U.S. Appeals Court Rules Against Obama's Health Care Law

Shouldn't Kagan and Sotomayer excuse themselves from it. They were both appointed by BO which makes it pretty tough for them to claim they are "Unbiased".

I beat the White House was high fiving each other in recognition they achieved the status of breaking the U.S. Constitution. It was a win for the knuckleheads because breaking the U.S. Constitution is their mission. Imagine if some Conservatives and Republicans didn't challenge the law...

One point that most have missed is that the earlier district court judge had decided the entire law was unconstitutional and not in effect, while the conservative 11th Circuit overturned his decision and found all but the individual mandate to be constitutional and in effect.

Martin Ent Inc wrote: Shouldn't Kagan and Sotomayer excuse themselves from it. They were both appointed by BO which makes it pretty tough for them to claim they are "Unbiased".

Then should not Thomas excuse himself since his wife is campaigning against the law which makes it pretty tough for him to claim he is "Unbiased"?

Yes.
SCJ are supposed to be unbiased but how can they when they have an opinion?
We should do away with the Supreme court.

Martin Ent Inc wrote: Yes.
SCJ are supposed to be unbiased but how can they when they have an opinion?
We should do away with the Supreme court.

Aren't 3 branches of government one of the principles this nation was founded upon?

Martin Ent Inc wrote: Yes.
SCJ are supposed to be unbiased but how can they when they have an opinion?
We should do away with the Supreme court.

Yeah, why bother with the Constitution, it just gets in the way.

That's what regressives have been saying for years. Why bother with the Constitution and its principles of coordinate powers of government, and equal branches within the government to act as checks and balances. If you can get two branches to attack the third one and seat justices who are more concerned with implementing ideology instead of actually following the Constitution's provisions, is a Supreme Court really a protection from tyranny, despotism and usurpation of liberty any longer instead of simply complicit in rendering the Constitution moot?

Funny...It's not the Dems who worship the Constitution but are hell-bent on changing it and amending it. But you keep spinning, Sparky...


Oooo.... Break out the check-off list:

regressives - check
despotism - check
tyranny -- check
usurpation of liberty -- check


You forgot:

socialist
corrupt oligarchy
oppressive
seize power
"abolished by force of arms"


...and all the other usual trigger words of the Sovereign Citizen / Federalist / Original Intent / Constitution-worship bullsh*t checklist...

You're slipping again...

LadyJazzer wrote: Funny...It's not the Dems who worship the Constitution but are hell-bent on changing it and amending it. But you keep spinning, Sparky...


Oooo.... Break out the check-off list:

regressives - check
despotism - check
tyranny -- check
usurpation of liberty -- check


You forgot:

socialist
corrupt oligarchy
oppressive
seize power
"abolished by force of arms"


...and all the other usual trigger words of the Sovereign Citizen / Federalist / Original Intent / Constitution-worship bullsh*t checklist...

You're slipping again...

You make me laugh. Thanks.