Trump judge nominee, 36, who has never tried a case, wins approval of Senate panel

So, how surprised are you? Or do you insist you are not average?

 

No, as written, it was Un-Constitutional. Obama and Congress explicitly said it was not a tax. The Courts took an unprecedented leap and corrected the improperly written law instead of striking it down. The court was in error. The court was outside their Constitutional authority. They do not have the power to re-write legislation.

"In answering that question [whether the individual mandate is independently authorized by Congress's taxing power] we must, if "fairly possible", Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22, 62 (1932), construe the provision to be a tax rather than a mandate-with-penalty, since that would render it constitutional rather than unconstitutional (ut res magis valeat quam pereat). But we cannot rewrite the statute to be what it is not. "'[A]lthough this Court will often strain to construe legislation so as to save it against constitutional attack, it must not and will not carry this to the point of perverting the purpose of a statute ...' or judicially rewriting it." Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Schor, 478 U. S. 833, 841 (1986) (quoting Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U. S. 500, 515 (1964), in turn quoting Scales v. United States, 367 U. S. 203, 211 (1961)). In this case, there is simply no way, "without doing violence to the fair meaning of the words used", Grenada County Supervisors v. Brogden, 112 U. S. 261, 269 (1884), to escape what Congress enacted: a mandate that individuals maintain minimum essential coverage, enforced by a penalty."

 

You don't get it. In today's world the founding Fathers would be call far right but they are the standard in this country. The far left are those who are on the opposite end of the standard for this country. Those who support the founding principles are only supporting the primary standard for this country therefore they cannot be far anything. They are right where they should be unlike those who support your extreme (being hat which is in opposition to the founding of this country)

 

It was not passed in the appropriate manner to levy a tax. It was not passed as a tax. It was expressly passed as a civil law. The law should have been struck down and been forced to be passed through tax appropriations. The dessenting opinion is Constitutionally correct. The Court knew it would never re-pass, so Roberts fixed it instead of doing his strict Constitutional duty of striking it.

 

The 4 dissenting justices agree with me. Read their dissenting opinion?

 

Have you read their opinion?
I agree Congress can tax. Congress did not tax. The dissenting opinion plainly explains that.

 

You agree with sotomayor and the other liberals over Thomas and Scalia?