While there’s actually nothing wrong with such a forensic approach (after all, investigators do it all the time), the problem is that they do nothing to disprove any evidence to the contrary.  A good investigator would collect and take all the evidence at face value and present it equally, no matter if it helps or hinders the prosecution.  They would then run scenarios based on what they have, and if there are any contradictions in the evidence, investigate further in order to weed out anything that isn’t based on truth or fact.  A bad investigator would, at-best, ignore any evidence that would hinder the side he favors, and at-worst may tamper with or destroy evidence in order to tip the scales one way or another.  Alternatively, they may collect all the evidence equally, but when resolving conflicts between pieces of evidence, do poor research into them and eventually choose to accept what helps their favored side of the case instead of that which is factual.

Many of the people who are involved in these “Goal-Oriented” investigations simply need to change their goal to one of what is true, as opposed to a goal of proving his or her favorite side right.  The same applies to these “Proof-Texters.”  If they would only change the underlying motivation of their actions, they would come up as nowhere near the level of jokes they seem to be currently.

Also, remember that you can have years and years of hard-fought legislation that still isn’t constitutional once it gets reviewed by SCOTUS. (Not that I’m saying we don’t need the reform, just that the hard-foughtness of legislation doesn’t necessarily validate it in the eyes of the people who decide what the Constitution means.)

Doesn’t it also redefine money as speech? I’m no fancy big city lawyer, but that seems a stretch of interpretation that only an activist could rationalize. It also overturned years of campaign finance reform hard fought over many years in D.C. as well as in individual states.

The entire war on abortion and homosexuality and “socialism” comes from 19th century proof-texting of the Christian scriptures; pushed forward, in the United States, by so-called “strict constructionist” politicians and judges who proof-text the Constitution.

Now tell me, if this is such a horrible thing, why did Republicans support it for nearly 20 years?

But okay, you caught Obama in a big fat lie.  Or you caught Obama disagreeing with the the Supreme Court.  And it’s only a tax increase for freeloaders who can afford insurance but choose not to buy it.  So yeah, boo hoo, the moochers who expect us all to cover their medical bills for them are now going to be forced to contribute something back to the system.  Oh, the humanity.

Me?  I have health insurance and always have.  So this doesn’t increase my taxes and instead lowers my costs.  So no, I’m not all bent out of shape that a bunch of moochers have lost their “freedom” to raise my premiums with their dine-and-dash care plan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcSjLvWLcxE

Did I miss something?”

Yes, apparently the part where Obama and his spokespeople are not affiliated with the Supreme Court.  Simply because the SCOTUS decided that it was, by legal definition, a tax, and therefore Constitutional, does not mean that Obama et al. considered it to be a tax.

Very mature and persuasive argument you’ve got there Breitbart guy…

http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-man-passionate-defender-of-what-he-imagines-c,2849/

Not that you’ll provide them, of course. Backing up your claims just isn’t the style of ranting wingnuts.

The US Constitution is supposed to protect citizens from an overreaching government.  Roberts swore an oath to uphold the Constitution.  His nonsensical court finding that upheld Obamacare (by both labeling it a tax and then declaring it’s not a tax) is intellectually inconsistent and upheld legislation that amounts to the biggest and most expensive power grab in history.  Roberts violated his oath of office.

Obamacare wasn’t really about healthcare.  It was about power.  And those who hate freedom and champion statism in lieu of individual liberty have won a huge victory from which the US might not fully recover.

Congratulations to all those who hate America and hate freedom.  Hopefully the iron heel of what’s coming next won’t snap your neck.

Seriously, Congress could pass a law dictating you have to cut your toenails in just this way, and the Court would rule it valid under the Commerce Clause.

“By cutting your toenails left to right, you are not buying information about how to cut them right to left interstate, so your act of cutting your toenails is itself interstate commerce.” (ie, Willard vs. Fickburn, or the more recent CA Med Marijuana ruling)

I know that really doesn’t apply here…instead, this was a law that Obama went on TV loudly proclaiming was not a tax, that he would never pass any new taxes on those making less than $250,000, and that the head of the DNC just yesterday repeated was not a tax…defended in court as justifiable because it’s a tax. 

Did I miss something?

And yet Roberts has seen himself applauded by those in the left . . . .

if there’s a Darth Lord anywhere in this whole affair, it’s Roberts, not Scalia.

Scary smart, and evil.

I think you have just stated the strongest critique against him. Words don’t really have concrete meanings and statutes are the result of a collaborative process between adversarial political factions. Using a strict constructionist standard of review is really just imposing an ideology of positivism on the rest of us.

Ignoring the intent of the law is the EXACT cause of his judicial activism. Why consider what the legislative branch intended when you could just hold your own color to the statute and decide for everyone. He is a scoundrel.

I hope that he soon revisits Article III with his powerful gaze and realizes nothing in that document provisions him the power of review he wields so forthrightly.