I havent read the entire dissent (its toward the bottom of the below document), but the parts I have read are spot on and harsh. Good for him.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interact...rt-ruling/

Here's the last paragraph to give you an idea about how the tone of the dissent is set. I believe the initial part of the dissent is much more aggressive though, the last part is simply pointing out the ridiculousness of how the court ruled.


Perhaps the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
will attain the enduring status of the Social Security Act
or the Taft-Hartley Act; perhaps not. But this Court’s two
decisions on the Act will surely be remembered through
the years.

The somersaults of statutory interpretation
they have performed (“penalty” means tax, “further [Medi-
caid] payments to the State” means only incremental
Medicaid payments to the State, “established by the State”
means not established by the State) will be cited by liti-
gants endlessly, to the confusion of honest jurisprudence.

And the cases will publish forever the discouraging truth
that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some
laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes
to uphold and assist its favorites.

We have entered the postmodern period of jurisprudence. Laws now mean whatever someone wants them to mean.

Scalia seems to have massive gaps of ignorance when it comes to federal law cases against liberal policies.

(06-25-2015 11:50 AM)Ole Blue Wrote:  Scalia seems to have massive gaps of ignorance when it comes to federal law cases against liberal policies.

This should be good.

Link?

(06-25-2015 11:50 AM)Ole Blue Wrote:  Scalia seems to have massive gaps of ignorance when it comes to federal law cases against liberal policies.

Yes, please, oh brilliant one, fill us in on the gaps.

PS Maybe you should change your avatar. Here's a suggestion

Six out of nine SC justices disagree.

Scalia.

Antonin Wrote:"Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles. ... He saved hundreds of thousands of lives. Are you going to convict Jack Bauer? Say that criminal law is against him? 'You have the right to a jury trial?' Is any jury going to convict Jack Bauer? I don't think so. So the question is really whether we believe in these absolutes. And ought we believe in these absolutes."

http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/ar...re/227548/

Scalia.

Scalia Wrote:"Without the federal subsidies . . . the exchanges would not operate as Congress intended and may not operate at all."

Yet Again, A Scalia Dissent Is Used Against Him

And again, the court changed the law.

(06-25-2015 04:23 PM)Paul M Wrote:  And again, the court changed the law.

No, they didn't. SCOTUS does not make law.

They aren't suppose to. And yet for the second time on Opiecare, they have.

(06-25-2015 04:42 PM)Paul M Wrote:  They aren't suppose to. And yet for the second time on Opiecare, they have.

They didn't change any law. They interpreted it's meaning. Something they do ALL THE TIME. It's their job.

Scalia just confirmed, if there was any doubt, that he is driven by political rather than constitutional forces. Roberts on the other hand has shown that he puts the constitution above the politics.

States with an s. The 50 states. They just removed the s. Now it THE state.

(06-25-2015 10:32 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  I havent read the entire dissent (its toward the bottom of the below document), but the parts I have read are spot on and harsh. Good for him.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interact...rt-ruling/

has there ever been a more scathing dissent. I was kinda shocked

(06-25-2015 04:51 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  Scalia just confirmed, if there was any doubt, that he is driven by political rather than constitutional forces. Roberts on the other hand has shown that he puts the constitution above the politics.

You have this one very much backwards.

(06-25-2015 05:16 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(06-25-2015 04:51 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  Scalia just confirmed, if there was any doubt, that he is driven by political rather than constitutional forces. Roberts on the other hand has shown that he puts the constitution above the politics.

You have this one very much backwards.

So what exactly do you view as Roberts' political motivation? Well, maybe he did it to save the GOP from itself? The dawg was about to catch the car.

(06-25-2015 11:38 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  We have entered the postmodern period of jurisprudence. Laws now mean whatever someone wants them to mean.

It started with Roe v. Wade, but now it's blatant.

(06-25-2015 05:23 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(06-25-2015 05:16 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(06-25-2015 04:51 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  Scalia just confirmed, if there was any doubt, that he is driven by political rather than constitutional forces. Roberts on the other hand has shown that he puts the constitution above the politics.

You have this one very much backwards.

So what exactly do you view as Roberts' political motivation? Well, maybe he did it to save the GOP from itself? The dawg was about to catch the car.

He's determined to not let Obamacare fail. He doesn't want to be perceived as the a Grinch that took insurance away from some Americans. If that means going around the Constitution, so be it.