LeviF

Like I said, it's really only once in a while. And you're delusional if you don't think every justice does it.

Redheads!

Scalia is one of my favorite justices, but he pisses me off once in a while with his picking-and-choosing w/r/t his style of jurisprudence (Smith v. United States [91-8674], 508 U.S. 223 [1993] comes to mind).

Hope your day is filled with great beer!

Can this team just !@#$ing lose already?

This is a good snippet, NewBills.

Nobody has said anything about this post? Really? Tom? OC? Anyone? Sorry Dante, I dislike this ruling as much as you do, but CJ Roberts is far from being an idiot.

This is true. But then, I think PTR lives in Vermont. So, yeah.

No surprises here...but you're wrong. Again. And a quick forum search could have told you that. Or, hell, reading through this thread could have told you that. I always find it very amusing when the US Attorney is oblivious to the point where they can't make an argument that the justices are handing them on a silver platter.

Like I said, I probably wouldn't have made the decision Roberts did. It all comes down to what you hold in higher regard. You and I may see Congressional intent to be just as important as the actual function of the bill. But that's not Roberts's style. At least he's consistent, though.

It will be collected through the IRS, so I'm assuming that it will be enforced through the IRS as well.

Right, I was just throwing in a little Pelosi humor that we can appreciate. Roberts takes judicial restraint seriously, everyone knows that. The rest of them use it when it is convenient. Now that I'm reading his opinion, I can see where he's coming from. Is it the decision I would have made? Probably not, but I can't be sure. To be sure, the dissenting opinions are very strong as well. But it's up to the Chief Justice to establish what the judicial attitudes on the Court will be. He decided that restraint is more important than ideology. I can appreciate that. It was an argument that the attorneys made. Roberts didn't pull this out of his ass.

I'll be interested to see if Roberts not only looked at "function," but also at Congressional "intent." Oh wait, he can't. Because we "have to pass it to see what's in it."

That's what I'm getting so far. There is precedent for this...but Roberts has been known to ignore precedent in the past.

"The payment is not so high that there is really no choice but to buy health insurance." Glad the court is deciding what I can or cannot afford. Criminy.

I can't wait to read the **** Roberts must have put down on paper to justify that.

Cheers!

Wait I only read the headline but... did the NYS Senate do something halfway reasonable?

Much aprec'.

The real question is... How many ****ty threads can one start in a day?

I love the smell of napalm in the morning.

I really don't appreciate the misquote.

Only a cyclist would think that halftime is for anything besides getting more booze and food

She was on the cover and had a photo spread in an issue of one of my tennis magazines in high school. Those pictures graced the inside of my sports locker at school for quite some time

You don't even know how much your satire lines up with real leftist arguments, do you?