knows, just as I know, that this obamacare would NOT have passed had it been a tax. And it's Roberts who claims he doesn't wish to overrule legislative action. He know his claim about obamacare being a tax is pure forcing onto us of something that congress would have rejected.

How could any future Court (with a straight face) look to legislative history and intent for interpretive guidance again? Those are now off the table.