by Robert Arvay,
<em<Contributing Writer
In today’s ruling upholding Obama-care, the Supreme Court ruled that the law does not mean what it says.
By what logic, then, can we say that the Supreme Court meant what it said?
"I was Bold in the Pursuit of Knowledge, never fearing to follow Truth and Reason to whatever results they led, and bearding every authority which stood in their way." Thomas Jefferson
Robert,It appears that in today's ruling on Obamacare, Justice Roberts decided or perhaps decided not to uphold the law. Is the law my personal opinion? If the facts are not necessary, then I can re-write and reinterpret the law. The problem is that Justice Roberts has never been given the authority to re-write the law. He does have the right to examine the facts declare that the law is either constitutional or it is not. But, to re-write or ignore the facts is an affront to liberty. Surely he did not examine the facts with a pre-conceived notion that it does not matter what the law says but it matters how one rules. If the facts get in the way then re-wrtie them or ignore them.