It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
On July 30, 2007, Chief Justice John Roberts collapsed on a boat dock at his Maine summer home. Although that seizure was Roberts' second, he offered little explanation. When Time magazine asked "Does Justice Roberts Have Epilepsy?" Roberts didn't answer, and he hasn't in five years.
But the drugs can have troubling side effects, including drowsiness or insomnia, weight loss or weight gain, rashes, irritability, mental slowing and forgetfulness. Many patients can be treated with minimal side effects, doctors say, but it may take trial and error to find the right drug.
"And I'd just remind conservative commentators that, for years, what we have heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism, or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law," Obama said.
"Well, this is a good example, and I'm pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step," he said.
Supreme Court Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy slammed his colleagues for “a vast judicial overreaching” on Thursday by upholding key provisions of President Barack Obama’s health care law.
Reading his dissent from the bench, Kennedy wasted little time explaining where he and the court’s conservative justices stood on the Affordable Care Act.
“In our view, the act before us is invalid in its entirety,” Kennedy said.
Why did he do it? Quite simply, to save the court. As Jeffrey Rosen has noted, the ACA case was John Roberts’ moment of truth—and today’s opinion proves that Roberts knew it. In the aftermath of Bush v. Gore and Citizens United, the percentage of Americans who say they have “quite a lot” or a “great deal” of confidence in the Supreme Court has dipped to the mid-30s. A 5-4 decision to strike down Obamacare along party lines, whatever its reasoning, would have been received by the general public as yet more proof that the court is merely an extension of the nation’s polarized politics. Add the fact that the legal challenges to the individual mandate were at best novel and at worst frivolous, and suddenly a one-vote takedown of the ACA looks like it might undermine the court’s very legitimacy.
Originally posted by syrinx high priest
I think he is brave to go with his judgement regardless of political consequence
shame on those claiming he was bought
sour grapes, and ironic because if he had voted the other way just to please the party that put him on the scotus they would be ok with it