Take that with the proviso that I haven’t found time to read it myself, nor I have even read much punditry about it. Most of what I hear comes from both ends of my radio dial.

If accurate/true, I don‘t mind the notion that the Court should look for a way to uphold legislation as opposed to being charged with finding a way to invalidate legislation. The Court isn’t supposed to be the last and final defender of the Constitution.

The left end of my radio has a valid point that requiring citizens to engage in commerce is not unprecedented. They use an example of requiring men to provide themselves with muskets and ammo. The ACA is monstrous, but the insurance mandate is only a difference in degree, not in kind.

All the cutesy pics I see on the Facebook about the gov’t forcing people to buy tofu or Chevy Volts miss the mark for me. Yes, there is a Constitutional means for that to happen. Roberts has made it plain, and now we are coming to understand that the limits on Federal power must be exercised by all people and all electeds and all State gov’ts at all times. I applaud that realization.

We have let our electeds abdicate their power to the Court for far too long. It’s a big part of how we got to our imminent collapse. A simple overturning would have been politics as usual. From what little I know, this decision was refreshingly anti-political. Instead of legislating from the bench, The Supremes kicked power back to where it belongs, with us.

The son of Rosemary (née Podrasky) and John Glover “Jack” Roberts, Sr.

He attended Harvard College, graduating with an A.B. summa cum laude in history in three years.

He then attended Harvard Law School where he was the managing editor of the Harvard Law Review.

As part of Hogan & Hartson’s pro bono work, he worked behind the scenes for gay rights advocates, reviewing filings and preparing arguments for the Supreme Court case Romer v. Evans (1996), which has been described as “the movement’s most important legal victory”

Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case dealing with civil rights and state laws. It was the first Supreme Court case to deal with LGBT rights since Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), when the Court had ruled that a law criminalizing homosexual sex was constitutional.

An amendment to the Colorado state constitution (“Amendment 2”) that would have prevented any city, town or county in the state from taking any legislative, executive, or judicial action to recognize gay and lesbian citizens as a protected class was passed by Colorado voters in a referendum.

A state trial court issued a permanent injunction against the amendment, and upon appeal, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that the amendment was subject to “strict scrutiny” under the Equal Protection Clause. The state trial court, upon remand, concluded that the amendment could not pass strict scrutiny, which the Colorado Supreme Court agreed with upon review. Upon appeal to the United States Supreme Court, the Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that the amendment did not even pass the rational basis test, let alone strict scrutiny.[2] The decision in Romer set the stage for Lawrence v. Texas (2003), where the Court overruled its decision in Bowers.

Bottom line, the “protected classes” or Volk, are legally unequal before the law, and are more equal than the unprotected (oppressor) classes. (this sets the stage in the health care law to make it legal to redistribute or have care that favors volk over the unprotected classes, as in Acton T4…

at its root its also the precident that says its ok to disenfranchise the unprotected classes by asserting special status is ok for reasons of protection. ie. a landlord or organization is forbidden from removing or not allowing such a class presence.

so feminists can be in male locker rooms
but the oppressor class, has no right to womens lockers (for the same reasons)

and women, minorities and gays get huge pluses from SBA, that the unprotected classes dont have.

law favors the protected classes, the volk..
from family court, to even sentencing for felonies

aint it an interesting world…

“Unanimous sources don’t count. If they won’t give their names, their words mean nothing.”

I figured it was bs as soon as I saw ‘salon’.

We are now at the great divide. To the right there is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. To the left there is repression via the nanny state. are death camps.

FIFY.