Upholding Roe v. Wade at all is unconstitutioinal.
Yeah, well, that's an opinion. O'Connor's opinion was that it was silly for a bunch of major decisions to be overturned every time a few members of the court changed. Both opinions have some merit.
McCain-Feingold was an outright abridgement of the freedom of speech, in the first place corporations are groups of people and have a right to free speech and in the second any group that wished to speak out on politics was being muzzled so that only the MSM could influence voters.
It didn't abridge the right of the individuals to free speech. And the MSM is utterly responsive to its sponsors, which are pretty much exclusively corporations, so it's not like corporations as entities need more influence. Considering how you feel about foreigners, I'm frankly shocked that you would argue that foreign stockholders in corporations could possibly have a right to free speech in the U.S. And I'm even more shocked that you could disapprove of something which did as much as McCain-Feingold did to reduce the influence of unions.
The fact that it allows it at all, a government entity must not discriminate based on race, all races are entitled to equal treatment under the law.
I believe that. I'm surprised to see you say it, since I believe you have varying feelings about immigration depending upon who is applying for entry. In any case, to say that discrimination is unconstitutional when the constitution originally considered blacks to be three/fifths of a person with no rights at all is pretty damned funny.
Nothing in the Constitution limits the court to issues chosen by the plaintiffs or the defendants, SCOTUS has just as much right as a jury to declare a law unconstitutional on its own.
So you blame O'Connor for not nullifying the EPA unilaterally? As I mentioned, Justice Kennedy wasn't even willing to go there in his dissent.
The Americans with Disabilities Act is unconstitutional and the feds don't get to tell the states what to do.
Is it unconstitutional
because the feds don't get to tell the states what to do, or for some other reason? Because if it's that, I have news. The entire Bill of Rights is about the feds telling the states what they cannot do. The Constitution is full of the feds telling the states what to, and what not to, do.
Now let's move on to other cases:
No, let's don't. I've had quite enough of being expected to educate a recalcitrant child who will never say anything but, she didn't vote her party bloc so that must be unconstitutional somehow. This whole thing just keeps reminding me that you don't even have any idea what double jeopardy means, yet you're perfectly content to invoke it as though you did. This is enough fun for me.
Sandra Day O'Connor defends Roberts on health care ruling[/h]Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said Chief Justice John Roberts' deciding vote to largely uphold President Obama's health care law doesn't mean the usually conservative Justice or the Court are moving left. "I see it deciding a very sensitive case with political connotations," she said Sunday on CBS News' "Face the Nation."
The moderate O'Connor - many a time the deciding opinion during her tenure on the Court - would not say which way she would have voted on the hugely controversial law since she "didn't read the briefs or hear the argument." But she said it was a "hard case," and amid an onslaught of outrage from most Republicans defended Roberts' decision, reasoning that voting during an election season didn't make things easy on any of the Justices.
"Any time you're deciding a case involving a presidential election, it's awfully close to politics," she said.
That's all true enough. And I don't blame her for not commenting because she didn't read the briefs or hear the argument.
Yes, I can find the MSM without your help if I want it.
Whoop-de-CHANGE-do! 
