--------------
Beck has everything to do with this.
Longknife used Beck's "style".
You know--" I'm just asking questions.....blah, blah, blah..."
I would refer you to Roberts' statement after the decision, wherein he stated it was not the Supreme Court"s job to overturn bad legislation, just unconstitutional legislation.
You and Beck/longknife don't like Obamacare?
Get it repealed, modified, defunded....
Stop looking for boogeymen....and watch out for those drones.
You're stuck in the superficial examination of things and are convinced that is the Truth.
Go read my very
first post on this forum, which is my very first post in this thread, post #26, and then focus on my very LAST line in that post. My words there are, specifically:
"Incidentally, I am the author of the original story."
Has that sunk in yet? If not, read it again. Your understanding of things does not even reach the sum total of this thread, much less the original facts.
Longknife did not himself write a damn thing, but only reported it here on this forum. I originally provided what my research uncovered on a forum called
libertycaucus.net and then other blogs picked it up, such as
BeforeItsNews, WhatReallyHappened.com, DaiilyPaul, and others.
Even my own research was not original, and very likely only re-excavated what the New York Times recognized back in 2005.
I'm quite certain Beck didn't have a thing to do with this story, and Beck does not know anything about it ... at least not of this moment. That will change with the rising sun.
Incidentally, this isn't about not "liking" Obamacare; this is about the fact that it is inherently and thoroughly unsupported by the U.S. Constitution, unconstitutional, and thereby null and void at face value, and not needing to be repealed at all.
And with regard to Roberts particular statement that it was "not the Supreme Court's job" to overturn bad legislation, this is not merely bad legislation, but legislation that seeks to entirely redefine the relationship between citizen and the federal government, by a means not supported by the Constitution itself, not even by amendment but mere statute, and it is in fact precisely the Supreme Court's job to reject it,...
... and that is exactly what Roberts set out to do in the first 46 page, and 13,000 words of what became the dissent, written by John Roberts himself, rejecting Obamacare in its entirety, before he flipped his vote at the last minute.
As is also true of Congress, the United States Supreme Court does not have the legitimate authority to fundamentally change the nature of our form of government, not by any majority, and not even by uniform consensus.
